It is doubly important after all. Every other means of division needs language for implementation.

I will leave it as evidence of my imperfection.

And I liked your explanation.

My theory is that humans, being tribal creatures, recognize these divisions and need them to mark the differences between one tribe and another.

Until we can eliminate this division, if we can eliminate this division, we might eliminate much of the causes of division, but violence is found in groups as well as between 2 different groups.

So, are humans wired for division and violence?

Because sometimes each of those things cause unmanageable divisions and sometimes they don't. The answer is NOT by pretending all sources of division work the same. That all sources are equally responsible for divisions. That whenever we talk about one source of division, we distract from it by pointing at another source.

This is the Religion Group. We should talk about religion. It is not the language group or the racism group. When I talk about racism in the USA, I don't ask about the problem of Basque speakers in Spain.

of division, that over simplification suggests an agenda.

The real question, and problem, as you stated, is how do we minimize divisions.

And religion is an aspect of humanity, just as language.

And even in groups with the same political beliefs, the same language, the same color, the same nationality, there is division.

Division seems to be the default condition of humanity.

we are individuals (except those conjoined, and even then, two separate minds usually exist). So to call division the default condition is simply to recognize that I am me and you are you.

We have much more in common than we have differences. Division of ideas is called having opinions. I suppose having opinions is as much the default condition of humanity as anything else.

And difference is used to divide people. So power is also an undeniable aspect.

I think maybe I've chanced upon a conversation already in progress. Are you referring to a particular instance of power used to divide people? Power is not always a negative thing, and I don't see how the word arises easily from a discussion of division and opinions.

Especially the power to compel others?

The 1% cannot physically force the 99%, so the 99% must be divided. And there are many sources of that division relating to difference.

My view.

You said religion is used to divide people. Who uses it? I'm an atheist and if you're not, you're not. So there, we're divided by religion. No power involved; however, if you kidnap me and drag me kicking and screaming to church, I will admit that you have overpowered me!

but the abstract becomes concrete when difference is used to divide and control.

Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2018, 09:41 PM - Edit history (3)

There are many atheists in this group, and most feel tjat religion is a primary source of violence and oppression. Guillaimeb argues that religion is just an ordinary activity and the primary source lies elsewhere. He supports his argument with the idea that people also fight over other things, and anyone disagrees with his opinion has an "agenda" of disparaging religion.

There is a case to be made in defense of religion. Unfortunately, you are not making it.

Can we stop pointing out that people who have an agenda are, (horrors!) posting in accordance with their own opinions for their own reasons?

Why did I acknowledge that religion is one factor among many that lead to division?

And what is your agenda when posting in this group?

I don't know for sure, but your agenda appears to be to crusade against the idea that religion is a primary source of evil in the world.

I posted that religion is used to divide people.

And I have posted about the RCC covering up abuse.

And the fact that RCC Canon Law facilitates that cover up.

A very subtle means of furthering what you claim to see as my agenda.

Agreed?

Your consistent position has been that religion is a secondary source of conflict and abuse. You keep pointing to other primary sources, like tribalism as the primary factor.

It is an expression of opinion. Religion is one subset of tribalism, thus my use.

Do you think other people have agendas that are not their own opinions?

I can see that either yes or no might be appropriate.

Often not because I agree with them, but because I find the views to be interesting.

Leaving the reader to guess the reason you posted them.


But when you do post your comments, are we to assume they are not your own opinion, but posted merely to pursue an unrelated agenda? If we are to assume that, do you assume others are doing the same thing?

And as I have indicated, my opinions are generally identified as such.

I am talking about the Religion Group. Don Viejo does not post here, to the best of my recollection.

You are unusual in the Religion Group in that you post things that appear to be making a point, but it is not clear what the point is. When people post their own comments, in response to either your excerpt or something in the article, you often criticize them for not reading the article, for not extracting whatever meaning you thought (but never stated) they should extract, or criticize them for criticizing religion.

In cases where you do post your opinion, it is often unclear, but you refuse to clarify, instead blaming the reader for misunderstanding your point, or for engaging in a fallacy, or you criticize them for criticizing religion.

In this particular subthread, you seemed to imply that people may have agendas in which they post, in their own words, things that they do not actually believe in order promote certain agendas. I asked you a questions to clarify if this is what you meant, but you have not clarified it. So do you think that? Do you think people are lying about their own opinions in order to promote agendas they do not believe in? It would be astonishing if you thought that, but with you, any opinion is possible, because , as I said above, your actual opinions are often unstated or unclear.

But, just like every other poster in this group, I will not summarize them every time that I post.

Such a demand, and the related claim that I never reveal any of my own views, are easily refuted by actually reading what I post.

I didn't demand you summarize your views, and I didn't say you "never" reveal your own views. I did make a request you clarify something. I claimed you often refuse to clarify. Will you clarify now, or refuse?

I would not speculate.

on religion's role in distributing misery around the world in many ways. You are trying to divert people from that discussion by creating a parallel one that doesn't discuss religion at all.

Nowhere in my opening post did I say that ONLY religion was a source of conflict and negative actions that harm others. Nowhere. But you are attempting to posit that I did say something like that. You know that is not true. You did not take up your argument within that thread because it is not a valid argument.

Transparent, Guy.

No, it's not.

But the question you should be asking yourself is, if religion has been a constant companion to humankind (as you insist you know it has been, even since before people could have recorded that fact), why hasn't it done away with division? Why does division continue unabated with religion?

And the more important follow-up question, why does religion so often clearly make division WORSE?

Feel free to elaborate on that.

And no.

You have shat upon any attempt I've made to sincerely dialog with you, gil. I'm done trying. I am merely here to point out your constant errors and biased agenda.

The post you replied to had a question in it. Instead of answering that question in some way, you ignored it and asked one of your own. Why would anyone enter into a dialog under those circumstances. If someone asks you a question in a conversation, the dialog ends until you answer it. Otherwise there is no dialog.

You leave questions unanswered and reply with another question frequently. That is why discussing anything with you is almost impossible. You do not participate in actual discussion. Try doing that.

And this is actual dialogue.

can illustrate a deficiency in the original question.

I've not seen such a post. Perhaps you are incorrect. Perhaps you are engaging in a diversion tactic to avoid something. I don't know, but do tell us which poster said or implied that and, perhaps, supply a link to such a statement. Can you do that?

We should tolerate nationalism.
We should tolerate racism.
We should tolerate the rich having more access.
We should tolerate the powerful.
We should tolerate sexism.
Is this integral to what it means to be human?

Many things are used, or misused, to divide.

When some people get to make things up and they are supposed to be taken seriously especially when these made up beliefs are frequently used to justify all of those reasons you and I named like nationalism, bigotry, racism, sexism, and support the powerful and help keep them there.

What is really interesting is that religion has used and continues to use all of those things to divide people. Its almost like all of those things are linked or something. As far as the pledge, why not do both?

As is language.

you use whataboutism.

See the title of this post.

Are racism and the concept of country equal?
Is language and racism equal?

I think we should fight a crusade to make English the one universal world language. While it might be bloody at the beginning, once we have converted all the non-English speakers in re-education camps, we will no longer go to war over language, like we have done so many times in our history.

That would solve one major source of division.

Well said.

Consider the GOP war against multi-culturalism. That includes the "English only" emphasis.

Consider where laws have been passed mandating one language to be used over all others.

But regarding religion, people have fought real and sometimes excessively bloody war over religion. Why do we have real wars to force people to change their religion, but we never had a war to force a change in language?

Not figurative violence, but actual violence.

And war is a tool of the powerful that is used everywhere.

War, particularly total war, is the extreme end of violence - the largest, most harmful form of organized violence we are capable of. But the conflicts over multiculturalism are mostly fought by words, and only sporadically do they result in violence, and have never resulted in war.

So while war is tool used for many ends, it is not used to resolve certain types of conflicts. Why do you think that is?

And the implied threat is used to compel obedience.

And war is one type of violence. It is large scale violence.

if that particular god existed. The Bible tells us that once upon a time:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. Genesis 11 : 1

The Christian god wasn't happy with that state of affairs. He didn't like it that the people were all cooperating to accomplish great things together. So, he put a stop to it.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." Genesis 11 : 5-7

We are divided by language because the Christian god wanted it so, according to the story.

it was that the people were getting all uppity and smart. So, he scrambled their brains and inserted new languages so they couldn't cooperate with each other. Deities hate competition from their creations, see?

Instead, you asked a different question. No dialog.

I think the real problem is limited resources. If some other tribe starts to infringe on my tribe's territory, they threaten our survival. I wish that other tribe all the best - someplace else.

It's really all about the struggle to survive.

As does religion, and language.

Resource allocation, or power over such resource allocation, is a big factor.

Is a way to make poor hapless people slave for the rich now because if you follow the rules and don’t disobey, your payoff is heaven; while rich guy’s payoff is in this life.

But Jesus talked about giving up all that one has. And the rich prefer the US prosperity Gospel.

Remember this story about the poor widow?

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” Mark 12 : 41-44

Jesus didn't run over and tell her she was exempt from giving away all that she had because she was poor. He let her walk away with absolutely nothing to live on, and held her up as an example for his disciples to emulate.

All items are real except religion. We should be able to get rid of that one.

None of them have a reality independent of the humans who constructed them.

The only make believe road is religion. The only construct not based on reality is religion. Go ahead and come up with more examples. Religion will still be the odd one out.

And religion appears to have accompanied humans as far back as we can see. The reality of that suggests that the need for religion is real.

So your reality is suspect.

What beliefs do you have that are universally shared?

No. We are all capable to get along without divisions. Here in the USA we all drive on the right side of the road despite political differences. So no, division is not integral.

My thesis is that there has never been a society on any scale above perhaps very small units that has no division.

There is division in families.

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

If division means any sort of disagreement, then there have never been two people who were not divided. Yet people can get along well enough despite that.

If division is only considered to be when large groups people separate into smaller groups that go to war or avoid all contact, there are a lot of societies without that kind of division.

So the two are not in the same category of constructs. Again, too broad a brush. Especially in the modern world, we live entirely in a network of artificial constructs. But all the different constructs serve different purposes, have different weights, and are used differently.

Which way to load the toilet paper roll is a source of unending division in many households. It is a human construct. But has anyone ever committed violence over this issue? If someone claimed they did, it would either be a joke or a mark of insanity. If it is a source of division, why have we never gone to war over toilet paper?

And religion is one such belief.

Everything is a belief, according to you and therefore you treat everything the same. But not all beliefs are the same, not all beliefs are necessary, and not all things are beliefs. I don't actually believe religion is a belief. I think the idea is a Western misunderstanding that came from Paul, and we have been blinded by this delusion ever since.

But in your mushiness, all things must be beliefs, and all beliefs are equal, all things create division, all divisions are violence, all violence is war. I believe that coffee is better than tea because tea is fit only to throw in harbors. Therefore, by your reckoning, coffee is a religion that causes war because humans must divide. Like bacteria. Or something like that. The argument is total mush, so I really don't get it anyway.

Your saying they do has no authority. You cannot demonstrate the truth of that. It is an error of fact.

It is not true that wishing that something would exist makes it exist. Yet, many people believe in such wishes, and to their ultimate detriment.

There's quite a bit of language in multiple religions' holy texts that explicitly calls for dividing people (or enslaving them, or killing them). I understand you prefer to ignore that, but it's still there, and lots of people believe in it.

Some were trying to unify, some were trying to divide. That's why there are contradictions and you can select texts that support either one.

From reading all the posts, it seems that most DU'ers lean toward claiming that the undefined "religion" is the biggest monkey wrench in the coexist machinery. Whether they believe what are saying or not, I have my doubts. Obviously division is synonymous with humanity. And division equals power struggle. Everything is power. If there were infinite habitable planets and we had the ability to send like-minded groups off on their own, we wouldn't allow it. We would rationalize forcibly keeping humans under our control, aka slavery, by saying they would probably become inhumane to each other therefore it's our duty to them to keep control of them, for their own good. AI is the only way out of this whirlpool of unenlightenment. So let's just get behind that. A pessimist? How dare you.

I agree with your remarks on power being central to control, and division is one tool that is used by the powerful to control others.

As to religion being the problem, in this group that is a popular topic.