Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war.

[Greatest I am]

Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war.

But we need something better.

At their roots, religions were created as entertainment for us as well as to appease our tribal need of fellowship, drama and love of war.

Please Google ---- The Groupish Gene - Jonathan Haidt

We are all politicians, in a sense, and I hope you can use that aspect of your nature to reply here.

 Please Google --- Jonathan Haidt Explains Our Contentious Culture.mp4

Philosophers class religions as one of the creations man has created to entertain himself and a way to appease our tribal instincts. Basically, religions help fill our need of fellowship,  drama and love of war.

Given that the more tribes in a community and the more a community is divided, the more conflict will arise. Jihads and holy wars have plagued us forever because of these tribal divisions.

Some will not attribute war to religions, only to those who would use their religions for war, but the connection cannot be denied from a tribal point of view. One seldom starts a war on his own and the fellowship of religions makes war a lot easier to start.

I begin to wonder why we have not invented a better way to appease out tribal natures and love of drama and war. We have tried to use sports, but hooliganism has come from that and thus sports are not that good of a vehicle for us to reduce violence.

What would you suggest for us to invent, and make sacred, ---- to appease out tribal natures, while also appeasing our love of drama and war, --- but without that violent aspect?

Regards
DL

P.S. – I think we should sacralise morality but would not know how to do so as religions try and fail miserably in this and government seldom use that word. No new religion would be trusted to do so because the mainstream religions are demonstrably immoral.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The euphoria is strong in this one.

[Greatest I am]

That is just the coffee.

I guess that you have a rather different view of what religions are.

Correct?

What are they if not as described?

Regards
DL

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that's not the way you meant your question, but your question is one of those that no one remotely serious or knowledgeable can claim to have a simple and clear-cut answer to. Which was my point.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that's not the way you meant your question, but your question is one of those that no one remotely serious or knowledgeable can claim to have a simple and clear-cut answer to. Which was my point.

Yet your information confirmed what I said in a slightly different way.

" and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence"

What is meant by societal organization if not a tribe?

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

Your #analysis may be true of the earliest religions, but the ones that most people practice today (the ones that proselytize, that is) are more universal than tribal: their purpose isn't to protect one nation from another, but to bring all nations under the same umbrella.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that's not the way you meant your question, but your question is one of those that no one remotely serious or knowledgeable can claim to have a simple and clear-cut answer to. Which was my point.

Yet your information confirmed what I said in a slightly different way.

" and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence"

What is meant by societal organization if not a tribe?

Regards
DL

If you click "societal organization", it redirects you here. Have fun!

[Greatest I am]

Your #analysis may be true of the earliest religions, but the ones that most people practice today (the ones that proselytize, that is) are more universal than tribal: their purpose isn't to protect one nation from another, but to bring all nations under the same umbrella.

I do not see them as universal at all as they reject all Gods save their own.

Christianity's violence and ideology has been curbed and brought to heel by secular Western forces but Islam is still trying to grow with violence instead of good deeds.

Gnostic Christianity is about the only religion that promotes that we all be esoteric ecumenists and is the only true Universalist religion that I know of. That reason is partly why I have taken on the label of Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL
 

[Greatest I am]

[

Sigh. Can't even think up an answer to a simple question.

Please put me on ignore.

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

Your #analysis may be true of the earliest religions, but the ones that most people practice today (the ones that proselytize, that is) are more universal than tribal: their purpose isn't to protect one nation from another, but to bring all nations under the same umbrella.

I do not see them as universal at all as they reject all Gods save their own.

Christianity's violence and ideology has been curbed and brought to heel by secular Western forces but Islam is still trying to grow with violence instead of good deeds.

Gnostic Christianity is about the only religion that promotes that we all be esoteric ecumenists and is the only true Universalist religion that I know of. That reason is partly why I have taken on the label of Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL
 

Christianity and Islam aren't tied to a particular people or place in the way that Temple Judaism and the cults of the Greek city-states were. Thus, they can't really be called "tribal" without stretching that term into meaninglessness.

[RFayette]

The euphoria is strong in this one.

[Greatest I am]

Your #analysis may be true of the earliest religions, but the ones that most people practice today (the ones that proselytize, that is) are more universal than tribal: their purpose isn't to protect one nation from another, but to bring all nations under the same umbrella.

I do not see them as universal at all as they reject all Gods save their own.

Christianity's violence and ideology has been curbed and brought to heel by secular Western forces but Islam is still trying to grow with violence instead of good deeds.

Gnostic Christianity is about the only religion that promotes that we all be esoteric ecumenists and is the only true Universalist religion that I know of. That reason is partly why I have taken on the label of Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL
 

Christianity and Islam aren't tied to a particular people or place in the way that Temple Judaism and the cults of the Greek city-states were. Thus, they can't really be called "tribal" without stretching that term into meaninglessness.

The fact that those religions have splintered in to all kinds of denominations and factions who fight each other shows that all religions are indeed tribal units.

The term is well suited for what we are talking about here which is our love of war.

Some even say that God equals war.

Please Google --- Blood Meridian - The Judge on War ("War is God") - Cormac McCarthy

--- and see what you think of that presentation.

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

Your #analysis may be true of the earliest religions, but the ones that most people practice today (the ones that proselytize, that is) are more universal than tribal: their purpose isn't to protect one nation from another, but to bring all nations under the same umbrella.

I do not see them as universal at all as they reject all Gods save their own.

Christianity's violence and ideology has been curbed and brought to heel by secular Western forces but Islam is still trying to grow with violence instead of good deeds.

Gnostic Christianity is about the only religion that promotes that we all be esoteric ecumenists and is the only true Universalist religion that I know of. That reason is partly why I have taken on the label of Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL
 

Christianity and Islam aren't tied to a particular people or place in the way that Temple Judaism and the cults of the Greek city-states were. Thus, they can't really be called "tribal" without stretching that term into meaninglessness.

The fact that those religions have splintered in to all kinds of denominations and factions who fight each other shows that all religions are indeed tribal units.

The term is well suited for what we are talking about here which is our love of war.

Some even say that God equals war.

Please Google --- Blood Meridian - The Judge on War ("War is God") - Cormac McCarthy

--- and see what you think of that presentation.

Regards
DL

Of course religion can serve a tribal purpose, but that doesn't mean that tribalism (or the love of drama and war) is necessarily the driving force behind the founding of one. I find it very hard to believe that any of those things were in the minds of Calvin and Luther, for example.

[Greatest I am]

Your #analysis may be true of the earliest religions, but the ones that most people practice today (the ones that proselytize, that is) are more universal than tribal: their purpose isn't to protect one nation from another, but to bring all nations under the same umbrella.

I do not see them as universal at all as they reject all Gods save their own.

Christianity's violence and ideology has been curbed and brought to heel by secular Western forces but Islam is still trying to grow with violence instead of good deeds.

Gnostic Christianity is about the only religion that promotes that we all be esoteric ecumenists and is the only true Universalist religion that I know of. That reason is partly why I have taken on the label of Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL
 

Christianity and Islam aren't tied to a particular people or place in the way that Temple Judaism and the cults of the Greek city-states were. Thus, they can't really be called "tribal" without stretching that term into meaninglessness.

The fact that those religions have splintered in to all kinds of denominations and factions who fight each other shows that all religions are indeed tribal units.

The term is well suited for what we are talking about here which is our love of war.

Some even say that God equals war.

Please Google --- Blood Meridian - The Judge on War ("War is God") - Cormac McCarthy

--- and see what you think of that presentation.

Regards
DL

Of course religion can serve a tribal purpose, but that doesn't mean that tribalism (or the love of drama and war) is necessarily the driving force behind the founding of one. I find it very hard to believe that any of those things were in the minds of Calvin and Luther, for example.

There are two basic ways to capture a nation. Force of arms or control of the economy.

I do not know about Calvin by one of Martin Luther's main goal was to stop the flow of wealth from Germany to Rome. Indulgences was what he was attacking and trying to stop. He did not want Rome to control Germany's economy.

You might also recognize that both Christianity and Islam have used murder to grow their religions instead of good deeds.

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

There are two basic ways to capture a nation. Force of arms or control of the economy.

I do not know about Calvin by one of Martin Luther's main goal was to stop the flow of wealth from Germany to Rome. Indulgences was what he was attacking and trying to stop. He did not want Rome to control Germany's economy.

Do you have evidence that Luther's objection to indulgences was secular rather than spiritual?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but it's hard to call Christendom and the Ummah "tribes" without (as I said earlier) stretching that term into meaninglessness.

[RINO Tom]

Is such a gene proof that we mutated genetically to be predisposed to believing in fairytales or a genetic imprint drawing us inherently to believe in a higher intelligence, almost a sophisticated way of reaching out to us in a way that's much beyond our comprehension?  These types of theories and arguments just go in circles.

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have evidence that Luther's objection to indulgences was secular rather than spiritual?

Only what I have read but I do not recall where I read it.

This link accentuates how it was one of his main theses against the Pope and his church.

I cannot link you as yet but please Google --- Martin Luther Indulgences --- and choose the second item shown.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but it's hard to call Christendom and the Ummah "tribes" without (as I said earlier) stretching that term into meaninglessness.

I do not think so. Basically all types of Christians fly the cross and plan to ride their scapegoat Jesus into heaven and all Muslim sects fly the star and crescent and hate all those who are not Muslims and following their immoral Sharia. There is a small intelligent and moral left wing to both but they are ignored by the right wing loonies.

Regards
DL
 

[Greatest I am]

Is such a gene proof that we mutated genetically to be predisposed to believing in fairytales or a genetic imprint drawing us inherently to believe in a higher intelligence, almost a sophisticated way of reaching out to us in a way that's much beyond our comprehension?  These types of theories and arguments just go in circles.

It would be stupid to seek what cannot be understood.

The idol worship of today is not what seeking God was supposed to be all about.

I, as a Gnostic Christian, follow the notion of being a perpetual seeker and even after my apotheosis, minus the divine that is in that description, set aside the God I found, raised my bar of excellence and continue to seek God. God as defined as the best rules and laws to live life by.

Have a look at how todays idol worshiping Christians and Muslims should think.

You will have to Google ---  What is God? | Big Think

Regards
DL

[Tartarus Sauce]

Funny thing seeing you here, DL. I thought you only hung around atheist forums.

[Greatest I am]

Funny thing seeing you here, DL. I thought you only hung around atheist forums.

Not really. In fact, the opposite is true.

I try to live by these quotes because, to me, they represent doing unto others. The Golden Rule.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Atheists do not need correcting as much as theists do. Atheists have not sold their souls to Satan by embracing the supernatural to base their philosophy/theology on.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The idea of 'theists' as a single, coherent category of people always struck me as one of the...odder things about Dawkinsite rhetoric.

[Alcon]

The idea of 'theists' as a single, coherent category of people always struck me as one of the...odder things about Dawkinsite rhetoric.

Considering one of Dawkins' better-known bits is the spectrum of theistic probability, I'm not sure what you mean by this?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The idea of 'theists' as a single, coherent category of people always struck me as one of the...odder things about Dawkinsite rhetoric.

Considering one of Dawkins' better-known bits is the spectrum of theistic probability, I'm not sure what you mean by this?

'Theists' as a single, coherent category of people requires 'theism' as an incredibly abstracted philosophical position (not even really a 'belief' as such), with very little specific content to it, of a kind that almost nobody other than a few old-school philosophers of religion actually holds. People who believe strongly in the God or gods of some religion in particular aren't fundamentally believing the same things as some Charles Sanders Peirce acolyte. They may or may not be believing the same things as one another, depending on the religions (and individuals!) concerned.

That's only the theoretical problem with the categorization. On the theoretical level it's still somewhat defensible. On any practical or political or sociological level, the problems with classifying people and their beliefs this way ought to be...very obvious.

If the issue is my use of the word 'Dawkinsite' to describe this sort of thinking then I'll gladly amend it, since it's been ages since I've actually sat down and read anything by Dawkins other than his tweets and various other bite-sized internet pronunciamientos. Please remind me whether the 'spectrum of theistic probability' is what the name makes it sound like?

[Greatest I am]

The idea of 'theists' as a single, coherent category of people always struck me as one of the...odder things about Dawkinsite rhetoric.

Considering one of Dawkins' better-known bits is the spectrum of theistic probability, I'm not sure what you mean by this?

+ 1

Regards
DL