General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf no one believed in an afterlife, I expect there would be fewer suicide bombers.
what think you, DUers?
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,695 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)malaise
(269,004 posts)right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)malaise
(269,004 posts)and occupation of Iraq
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just like ISIS uses religion to do it's bidding. The truth is religion does have its dark side and that can not be denied.
malaise
(269,004 posts)Lennon said it best for me - Imagine
HAB911
(8,892 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So how do we solve the problem of division?
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)Igel
(35,309 posts)Every culture and language that spreads out disintegrates into subcultures and dialects, which later diverge. You can often tell how ethnic groups spread out and fractured by the time depth of their linguistic features. Often you can get cladistic analyses of DNA, cultural artefacts from archeology and linguistic innovations to line up neatly in historical progression.
You don't get two cultures and languages coexisting in the same space for very long before one goes away. Usually by assimilation, leaving traces behind. Sometimes by genocide or out-migration. In rare cases you get things like female/home language versus public language, I think I've read of a case in N. Africa and another in some small ethnic community in the extreme S. of China. In those cases the two languages become specialized by situation. Gal wrote a bit about how Hungarian was giving way to German. ("Gal" is the researcher's actual surname, and is not pronounced as "gal" in "guys and gals".)
It's a commonplace to say that it's really time and space that triggers dialect and cultural divisions. That's usually the case, but we've documented other instances.
One linguist documented a linguistic divergence in a Mayan settlement. Two villages were very close together, but something happened to make them antagonistic to each other. The first research was done in, IIRC, the 1930s, and they differed only slightly. By the 1980s the dialects had diverged quite a bit as each village was an anti-language to the neighboring village, in effect. They innovated "insider" words, pronunciation, and grammar to exclude the other village's speakers. (There's still a debate over the extent to which this is occurring in current American culture. Those most opposed to assimilation are the one's arguing that it's not happening, because they're often advocates for that subculture and that kind of exclusionary thinking is contrary to their basic views. It's not formal linguistics, is sociolinguistics and that's often about as rigorous in handling evidence critically and dispassionately as education or anthropology. If you make this a formal discussion, then you have to somehow operationalize and quantify "similarity" and "divergence". When such topics dropped off my radar perhaps 15 years ago nobody had a clear sense as to how to do that.)
Czechoslovak and Serbo-Croatian are good examples, as well. Nobody thinks Czechoslovak exists, but given a bit of effort and good will and they're mutually intelligible. For a brief while, they emphasized using the words that they had in common, even if they weren't always the most common word for a thing in Czech or Slovak. After the breakup, they emphasized differences. Still, when in Bratislava and I needed to communicate I spoke Czech, they spoke Slovak, and things went smoothly enough.
It's the same kind of situation for Serbian and Croatian (and the further fractured Montenegrin and Bosnian). The Stokavian dialects are easily mutually intelligible, whether Croat or Serb, but choose the right words and you can impede communication. Croatian includes Cakavian, which is harder for a Croatian speaker to get than Serbian. Serbian includes Torlak, which is harder for a Serbian to understand than Croatian. And yet they insist that the language boundary is the political boundary. (As for Montenegrin, I still sneeze in it's general direction. And Bosnian just includes some Turkish words from the time of Ottoman colonialization and apartheid. Yes, I've taken to routinely calling some of those situations "apartheid" in a completely anachronistic manner as a reaction to those who insist other places with less 'separateness' are obligatorily under apartheid.)
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)divisions, it appears even proximity and vastly improved communication will not meld the gap. It seems endemic to the human species to have theses differences even if sometimes a grave disadvantage. ... perhaps driven by a primordial instinct for survival of the fittest, often reflexive.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But speaking from very personal experience, 2 cultures have existed in New Brunswick and Québec since 1745. The Francophone and Anglophone cultures have not always co-existed well, and after Law 101 was passed in Québec many Anglophones left for other provinces, but in general the 2 cultures have achieved a state of coexistence. While the PQ still campaigns on a platform of separatism, it has never enjoyed much success in achieving the goal of a separate country of Québec.
panader0
(25,816 posts)If you kill a few dozen innocent people, will that give you good karma?
Don't think so. Besides, who can handle 73 virgins?
HAB911
(8,892 posts)Give me experience any day
HipChick
(25,485 posts)HAB911
(8,892 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)walkingman
(7,616 posts)if we didn't have so many religious fundamentalists (in all religions) our entire planet would be better off. The idea of deferring important issues to our "GODS" is basically a recipe for disaster.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Religion has done more harm than good in my opinion.
BigmanPigman
(51,593 posts)If there were no religions it would give man (notice I say "man" and not animals) one less reason to kill. Surely they would still kill (testosterone, mental problems, self defense, etc) but they do it for or against a certain ideology.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Solly Mack
(90,767 posts)But I'll ponder it with my own formation of the question.
Without the selling point of an afterlife, where would religion be? Because that's the top tier, premium package of selling points for people - so to speak.
As to fewer suicide bombers, that would probably be a sub-heading to one of the headings my formation would present. One can't discount mental health and feelings of being disaffected - whether real or imagined - sans any religion. But one can also not discount the effect religion has on both, either.
Again, I'll ponder this to myself only.
But Thank you! Your question tickled my pondering bone and I do like to ponder.
Calculating
(2,955 posts)There might be less suicide bombings, but there might be more of other crime types. The thought that we'll be accountable for our actions in life is a strong deterrent against some types of negative social behavior.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)If there is no religion people won't have them morals!
LOL
Calculating
(2,955 posts)But yeah, some people would display more sociopathic traits without religion.
onenote
(42,703 posts)What form they think that afterlife will take varies from person to person. They come from all sorts of religious traditions and in some cases don't base their beliefs on religious doctrine or dogma at all. But I don't imagine any of them as being likely suicide bombers. In fact, most of them probably believe that what sort of afterlife they will have would be adversely impacted if they went out and killed a bunch of people.
BSdetect
(8,998 posts)Why not just get there when you reach enough points?
Iggo
(47,552 posts)There'd still be psychos looking for a different kind of immortality (of the Lee Harvey Oswald/John Wilkes Booth variety), but the ticket-to-paradise guys would be non-existent.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Orrex
(63,212 posts)And don't even get me started about all the extraneous mastabas.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Nor mistaking these people for someone engaged in rational thought. For those engaged in anything close to rational thought, it is usually the expectation, either from their communities or from a supernatural being, that their family will be cared for, when they are already incapable of doing so on their own.
superpatriotman
(6,249 posts)your phrasing of the question 'what think you' is nauseatingly similar to Bill O'Reilly which flummoxes and frustrates me.
raccoon
(31,111 posts)had a TV in every room.
rock
(13,218 posts)I also expect there would be fewer suicide bombers if the crime carried a penalty of chopping off certain body parts.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And the dictator of NK as well.
If state sponsored terrorism that has killed untold millions counts anyway.