Oh, buddy… The only reason that Hindu nationalism isn’t a bigger problem is because they’re mostly in India. And it’s not like the Romans weren’t expansionist and quite efficient at murdering their neighbors without having a single god. Or, for that matter, the Vikings.
I think that religion is the reason that’s often used to mask simpler motives; people want other people’s stuff–their land, their wealth, their resources–without having to expend work to get it themselves. Or perhaps they can’t get what they want/need without taking it from their neighbors. For instance, Japan is a very small country, and seriously lacks natural resources; in order to compete internationally, they needed to become an expansionist empire in the late 1800s/early 1900s, which led to them bombing Pearl Harbor in order to attempt to stop our imperial ambitions in the Pacific. Sure, Japan made claims about the emperor being divine, but it was fundamentally about resources.
But I think that monotheistic religions throughout history were one of the most divisive factors among people that otherwise would get along just fine.
Yes, I believe this is the part that got you oh buddy’d. People make religions, they are a reflection in the mirror. Trying to solve the history of humanity by excising monotheism is like trying to convince your reflection to stop scowling at you
So you don’t think religion often drives a wedge between groups of people that otherwise would live together without issues?
Is that what I said? Don’t strawman me.
Let me put it this way instead: given any system of self-replicating information, be it DNA or gospel, you will observe convergent evolution. If the environment offers a productive niche, then it’s only a matter of time before that niche gets exploited. Monotheism isn’t a tragic freak accident – it’s an inevitable response to an unexploited niche. Wishing it away is pointless because then something nearly identical would spring up to replace it. If one wishes to alter the reflection (i.e.: culture), then they must direct their focus upon the subject therein (i.e.: human society)
Removed by mod
Oh, buddy… The only reason that Hindu nationalism isn’t a bigger problem is because they’re mostly in India. And it’s not like the Romans weren’t expansionist and quite efficient at murdering their neighbors without having a single god. Or, for that matter, the Vikings.
Removed by mod
I think that religion is the reason that’s often used to mask simpler motives; people want other people’s stuff–their land, their wealth, their resources–without having to expend work to get it themselves. Or perhaps they can’t get what they want/need without taking it from their neighbors. For instance, Japan is a very small country, and seriously lacks natural resources; in order to compete internationally, they needed to become an expansionist empire in the late 1800s/early 1900s, which led to them bombing Pearl Harbor in order to attempt to stop our imperial ambitions in the Pacific. Sure, Japan made claims about the emperor being divine, but it was fundamentally about resources.
Removed by mod
Yes, I believe this is the part that got you oh buddy’d. People make religions, they are a reflection in the mirror. Trying to solve the history of humanity by excising monotheism is like trying to convince your reflection to stop scowling at you
Removed by mod
Is that what I said? Don’t strawman me.
Let me put it this way instead: given any system of self-replicating information, be it DNA or gospel, you will observe convergent evolution. If the environment offers a productive niche, then it’s only a matter of time before that niche gets exploited. Monotheism isn’t a tragic freak accident – it’s an inevitable response to an unexploited niche. Wishing it away is pointless because then something nearly identical would spring up to replace it. If one wishes to alter the reflection (i.e.: culture), then they must direct their focus upon the subject therein (i.e.: human society)
That’s not a small thing.