I just realized that religion is at its very philosophical core no more than political warfare.

[DetlefK]

What is politics good for?

We have groups of people, we have interactions between those people, we have ressources, we have territory...
"Politics" is how we organize this. Which people are what. What those interactions between people are and not are. Who gets what.

By taking care of such topics, "politics" stakes the claim that it has the AUTHORITY to even do that. This claim to authority is the essential foundation of any political act.



Religion merely extends this political power-struggle from physical people, physical interactions, physical ressources and physical territory to the spiritual realm.

Religion is about controlling, taming and ruling the spiritual realm by claiming the authority to define what there is therein.
Religion is about defining which people are what on a spiritual level.
Religion is about defining which spiritual interactions there are.
Religion is about defining how spiritual ressources (e.g. heaven and hell) get distributed.

By exercising the opportunity to define the spiritual realm, an instance of religion/belief claims AUTHORITY over the spiritual realm. Just as in politics, the claim to authority is the essential foundation of any religious act.

And that is why different religions do not get along: They don't want to. Because religion is a POLITICAL CONFLICT over hypothetical inhabitants and hypothetical interactions and hypothetical ressources and hypothetical territory in the spiritual realm.

If you do not understand what I mean, imagine religions to be nations and the spiritual realm as a planet.
Religions get founded and eventually die when they run out of citizens, just like nations.
Religions evolve, split and merge, just like nations.
Religions are at conflict with each other because multiple religions claim authority over the same things: Each religion claims the authority to rule what God is, to rule what he wants, to rule what a soul is, to rule how to properly worship, to rule what the afterlife is... These topics are the people/interactions/ressources/land I talked about.

Religion is essentially another expression of our desire to rule, to claim, to conquer and to dominate.






Thanks, guillaumeb, for the inspiration.

[True Blue American]

1. Religion is man made.

The Bible was written by many men,long after the real life events.

That is why I do not go along with it. You are quite right it is a control feature, badly used by many over the years by those who have selfish desires.

Just as it is being used by Trump in the most cynical way by Trump. Have you heard him mention God lately? He was even uncomforable in Church.

And now, how is is slowly tearing the country apart,laughing with his billionaire friends about the money he gave them,sitting in his tarnished golden palace while dpriving others of a paycheck.

He has insulted so many,fired them.trying to install his bullies,gutting our protections.

So do his followers still think he is a Christian?

[demigoddess]

26. christians fire people and I heard one threaten to kill right after church.

a lot of the ministers, padres, etc have assaulted children. I haven't heard of a crime/sin that christians do not commit.

[True Blue American]

28. And now Pompeo

Is saying,” we will. Fight to the Rapture!”

The crazies are in charge. You look at the fat,pompous ass, he could not fight his way out of a paper bag.

Reminds me of sitting in a Southern Baptist Church after attending the Southern Baptist Convention that was in a huge fight over trying to change the Church slapping his chest saying,” My side won!” Meaning his Right Wing,bigoted side.

I left that Church and a lot of friends.

Couple of years later at the Convention they dumped the old Leader, who was accused of molestation of young girls, brought in new Leadership. The old Pastor is gone,too. A young,new one took over.

But me,I am happy in a small Church that preaches Inclusion and love of fellow man.

[empedocles]

2. Powerful warfare

I remember how politically England changed overnight to a certain Protestant brand.

[Igel]

3. Yeah, just not seeing it.

Doesn't work as a decent analogy.

Doesn't "feel" right, given what I've observed between people, their beliefs, their organizations, or their inter-denominational interactions.

The conflict comes as a non-necessary consequence after the people, faith, and organizations are in place--and for some religions, "organization" is far too stringent a word. After that, the conflict is like any other conflict--over who controls whom, who gets what honor, who gets what resources. That's loyalty to tribe, loyalty to ideology, loyalty to denomination.

The whole "ideology is a secular religion" analogy works much better than this, allowing "ideology" to range into "codified set of moral values" territory. And allows for the flip, "religion is just an ideology or moral framework with a deity pitched in for validation."

[Major Nikon]

4. There is another significant difference in your analogy though

Secular ideology does not benefit from privilege or an exemption from criticism.

Regardless of how intolerant a particular organized religion behaves or how much privilege it benefits from, criticism of it will be labeled as intolerance by its proponents.

[guillaumeb]

6. Your are incorrect.

In Russia as it was under Communism, Party members benefitted from their being Party members. And there was no criticism allowed.

People who wish to dominate others will always find a reason, and a justification.

[Major Nikon]

7. I'm talking about privilege. You are talking about totalitarianism.

Since you don't understand, I can understand why you'd think I'm incorrect.

[guillaumeb]

9. No, we are both talking about privilege.

Communists and atheists have privilege in China.

And they have it in N. Korea.

And they have it to a lesser degree in Russia.

In any state, who enjoys privilege differs.


In a majority theist state, it will be theists.

In a majority atheist state, it will be atheists.

[Major Nikon]

12. Sure it's just a coincidence the best examples you can name are totalitarian regimes

[DetlefK]

17. My OP is not about religious people. It is about religion as a concept.

A religion stakes their claim of rulership over the spiritual realm by making claims what the spiritual realm is like.

Rivalling religions stake their (overlapping and contradicting) claims of ownership over this "territory" by claiming to have spiritual answers.

[guillaumeb]

5. You obviously missed the point.

Politicians, rulers of all types, are always willing to use anything that can be used to support their own need to dominate.

Atheist rulers in Communist states use hatred of religion as a unifying force. And these atheists who rule are always just as willing to use the same tactics as their theistic counterparts.

Religious rulers in theocracies use religious difference as a unifying force.

Conflict is an apparently inescapable part of the human condition.

[Major Nikon]

8. Nonsense

Stalinist Russia didn't "use hatred of religion as a unifying force". They used the power of the state to crush any and all real or perceived dissension through summary execution, torture, and concentration camps. They utilized complete control of all forms of information, propaganda networks, secret police, and the economy.

We get that you want to blame teh big bad atheism, but that dog won't hunt.

[guillaumeb]

10. Stalinist Russia, like China,

was an officially atheist country run by declared atheists. Theists were persecuted for being theists in Russia, and the same thing is happening in china today.

I understand your need to blame theism but actual history is not on your side.

[Major Nikon]

13. Sure, I'm blaming theism for Stalinist Russia. Yeah, that's it.

[Voltaire2]

14. Stalinist Russia revived the Russian Orthodox Church.

So like wtf are you talking about?

[MineralMan]

15. I think the talk is based on thoughts that came into his head.

Cognitive biases are powerful things. They can make you believe almost anything, even when presented with evidence that those beliefs are incorrect.

[guillaumeb]

18. Are you free of cognitive bias?

Or is it merely a thought that came into your head?

[MineralMan]

20. No, of course I'm not. None of us are.

Recognizing that helps a person shift into other modes of thinking though. Awareness leads to reason.

Here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211592050

[guillaumeb]

21. You are making the assumption

that your other modes of thinking are free of error or cognitive bias.

But again, perhaps your own unprovable position makes you prone to cognitive bias and error.

[MineralMan]

22. Or, perhaps you have very little understanding of what I'm talking

about. In any case, I am busy today with issues involving my parents and my pressing need to travel to California in a week. So, you'll forgive me if I don't stay to banter nonsense with you.

[guillaumeb]

23. Perhaps one of us cannot recognize something.

But you do have time to post, and call names.

[Major Nikon]

25. Yeah like what name was called

And it’s more like one recognized something that was pulled straight out of their posterior and nobody else saw it.

[DetlefK]

16. How is this any different from what religious leaders are doing?

Which religion admits that they DO NOT know everything about the spiritual realm?

Even when they obviously DO NOT know what God wants or what a soul is or what heaven is or whatever, they STILL claim to know what they are talking about because THAT is how they stake their claim for ownership and domination of the spiritual realm.

Because religion is ultimately about control. If one religion where to admit that it is not the undeniable final truth, it would immediately fall victim to another religion.

[guillaumeb]

19. My post acknowledged that. eom

[MineralMan]

11. Both are human endeavors.

Both are political, as you say.

[gtar100]

24. I cannot honestly come to the same conclusion.

I see religion as a framework (as well). It's a framework for spiritual practice, particularly shared spiritual experience. That to me is closer to its core. And its abuse by individuals and institutions is a tragedy but also symbolic of its inherent power. It's not religion that is bad but its misuse. Just as government itself is not bad, but its misuse is. Corporations are not at their core bad but people misusing this business structure for ill or with bad consequences, intended or not, is bad.

There are so many analogies of human frameworks that can be used for productivity, or enhancements to our quality of life, that can be and are abused by opportunistic, deceiving bullshitters for their own gains at the expense of others. Religion happens to be one of the more powerful ones. As social animals, we humans will naturally seek shared community experience particularly about questions of life, reality, its origins and our place in all of it.

So I do not believe religion can be gotten rid of. Maybe in name but it will crop up again because it is a fundamental expression of being human. Sucks that it's abused...big time. But its core, its archetype, its essence is something humans express their potential through, good or bad. That's how I see it anyway.

[True Blue American]

29. I simply see Religion

As trying to help, care, show love of your fellow man that teaches me to think and care about others. That is what it means to me.

While I am here,not the future. The Ten Commandments is a pretty good,guideline for now.

No one controls me.

[Karadeniz]

27. Antiquity

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the ancients fought over religion. When was a war waged because Zeus believers just couldn't abide the Dionysus followers? Instead, the conquerors just expanded the pantheon. Ancients had both "religi on" and philosophy. Religion involved the public displays;philosophy had the beliefs which guided ones behavior. No problem being a cynic and also going to temple to celebrate a myth or person. That helped cohere the community.i don't think even the mystery religion s were intolerant.remember, st. Paul.wasn't opposed on principle to a member going to a temple; it just might confuse the "children." When Christianity became state run, that was not good. Also, I think Mohammad could be forceful , intolerant.