There is something wrong with humanity

[guillaumeb]

Just ask a citizen of any country what is wrong with any other country.

The history of humanity, from the very beginning, has been one of division and fragmentation. It continues to this day, with divisions within countries and even within those divisions. Division, whether by culture, or color, or language is a defining feature of human history. Simply identifying as human says almost nothing of what you believe, nor how you live your life. For non-humans, this could be a huge stumbling block.

I write this because there is a similarly titled post purporting to identify the "wrongness" that the author feels is inherent in every religion. Given that humanity has shown a propensity for division ever since walking upright, we can more profitably discuss the many divisions without judging or assigning any terms such as right and wrong.

[Angry Dragon]

1. I disagree

According to the Holy Book of christians the people of the world once all worked together. Their god did not like that so he made it so they could not understand each other and dispersed them across the world

One can only assume their god does not want the people of the world to work together

[guillaumeb]

2. You disagree with a framing that calls an aspect of humanity "wrong"?

I agree with you. Division seems to be one of the defining characteristics of humanity.

And the story of Babel does not talk of anger over humans working together, but anger about a human attempt to compete with the Creator. A slightly different matter.

Another interpretation is that it is a Bronze Age tale to explain the differences in languages and cultures.

[Angry Dragon]

6. I have no use of an angry god

the god of the Old Testament has no sense of humor
plus they say he knows everything so what was he angry about??
there are better gods out there

[guillaumeb]

7. Better gods?

Identify them if you wish.

[Angry Dragon]

8. too many to list ............. all kinds of gods out there

[Mariana]

15. It's a disgusting story no matter the interpretation.

Most parents want their children to excel in their endeavors. It pleases them to see their children succeed. Your god, on the other hand, gets angry and punishes his creations, and all their innocent posterity, when they learn too much, work too hard, cooperate too well. etc. You say it wasn't anger over humans working together, but in fact his punishment was to prevent them from doing that. I get that your god is not a parent, but still, why get angry at all? Why not take pride that his creations are learning to do such wonderful things? How many people have suffered and died because your god just had to make sure human beings knew their place?

If it's just a work of fiction, it really should be clearly labelled as such when it's included in a religion's holy book. Otherwise, followers of that religion have to guess whether it's just a Bronze Age tale to explain the differences in languages and cultures, or tells of actual events.

[guillaumeb]

20. Unless archeological remains of the tower are discovered,

I will believe that the story is metaphorical.

[Lordquinton]

18. That is quite an awkward story

Either god exists and is responsible for the division in the world, or he doesn't and humanity is just how it is and created a story to excuse themselves.

[Angry Dragon]

19. I did not write the story just was taught it

[Lordquinton]

28. Oh, I know

I've read it too.

But it really throws a wrench in the works of the inherent nature of humanity. It takes place after the great flood, which suggests that the flood worked, and wickedness was dealt with, but then introduced again.

[Angry Dragon]

29. What I have difficuty with is people saying their god is all powerful and all knowing

their god knows what is going to happen
so why not create so those things their god doesn't want don't happen
they say we have free will ........ but their god knows he is going to get pissed
no sense

[Lordquinton]

30. I've asked those questions

And gotten venom in response.

[Angry Dragon]

31. .............

[Binkie The Clown]

3. Unfortunately, it's those very traits that made it possible for us to evolve to dominate the planet

We are at the top of the food chain because we are the meanest, most vicious killers on the planet.

But that's irrelevant in the long run, because like all other species, we will go extinct, probably in less than 100 years from now.

[guillaumeb]

4. Definitely human characteristics.

One hopes that your prediction is incorrect.

[Voltaire2]

12. "We are at the top of the food chain"

there is no top. It's a circle.

[Binkie The Clown]

16. I stand corrected. :) nt

[Warpy]

5. Yes and no

Right now, there are just too damned many of us. If we didn't manage to sort people out by broad classification, we'd get overwhelmed pretty quickly. The trouble starts when one group thinks all others are somehow inferior.

I imagine when humanity numbered in the high hundred thousands, you were either other people or not. Any physical or gender differences were just jackass trivia.

Remember, we humans who left Africa all had ancestors who shagged Neanderthals. While men undoubtedly had fistights, it seems large scale war was counterproductive for everybody.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

9. Simple answer?

Fear.

[guillaumeb]

10. Fear motivates many people. eom

[edhopper]

11. When comparing this human tendency

with religion.

It only works if God doesn't exist or doesn't care what humans think or do.

[guillaumeb]

14. This human tendency has manifested itself through all of recorded history.

And presumably earlier. It tells us something about humans and nothing about anything else.

[Warpy]

27. Recorded history is an eyeblink

Anthropologists studying the Paleolithic are telling us something completely different. They'd like to study the Mesolithic, but it seems most of them clung to coastal areas that are now under water.

We didn't run into serious trouble with each other until the Neolithic people started to farm and store property in the way of a year's harvest of grain and have a vested interest in chasing strangers away instead of sharing tips and information with them. At the same time, population started to increase greatly, both from the added food supply and pressure to increase the labor supply needed to produce it and guard it once it was harvested.

Remember, we diverged from apes six million years ago. We developed bigger brains gradually starting two million years ago. Recorded history is about four thousand years, much of it in the form of who owed what to whom at harvest time.

[trotsky]

13. More of the same anti-human message that religion has to offer.

There is nothing "wrong" with humanity. Humanity just is. We are the product of millions of years of evolution, and our brains work the way they do because it conferred a survival advantage to stick together in small groups, oppose other groups, and make use of scarce resources while they are available.

Religion's core message (particularly Christianity) has been that human beings are horribly flawed and need redemption, and we must ingratiate ourselves to some unseen, unknowable, unprovable creator. It is a terrible message, and one that has led to tragic consequences througout history.

Whatever one might consider is "wrong" with humanity can be fixed using what's "right" with humanity, and certainly not with your religion. It's had 2000 years and remarkably has ALWAYS been on the side of the oppressor before finally coming around to support the oppressed (after secular pressure), and then rewriting history to claim it was on the proper side all along.

[guillaumeb]

21. I agree with your first paragraph.

The second paragraph is a repetition of a message you have promoted many times.

Your third paragraph is merely an extension of the second, and both represent your personal views.

[trotsky]

23. Your lack of substantive response is noted. n/t

[MineralMan]

17. How interesting. One needn't ask about other countries, though.

One can simply point at the neighbor's house and ask what is wrong with the people who live there. Comparing humanity with a religion doesn't really make a lot of sense, I think. There's no real expectation that people, as individuals or even as entire cultures, are perfect or without flaws. A simple look in the mirror makes such a claim ridiculous.

People have flaws. All people have flaws, so there's much wrong with humanity, since it is made up of flawed humans.

Religions, however, are somewhat different. Most have a scriptural basis of some sort that explains everything, lays out the rules for human behavior, describes whatever deities are worshiped and sets out the means of worship for that religion's deity or deities. Generally, those scriptures are said to be inspired or even dictated by those very deities.

Christians, for example, claim to follow such a scripture, which they claim is god-given or god-inspired, at least. Still, they form groups that interpret that scripture differently and behave in different ways.

Humanity has no such guidelines. It is a randomized mix of humans from different places, with different cultures and different manners of living. Humanity has no rules, except those it has created for itself, and those vary widely from place to place and change over time. Of course humans behave differently, depending on many factors. It's easy to find fault within humanity, because humanity has created a bewildering set of rules for itself that are more or less followed by humans in various places and at various times.

It's interesting that you have tried to equate variety of behavior in humanity in comparison with my earlier post about the variability of religious belief and expression within a single religion with a single scripture in common.

Apples and rocks do not compare easily.

[guillaumeb]

22. Ultimately we are talking about human behavior, so the apples/rocks does not apply.

And we are talking about claimed motivation for behavior.

As the numerous posts here have shown, defining who or what is a Democrat inspires as much or more debate as the debate over religious belief.

If, for example, I would title a post "Bernie Sanders is far more an authentic Democrat than Joe Manchin", that title and argument would be the occasion of much heated debate.

No matter the beliefs or the structural aspect of those beliefs, division is a defining characteristic of the human experience. So to express surprise in the form of a post when such division occurs might be significant more of the beliefs of the poster.

[trotsky]

24. All we can go on is what someone's "claimed motivation" is.

This has been pointed out to you countless times, but you refuse to acknowledge it and instead believe that you alone can decide whether someone was truly motivated by religion. (Coincidentally I'm sure, you always seem to decide that if it's a "good" thing, it was probably motivated by their religion, but if it's "bad," it was probably patriotism or something else.)

[guillaumeb]

25. Persistence can be a positive thing.

But not when it encompasses persistent mischaracterization, as you have just done with your mischaracterization, or complete misunderstanding, of my view on religion.

Where did you do this?

Here:

This has been pointed out to you countless times, but you refuse to acknowledge it and instead believe that you alone can decide whether someone was truly motivated by religion. (Coincidentally I'm sure, you always seem to decide that if it's a "good" thing, it was probably motivated by their religion, but if it's "bad," it was probably patriotism or something else.)

The easiest way for you to prove yourself would be to post something that I said that actually fits with your accusation. Good luck in that endeavor.

[trotsky]

32. I will let readers of this group judge the accuracy of my assessment.

I am perfectly content to do so.

[elleng]

26. Something like 'human nature,' I'm afraid.

Kind of mother nature's little 'joke.'