but it sure as hell (pardon the expression) is the main source of conflict in the DU religion group!

Is there a larger world outside of this group?

Is the false idea that we are not all connected. That there is an "us" and a "them".

If it's not religion it's ethnicity, political beliefs or even consumer choices.

And rulers are always eager to construct an "us" that "we" must hate.

A toxic aspect of tribalism.

Some of the rest of us actually relish learning about what we don't know.

I'd rather sacrifice my comfort zone for trying to be closer to someone else.

It intensifies it, and gives it a divine justification (i.e., firmly placed outside the realm of reason and evidence).

THAT'S what makes religion unique.

The Divine aspect cannot be dismissed and what makes religion the threat that it is. When you base your claims on something that you admit doesn't exist, you just have faith in it or whatever mental gymnastics you wish to perform there is no reason involved.

Patriotism is not at all the same, the area exists, I can prove the land we call California exists, we have defined borders for it and it has agreed upon rules which it is governed.

and never want to talk about the unique aspects of religion, and the problems associated with those. It's so much easier to just say "but patriotism can be bad too!" and distract everyone.

This is how someone proves they are in no way interested in any actual discussion, but only in giving sermons and hearing praise.

But if you draw a parallel it's an instant "stop changing the subject" regardless of anything else said. It's the same as grammar and tone policing, doesn't matter what you said, this one aspect is what I will focus on to attempt to discredit you.

He does it all the time. He literally did it to John Lennon.

It’s common to see apologia like this, and it’s nothing more than saying “look over there!” to excuse toxic belief systems.

The argument of the “main” source of conflict in the world is pointless. Why can’t both belief system types be an utter stain in society? The idea of comparing death counts is an absurdity - it doesn’t excuse the belief systems sigh a lower death count at all.

Only the claimed causes of the wars differ. But the fact is that wars are power struggles between arbitrarily defined groups.

This is not apologia, it is fact.

Wars can have many causes. Religion is one of them, and in fact, has been a major cause of wars throughout history. “War is a human condition” is an attempt to once again take the focus off religion and spread the blame to other things. The whole argument is irrelevant.

Imagine if a toxic chemical spill was making people sick. What if I were to say, “Well, people have heart attacks too, and that’s worse because more people die from those!” Is my argument really relevant to the question of whether or not the toxic chemical spill is making people sick?

And what causes it.

There is no blame, simply an observation of behavior.

Can we remove the toxic aspects of tribalism and cultivate the positive ones?

It’s fairly easy to show that it is. Honor killing would be one such example.

I have stated numerous times that religion is used to divide people.

But that goes back to my question of how can we, or can we, exclude the toxic aspects of tribalism?

Doing good for others is part of most religious systems.

In the OP, you seem to be making the argument that religion is somehow excused because lots of people died from Communism. I don’t disagree that tribalism is a cause for war, but I fail to see why that matters? The fact that tribalism causes war doesn’t at all excuse religion, or mean that religion has less of a role in war.

“Doing good for others is part of most belief systems”

Is that so? Then why (using Christianity as an example) does the Bible explicitly state that it’s ok to whip your slaves, as long as they don’t die? Why does it say a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned? Why does Christianity allow repenting serial killers to go to heaven, but immediately send non-believers to hell? That doesn’t sound like doing good to me.

Language, ethnicity, religion, the social construct of country, and other factors. Religion is one aspect of tribalism.

So how do we remove the negative aspects of what allowed humans to survive?

Religion seems like more of an immutable belief system, while tribalism is based on a region of peoples’ culture at the time. I can’t find enough common ground between the two, nor so I see how shifting the goal posts from religion to tribalism helps the argument in the OP in any way.

Feel free to disagree. I think we’re getting too off topic here, tbh.

And that is the source of conflict.

never have occurred. If we got rid of "greed and power" the other half of the conflicts would never have happened too. I think that if women were in charge over the societies during the past 3,000 years there would have been fewer wars too.

and the desire to wage war is part of the domination impulse, is war something that cannot be separated from the human condition?

In retrospect.

have evolved in the same way?

Or would the entire world be a pre-industrial one?

Cereal crops were what allowed us to populate the way we did. Stay in place and accumulate "wealth".

When women were sourcing food and medicine and more nomadic they were not incented to have multple pregnancies back to back.

And we would die much earlier.

But I do understand your point. As societies grow larger and more fixed in place, we accumulate things. And fight over the things.

In a different medium. But not this conversation.

The lifespan..if you could get past childhood as a hunter-gatherer you would have a good run.

It's the getting past childhood thing that has always been the biggest challenge. Little humans are the most vulnerable creatures.

That's why the cereal eaters made so many children. Towns and starches made the little ones sickly.

Large societies and large cities make us less personally connected.


And this lack of connection makes it even easier to divide "us" from "them". Arriving back at your starting point.

and families and like-thinkers. Not only religion.

They all have some of the same components- fidelity, common understandings, safety and threats.
They all can use power/money/sex/etc. as levers.
They may have coercion, sacrifice/death, rewards.

and it has been raised.

Tribalism is a survival mechanism for humans, but it is also the source of much division.

And power hungry people will exploit this to control others.

So how do we eliminate the bad aspects of tribalsim and cultivate the good?

and how can we keep those but eliminate tribalism?

All species, including the most social insect ones have tribes. As far as I know they aren't divided into repugs or dems, know-nothings vs. libs.

I'm somewhat of the mind that different people think differently. That there is some wiring differences - conservative vs. liberal. Risk taking vs. status quo. Them vs. Us.

We need to belong to a society. The tribe protects us, and sustains us.

But is it the fact that some people need to dominate others?
And some need to be richer than others?

Live communally, help raise each others children and take care of each other's elderly.

They know that they are well when their community members are well and they are diminished if another is doing badly.

They are able to understand deeply how we are connected to each other and the environment.

"Tribalism" or "Us versus Them" is what I call Fascism. Zero sum. If you do well, there is less for me. If I do well, it's because I'm better and deserve it. This extends to the environment. Suck it dry and throw it out. Me first.

In our Us v. Them Economic structure, where we are kept isolated and competing with each other for what we perceive as scarce resources --it's easy to find the pettiest differences and dehumanize each other.

The beautiful, terrible truth is that the Earth is abundant. There is enough for all. We don't have to do things this way.

in fancy clothes

As is patriotism, which wears patriotic clothes.

for the last 25 years or so China has had a market economy. Basically the only communist country that resembles the Cold War trope the author is pushing is North Korea.

China, whatever economic system it might have, hasn’t started a war with anyone since its revolution in 48, although it did have brief border skirmishes with India and Vietnam, and did intervene in the Korean War to block our effort to topple the North Korean regime.

North Korea’s contribution to conflict basically stopped with the truce in 53.

The only war the USSR was involved in was WWII. For most of that war they fought on our side, and without the sacrifice they made in lives, which was staggeringly huge compared to any other country on our side, it is unlikely the war would have been won.

But, speaking of the Chinese economy, there are the internment camps where they are re-educating theists in hopes of making them brave new citizens.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218301495

The history of the last 100 years does not confirm your opinion.

And they were cited in the article.

All of these mass murderers were Communists.
But not all Communists are mass murderers.

So is it the ideology, or the individual?

Wars.

The major wars of the 20th century were almost exclusively started by nations with market economies. All of the 19th century conflicts were initiated by nations with market economies, obviously.

Perhaps you have a new definition for conflicts?

and a private one.

And Communist regimes murdered many millions in a quest for a new state. And prominent among the murdered were theists.

as is usual for states that engage in mass murder, after they had established a strong state.

You’ve bunched two separate things together: war and mass murder. They do both involve killing, but normally are not considered to be the same. Unless of course one needs them to be the same because otherwise ones argument is nonsense.

which is that any belief system can be used as justification for mass murder. And it is an undeniable fact that the leaders of all of these mass murdering regimes were atheists.

And these strong atheist states were and are incredibly intolerant.

and its causes, defining what one means by conflict is entirely off topic, especially when the op’s argument involves the use of an intentionally misleading and unusual definition of conflict.

And the huge number of victims that these officially atheist regimes murdered.


Does that focus bother you?

huge numbers of people is not a “conflict”.
So please define what you mean by “conflict”.

if religion is just another ideology created by man.

If you posit there is something divine behind religion, then there is the question why that entity or entities allow such carnage based on it's teachings.

So it is not people we must blame as in the other examples, but the Gods themselves.

You apologetic only would work if you are an atheist.

He's down, now, to calling his deity "the Creator," which is just a step away from understanding that his deity is "the Created," instead.

I have hope for him. Sort of, anyhow...

so i was pointing out his premise here is at odds with his faith.

Of course, I have no idea what his faith is, actually, and he won't tell.

After a long series of conversations many years ago with a Catholic Bishop's assistant who was a rising young cleric in California, he finally told me that he didn't really believe that there was an actual deity, but that the principles of his religion were what kept him in the church. It was the "faith" that was important, he claimed, not any sort of real supernatural concept. I remember wondering just how many people who are Christian leaders of one sort or another are sort of in the same situation. I've met a couple of other atheists who were active clergy members, but I'd think making such a revelation would be a rare thing.

I think maybe Guy is somewhere on that same spectrum of belief. It's a difficult thing to maintain, I'd think.

sounds like NDT's ever receding God.

God as the original singularity. That would be a pretty good definition for such a "Creator." Not really a sentient entity, just a point in space/time that got all fidgety somehow and blowed up real good.

A truly passive, non-aware sort of "Creator," and one that was destroyed utterly in the process of creation. I like it. I could accept such a "Creator."

still exists for people to have faith in.

They're all in the definitions, these creator things. Change your definition; change your deity. I mean...really.

Europe brought death and enslavement with bibles in hand in no uncertain terms. That's just one event, and religion has many more that make the tired red-baiting meme seems like a drop in a very red bucket.

Side note, if Communist=atheist, then capitalist=theist, and that is the best argument for deconstructing capitalism I have ever heard.

It's all you ever do, it seems.

So much for actual discussion.

Watching liberals vomiting conservative apologetics all over the place. Religion really brings people together like that.

He has posted "daily devotionals" from right-wing anti-choice/anti-LGBT zealots.

He's taken up the cause of a Trump supported booted from an atheist group.

And on and on. All because, it seems, there is a place here on DU where people are allowed to criticize religion. The horror!