Problems of Religion (geography)

Why is it that some people believe one religion while others believe a different one? Is it because people look at the different ones and think which one is right and then choose to follow it? Is it that they are all the same so it doesn't matter which one you follow? Not according to those who slaughter others for believing something different. Is it that people just follow what everyone else around them is following?

On the whole and certainly before large scale travel a person believed the religion of the region in which they where born? In historical times it was often socially impossible to not follow the same faith as your peers (they'd either shun or kill you!). However without social pressures, even today, it seems most people will just take the faith of their birth place especially if they stay put. I posit if the same religious person was born and raised somewhere else with a different religion they would believe that instead, especially in the times where other religions where unknown.

If all religions feel that they are mirrors of the other faiths and all stemming from the same source then there should be no question of which is the right one. As there is this question, as religions do feel that they are unique and each one views itself to be then one then why does geographical location represent the strongest factor determining which faith will be followed?

If it does turn out that it is the location that determines religious belief then that debases any one's claim of being the right one. Moreover it calls further into question the validity of each one.

City-dwellers emit less CO2 than countryfolk

Some not particularly bright spark released a report which states that people who live in the country side consume more electricity than city dwellers. Off course country folk consume more resources per capita, they are tasked with the job of feeding all the people in the city as well as themselves. Where do people think their food comes from? Are we really that mentally disconected with our environment?

Heres the post on current.com

Cutting Wheels

The Wheel; the invention which we think of as being the most important in our development. However I would argue that before we could make the wheel we would need an axe or some cutting implement. A blade of some sort would have occurred before the wheel, would have been instrumental in making the wheel and would have been needed to go hunt for lunch while taking a break from building the first wheel.

The Blade was what gave us our first set of really sharp teeth, made us into hunters we became and whittled society into shape. Therefore is it not our most important invention?

I think that it is more palatable to think of mankind as creative inventor rather than reactive arms developer, but that is our nature, we have cut not rolled our way though history.

A subtle notion I have, which some may feel to be far too far fetched, is that by considering the wheel to be more important that the blade we are able to ignore our destructive nature. I think that it is important to own the hunter in us all and I think that if we considered the blade to be the most important invention we would naturally be led to wonder about our aggressive nature as well as our creative nature.