What unites us better than religion?

The only ''thing'' that unites all people is faith in Jesus.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

The trick is uniting people against an enemy that isn't a person: poverty, disease, unexplored outer space, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, but for some reason that seems more difficult to do.

Augustus said:

I think what we are not is just as important as what we are when it comes to identity/ideology. It might actually be more important as you need a point of reference.

Click to expand...

Harder to get people to identify with what they are not. It's like having to convince folks to go against their nature.

Not impossible, but difficult.

Augustus said:

As as add on to the thread "How well does religion work as a social glue uniting people politically and socially?"

One common argument is that religions create in/out groups and are thus divisive which, taken in a vacuum, is factually correct.

In a more practical sense though, unity is not our natural state, we are divided along multiple different aspects of identity. For something to be divisive, it would therefore really need to be more divisive than one or more practical alternatives.

Are there any ideologies, worldview, religions, etc. that do not create in/out groups? How practical are these in terms of uniting people politically and socially? What would make diverse peoples and cultures adopt such an ideology in large enough numbers to erase divisions?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Only true religion creates unity. While religions are dominated by spiritual beings who are sincere and free from worldly aims and ambitions they united people.

But gradually man made dogmas and superstitions usurped the religion of God and in its stead stands man made religion with political and selfish aims.

This is seen by the attitude of one religion towards another. The religions today which condemn each other as being false are no longer true religion as they seek superiority and dominance not love and fellowship.

I pray in Hindu Temples, Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Buddhist Pagodas and I see God worshipped in all these wonderful Faiths yet when you speak to so called devout believers they mostly claim the other religions are false.

Where in the Bible does it say Buddha or Krishna or Muhammad are false Prophets? It doesn’t. That is a man made ‘addition’ to the Bible. Where in the Quran does it name any of these Great Teachers as false? It doesn’t, yet Muslims insert their own beliefs on top of what God teaches and remove what He has taught namely love for all beings.

So if we said today that true religion does not exist anymore and humanity is abandoning all these religions which are condemning each other are doing the right thing then I think we are closer to the truth.

Religions that teach their followers to hate other religions are no religion at all and I think humanity is sick and tired of it and so is rightfully abandoning this religion of the priests and clergy because it no longer represents what the God of love taught but has introduced the ambitions of man into it and corrupted it.

Under such conditions it’s far better to be atheists and love all humanity than to belong to a religion and having to condemn the others.

The true religion that God taught was always Universal love for all not the exclusive superiority attitude we see today.

Muhammad was one of the greatest Christian missionaries because He taught, through the Quran the entire Middle East to accept Jesus yet Christians condemn Him as a false Prophet?

Hinduism teaches non violence and Buddhism too teaches virtues and a holy life but for some that is not enough. They want to be NUMBER ONE and that is all that matters to them. Being number one and the best and greatest above everyone else is their real religion now.

So we hear Muhammad Ali’s voice raised in many religions proclaiming ‘I am the greatest’ all born of selfish ego and nothing to do with the religion of God and people are sick of it and abandoning it because all humans are equal regardless of what they believe but today’s religion does not teach that.

So where is true religion today?
True religion unites but today’s man made dogmas which masquerades as religion divides and classes non believers as heathen or unsaved or infidels. That is not true religion.

Atheists who love all mankind are more truly religious than those religionists who go around claiming ‘we are the greatest and only truth’ ignoring every law of love and humanity taught in their own Holy Books.

Somewhere there's a mystic or yogi or pantheistic thinker having a twitch over the idea that the best unifier is taking and holding to any anthropogenic identity. Or that taking any such label wouldn't be inherently more dividing from becoming 'one.'

I guess I would have to ask by what stick are we measuring successful unity? The most people under a single label? Achieving a particular goal? Least amount of conflict? A particular value attached to these questions seems pretty subjective and transitive.

We don't need identical ideologies or doctrines to become united. Just a desire on the part of all parties. What is the difference between two neighbors with different family histories getting together for a bbq and beer and two nations with different national histories getting together for a common cause? The only ingredient is will.

Nakosis said:

Harder to get people to identify with what they are not. It's like having to convince folks to go against their nature.

Click to expand...

I meant we define ourselves by identifying what we are not, not that we identify/empathise with them. To measure what we want to be, we have to see what we do not want to be.

Augustus said:

I meant we define ourselves by identifying what we are not, not that we identify/empathise with them. To measure what we want to be, we have to see what we do not want to be.

Click to expand...

I prefer a different way of going about it. Instead of defining what I am and determining what I ought to be, I just accept that I am that I am.

Whatever I am doesn't need to be defined and there is no need to define what I ought to be since it assumes there is something wrong with what I am.

For me to unite, work with someone, we just have to agree not to cause each other any intentional harm.

Most folks don't seem to live like that and need some code they expect everyone else to live by.

Augustus said:

As as add on to the thread "How well does religion work as a social glue uniting people politically and socially?"

One common argument is that religions create in/out groups and are thus divisive which, taken in a vacuum, is factually correct.

In a more practical sense though, unity is not our natural state, we are divided along multiple different aspects of identity. For something to be divisive, it would therefore really need to be more divisive than one or more practical alternatives.

Are there any ideologies, worldview, religions, etc. that do not create in/out groups? How practical are these in terms of uniting people politically and socially? What would make diverse peoples and cultures adopt such an ideology in large enough numbers to erase divisions?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

There will always be in/out groups for a long time. Meanwhile we must not separate ourselves from our common man by our groups. We may be in an in/out group but we should work hard to not let it separate us. I know that I do not do a good enough job on that. I let groups divide us.

syo said:

The only ''thing'' that unites all people is faith in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Then why have there been so many wars among fellow Christians? It's because you have let things like nationality divide us.

Our life slowly developed from the protozoa to our human form with five senses where our awareness of organic unity is a part of evolution. For us Christians the organic unity is experienced in the soul where we are a part of the unity of infinite forms in one glorious harmony called heaven on earth.

Augustus said:

As as add on to the thread "How well does religion work as a social glue uniting people politically and socially?"

One common argument is that religions create in/out groups and are thus divisive which, taken in a vacuum, is factually correct.

In a more practical sense though, unity is not our natural state, we are divided along multiple different aspects of identity. For something to be divisive, it would therefore really need to be more divisive than one or more practical alternatives.

Are there any ideologies, worldview, religions, etc. that do not create in/out groups? How practical are these in terms of uniting people politically and socially? What would make diverse peoples and cultures adopt such an ideology in large enough numbers to erase divisions?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Very thought provoking questions.
I don't see how something would have to be more divisive that an alternate "thing" to be divisive. It either is divisive or it is not, independently of anything else. The degree is another discussion.
Given the thousands of religions that have appeared and in most cases, disappeared over the millennia, and the thousands of divisions just in Christianity alone, religion is extremely divisive. If religious belief were monolithic, or even nearly monolithic in nature, then it could be argued that it is not particularly divisive. That, however, is not the case.

soma said:

Our life slowly developed from the protozoa to our human form with five senses where our awareness of organic unity is a part of evolution. For us Christians the organic unity is experienced in the soul where we are a part of the unity of infinite forms in one glorious harmony called heaven on earth.

Click to expand...

OK, maybe we can discuss this, maybe not. I really am not trying to start an argument, and offer no disrespect. I'm not sure if you truly believe the above or not, but it reads as one of the "cop out" Christian rationalizations to incorporate evolution, Christian dogma et al. A little Plato too. I suppose my views could be considered the same, mine just make more sense to me, I guess.

I like: "In the beginning is the word, and the word is God" . To me, that means that life is mind, ("Our father who art in heaven" ) and that the physical world exists as images in mind. Since there is only one Mind, we must be unified. Odd that we're so often unhappy about it. Since there is only now, time is more a matter of the structure of that than of a passing.

Again, intending no affront.

Augustus said:

As regards OP, doesn't have to be perfect though, just interested in people's thoughts. Anything that works better for any reason would be relevant, for example:

Can unite bigger numbers; unites fewer people, but minimise the degrees of difference; etc.

Click to expand...

Okay then: sports fandom.

There's some rivalry between fans of different teams, but it's generally good-natured. The cases where fans actually injure or kill each other are usually more based on religion than sport (e.g. Rangers vs. Celtic), so getting rid of the divisiveness of religion would naturally get rid of a lot of the divisiveness in sport.

(BTW: in case my point was missed, I'm saying that something that's normally considered very divisive - sport - would be less divisive than religion)

Augustus said:

Are there any ideologies, worldview, religions, etc. that do not create in/out groups? How practical are these in terms of uniting people politically and socially? What would make diverse peoples and cultures adopt such an ideology in large enough numbers to erase divisions?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

This is the Message of Baha'u'llah. The Unity of all Humanity is the call. A unity to be found in our diversity.

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.' (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, CXXXI)

"It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." (Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i-Maqsúd)

"Be in perfect unity. Never become angry with one another… Love the creatures for the sake of God and not for themselves. You will never become angry or impatient if you love them for the sake of God. Humanity is not perfect. There are imperfections in every human being, and you will always become unhappy if you look toward the people themselves. But if you look toward God, you will love them and be kind to them, for the world of God is the world of perfection and complete mercy." (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace)

Quotations | What Bahá’ís Believe

Regards Tony

syo said:

The only ''thing'' that unites all people is faith in Jesus.

Click to expand...

That would be Faith in Christ.

Matthew 16:13-20 "13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Regards Tony

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Okay then: sports fandom.

Click to expand...

Fair point.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

There's some rivalry between fans of different teams, but it's generally good-natured. The cases where fans actually injure or kill each other are usually more based on religion than sport (e.g. Rangers vs. Celtic), so getting rid of the divisiveness of religion would naturally get rid of a lot of the divisiveness in sport.

Click to expand...

The most fanatical rivalries tend to mirror some form of social division rather than a religious dimension. Even the one which is generally considered to be about religion, Rangers Celtic, is not solely about religion, but more that religion reflects a particular social division. The Protestant/Catholic thing in Ireland has always been linked the the issue of Irish Republicanism v British loyalism as the Protestant community has roots in populations resettled from Britain, particularly the west coast of Scotland in order to strengthen British control in Ireland. There was also the reverse movement of Catholic Irish to the west coast especially following the famine.

Other rivalries Boca Juniors V River Plate, Olympiakos/Panathinaikos, etc. represent working class v establishment clubs. Galatasaray V Fenerbace represents Asian v European Turkish identities. Barca Real Madrid Catalan v Spanish identities. Liverpool Man U, Ajax Feyenoord, Portsmouth Southampton, etc. represent cities that have strong rivalries beyond football for historical reasons.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

(BTW: in case my point was missed, I'm saying that something that's normally considered very divisive - sport - would be less divisive than religion)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is very divisive.

Within countries it certainly can be, although this tends to be limited to a small number of teams that you have a strong dislike towards.

Even then, simply liking a sport creates common bonds that facilitate relationships and can often be 'ice breakers' when talking to strangers.

In general, I'd say sport does bring people together.

It may be that the only thing which unites us is our common humanity.

Religion, nationality, race, culture, gender, and the host of other (less important) things only serve to create "us vs. them".

We are all born, live, and die as human beings. It is the only thing which we all have in common.

sub'd to this thread

Possibly altruism, but that has yet to be worked into a coherent narrative. I think Sam Harris is trying.

One problem anyone would run up against trying to argue altruism as a premise of societal cohesion is that we only say the behaviors described as altruistic are correct. We'd still need an authority to establish that on, unless we're fine with subjective morals.

People should be prepared for the consequences of embracing morals as entirely subjective. It does indeed seem greater society is pursuing that approach.

At any rate, Harris's project does interest me from a purely philosophical standpoint. I can't wait to see his completed system, if he ever does get it all sorted out. Maybe he'll be convincing.

I have to admire Harris for undertaking a subject most atheists won't touch with a fifty foot pole, because they know how difficult it is to discuss societal cohesion and values without religion. At least without using some of religion's metaphysical arguments to ground morals and worth in.