Jew/Muslim are religions NOT A RACE

[Brian37]

Judaism can be a race, it can also be a social group, but in the sense that a lot of people use it, they desperately try to imply that being Jewish is always a race and therefore, it is racism to disparage Judaism.  They also try to do it with Islam, for which there is absolutely no defense.  Brian is absolutely right that in practice, this race-card crap is obnoxious and false, even if in practice, some Jews can be part of a common racial group.

I am picking on the big three because currently they are causing the most distractions worldwide. But Buddhists and Hindus have pulled the race card too. I think once you read Dawkins and Stenger and Hitchens and Harris it becomes clear that religion causes more problems than it solves. And again, it isn't that you can completely rid the world of it, but our species would do far better if we would stop claiming it isn't the cause of human divisions.

Once you form a group and it gets political power it can ignore the damage it does to outsiders because our species cooperation has more to do with protecting what is local than taking a long term wider view of the world.

[abaris]

I think once you read Dawkins and Stenger and Hitchens and Harris it becomes clear that religion causes more problems than it solves. And again, it isn't that you can completely rid the world of it, but our species would do far better if we would stop claiming it isn't the cause of human divisions.

You don't need Dawkins, Stenger or Harris to know that religion causes problems. It's not rocket science. But to reduce every problem to religion is a tad too simplistic for my tastes, since in most cases it misses the mark by a mile. Even if you were to rid the world of religion, you wouldn't be even one step further in advancing the human species. People would just look for the next game in town and give it some ideological meaning to feel exclusive towards other groups.

We already been there in the past century and as long as there isn't a threat for humanity as a whole, we will never be at peace with each other.

[Brian37]

I think once you read Dawkins and Stenger and Hitchens and Harris it becomes clear that religion causes more problems than it solves. And again, it isn't that you can completely rid the world of it, but our species would do far better if we would stop claiming it isn't the cause of human divisions.

You don't need Dawkins, Stenger or Harris to know that religion causes problems. It's not rocket science. But to reduce every problem to religion is a tad too simplistic for my tastes, since in most cases it misses the mark by a mile. Even if you were to rid the world of religion, you wouldn't be even one step further in advancing the human species. People would just look for the next game in town and give it some ideological meaning to feel exclusive towards other groups.

We already been there in the past century and as long as there isn't a threat for humanity as a whole, we will never be at peace with each other.

No see this is where you are oversimplifying my simplification. I am currently on another website arguing this same issue.

"Its complicated" is the argument which no one is disputing. The simplification I am making is what those authors explain in much more detail specifically Dawkins and Stenger I am only summarizing theirs. One post is not a good way to get their detailed explanation, it is only intended to get people to think about the scientific reasons humans create religions and why because of their own unawareness of our flawed perceptions we get divided.

Of course religion is complicated, and no not all religious people are bad. My point is that it is still a result of kaleidoscope thinking that forms groups. The downside is we want to think respectively we are doing something unique when the flawed perceptions that lead us to create groups is ultimately the same reason we all do it as a species.

The human invented construct we call religion is done for the same reason throughout or species history, not because the religion itself is required, but because it is easier for us to form a group for survival than it is to question the group we live in. 

It literally stems from natural selection and fight or flight. I said it before but it is no different than the gap filling a an antelope might make in making a quick sudden decision as to if the grass is being blown by mere wind, or a lion laying in wait. It is simply easier for our species to gap fill and hand our flawed answers down to the next generation than it is for us to question those gap answers. 

Religion is an outcome not a requirement. Just like the dinosaurs didn't have gods nor do bacteria. Religion is uniquely a human invention but it is still just that, an invention, just like parents invent stories of Santa and the tooth fairy to comfort a child. It brings humans comfort, and even safety but it is not anything more than a placebo.

[abaris]

The human invented construct we call religion is done for the same reason throughout or species history, not because the religion itself is required, but because it is easier for us to form a group for survival than it is to question the group we live in. 

Which is exactly my point. And because of being uncomfortable with the unknown.

[downbeatplumb]

Maybe judasim is like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdolFXcNAH4