Patriotism = Parochialism

[bigboab]

Cows around the world have pretty much the same attitude towards life and each other.

People do not.

Are we talking Bovine here JP?

[Busyman]

This latter part I have never quite understood. Why would it matter?

Very simple...there's less division.

Regardless of what some say, clashing cultures, religions, blahblahblah create division. Similarities = less clash.

[Arm]

PAtriotism is teh ghey.

[hobbes]

People are not all the same, that is PC bunkum.

People from around the world have entirely different attitudes, whether one likes to accept it or not. One man's sexism is another man's normal way of life. One man's suicide bomber is another man's martyr. The list goes on and we all know it.

These similarities of which people speak - we all breath and eat and sleep and crap and procreate, so do cows.

Cows around the world have pretty much the same attitude towards life and each other.

People do not.

I think that people are people.

1. Security of personal space- this is my home home and no one can take it way.

2. Security of the individual- I am special/worthy and people value my opinion.

3. Security of sex- I am desired.

Sexism and other opinions are merely an opinion. One can secure oneself without an agreement on "sexism" an such. These are a societal appetizer, not something which an individidual needs to secure his place in society.

All people desire the same set of securities. How they actually achieve them and justify them are matters of regional or religious style.

[j2k4]

I think that people are people.

1. Security of personal space- this is my home home and no one can take it way.

2. Security of the individual- I am special/worthy and people value my opinion.

3. Security of sex- I am desired.

Sexism and other opinions are merely an opinion. One can secure oneself without an agreement on "sexism" an such. These are a societal appetizer, not something which an individidual needs to secure his place in society.

All people desire the same set of securities. How they actually achieve them and justify them are matters of regional or religious style.

We love it when you talk dirty.

[hobbes]

Sorry, I did not express myself very well.

In my view people's attitude towards other people is a matter of great import. It is also my view that this varies tremendously around the world. What I would see as sexism, or demeaning behaviour e.g. a woman walking 4 steps behind her husband and always wearing a veil, would be seen by others as perfectly normal. People's attitude, in the USA for example, is very independent of the state. However in other countries they are very obedient (for lack of a better word).

Sorry I'm doing a bad job of expressing again, I have been rather busy.

There are enormous cultural differences between people around the world and no matter what the causes are they do exist. People are not all the same, other than on a very basic, animalistic level.

We could of course all become the same, but then whose same should we go for. I quite like mine, which I believe is very similar to yours. However it is a fair bet that we are not members of a particularly large group, on a world population scale.

This is precisely why I view religion as devisive.

Relgion addresses the situation: "life is hard, life is cruel, but in the end, if I behave correctly, will things be "ok"?

So religions have sprung up, all over the planet, in order to appease this fear.

Since God does not sit visibly in the clouds above our realm and has no E-mail address, independent cultures have constructed rather arbitrary lore that describe who he is and what he desires of us.

Now that the world is more a global community, these regional interpretations cause conflict. The God one is brought up to fully believe in is contradicted by the God of another culture.

Can we abandon our God, can we compromise and decide on a global God? Absolutely not. Only our God is real, the rest are all just lost souls prying to an impotent God.

Religion is what separates us and causes hate, just the opposite of what it was intended to do.

People are animals, the ONLY difference being is that we know that we are going to die. It is this unique knowledge that makes us make up religions to ease our fear of death. Otherwise, we are just animals, desiring animal things.

People are people and are separated by religions that are based on a rather arbitrary belief in what God desires of us.

[Busyman]

This is precisely why I view religion as devisive.

Relgion addresses the situation: "life is hard, life is cruel, but in the end, if I behave correctly, will things be "ok"?

So religions have sprung up, all over the planet, in order to appease this fear.

Since God does not sit visibly in the clouds above our realm and has no E-mail address, independent cultures have constructed rather arbitrary lore that describe who he is and what he desires of us.

Now that the world is more a global community, these regional interpretations cause conflict. The God one is brought up to fully believe in is contradicted by the God of another culture.

Can we abandon our God, can we compromise and decide on a global God? Absolutely not. Only our God is real, the rest are all just lost souls prying to an impotent God.

Religion is what separates us and causes hate, just the opposite of what it was intended to do.

People are animals, the ONLY difference being is that we know that we are going to die. It is this unique knowledge that makes us make up religions to ease our fear of death. Otherwise, we are just animals, desiring animal things.

People are people and are separated by religions that are based on a rather arbitrary belief in what God desires of us.

You make that sound like religion is the end all be all of divisiveness. It is not.

TOO MANY things divide people. Culture, religion, race, skin color, wealth and lack of it, status, location, countr.....

If everyone was the same religion there would still be division.
If white supremacists wiped out the "other" races they'd would come up with a reason to fight themselves.(see above i.e. TOO MANY...)

The difference between people and animals is that we can ask "why". It does not boil down to "we know we are going to die." Children are not in touch with their inevitable demise until they ask "why".

[hobbes]

So all Atheists have the same beliefs, culture, social conscience. They are also devoid of hate.

That's an interesting position.

"Atheism" IS a religion. They have "faith" that God does not exist, they have no proof of this but they still believe it.

religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

But this is merely a specious deflection from my valid points before.

Religion divides people in our new global community.

As BM says, it is not the only thing, but it is the only thing that is not amenable to education. Divisions caused by racism or ethnicity are easily overcome when these people come to live and work together. "Oh, you have the same desires and aspirations as I do".

There are white supremists who will cling to their beliefs regardless any evidence put forth. These people are usually of the lowest socioeconomic group and it is this "supremist religion" which gives them the sense of self-worth. Yeah, I'm trash, but at least I'm white.

People are quite simple. They have the requirements of security as I described before. And when that security is not there, they just make stuff up about God or Whites being superior to Blacks, to delude their fragile psyches' and make things right.

[hobbes]

Can one believe in a negative and then call it a religion. I don't think so, however I sit to be corrected..

If I tell you that God does not exist and cannot under any circumstance exist, then that is a religion. A set of beliefs based on faith.

I find pure Athiests as ridiculous as literal Fundamental Christians.

I think in doubting the existence of Zarquon, you are more the Agnostic. Why do you believe that Jesus is the son of God and not that Zarquon is the Almighty? You don't even know why? You think one sounds silly and the other is a fact.

On one hand, without any proof what-so-ever you can fully accept your Catholic religion, then take the humorous attitude, "Well from where I'm sitting I see no evidence of Zarquon and his troupe of raging Zebras He, he". If you were raised in a Zarquonian family, in a Zarquonian town, you would probably but posting the exact opposite. "He He, those silly Catholics."

Well, from where I, sitting I see no evidence that Jesus is the son of God or Zarquons' zebras.

Faith based beliefs are arbitrary in regard to what they want to accept as true and rigid and they don't play well with others (people who think differently).

My bottom line is that people really are just people.

[manker]

If religion is merely a set of values that one holds true based on an acceptance of views that one finds palatable then this encompasses too much. For example I support a particular sports team mainly because my Dad did and I was named after a couple of the players. I drive a specific vehicle because people have told me that they're safe and reliable. I have no idea if this is correct as I've little idea, or interest, in automobiles - I just accept it as I trust the people that have informed me.

A mad female American scientist truly believes that the pyramids were built using kites, the people around her also believe that this is so even tho' there is no evidence of this. I assist people with their finances - they blindly follow my advice and accept my word with no question (mostly ) but I'm not their God.

This is not religion. Just as Atheism isn't religion.

I can agree that the definition of the word can be thought of as encompassing these things but, really, religion is something that requires more than just a belief and an adherence to a set of values in which they have faith. That definition is much too broad.

Conventional religion, which I believe is central to this topic, is entirely different to following following a doctrine religiously - this is not central to this topic and is probably highly irrelevant.

Religious operations either get recognised by the country in which they function, or they do not. A lot of thought and deliberation goes into the process so for someone to assert that definition of a religious ethos is such a basic proceedure is patently guilty of oversimplification.

In my opinion religion has to involve the belief in the supernatural, at the very least. This precludes Atheism.