Religion = Waste of Life. Is that clear?

The worlds first officially Atheist state was Stalinist basket-case Albania, an Orwellian nightmare of a place – impoverished, isolated, and with a secret police carrying out radical secularisation policies. Flared trousers and long-hair were also illegal

Nietzsche mocked Kant for "finding the key to the cage" and then choosing to remain inside it. I just now realised, reading Nude Spock and Hanle y — ILE's answer to Kant and Nietzsche (what a great answer) — that my disbelief in God is just as Kantian. I don't like the "ultimately one intelligent cause behind everything" position because I think it tends to induce bad (= intolerant) behaviour towards others.

That said, ILE's most open believers — anthony and Gale (apologies if I forgot someone) — are both very tolerant. (Gale puts up with all our cussing!! It's harder sometimes I think to tolerate constant small things which you hate than massive one-off things which you KNOW are worse… )

I think that if there is a God, arguing against the Bible is not the same as arguing against God's existence at all. And that if you are talking about "harnessing God-energies" and calling yourself nonreligious you need to look at your terms again.

Reformers who push their own ideas want a pat on the back and act out of arrogance. I merely see a problem and, yes, "want to help". Religion is quite the cause of several problems in our lives. No, I don't stand on street corners, because I don't believe people welcome unwanted condemnation. However, posting a good resource for those who might need to get some "space" from religious zealots, such as oppressive parents or boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. on the internet isn't much of a big deal. To anyone who was offended, I suggest you grow up and take a look at what's so offensive about the idea that YOU'RE religion might be wrong. Did you think it brought you closer to god? Does it give you a sense of security? Why do you need this security blanket? The idea that "any religion is okay, they're all the same" is fine and good in an open-minded kind of way, but not when you take a look at the historical inaccuracies and falsehoods being handed down the line from generation to generation and the harm that is caused from this. Allowing people to believe what they want to believe is very considerate, but when you find out that someone thinks babies come from a stork, for instance, you have an obligation to fill them in on the reality of the situation. Same goes for religion. There's not a one that frees the mind or enhances the individual's life experience.

Direct revelation through meditation, as proven by science = beneficial to the mind for several reasons, none of which are limiting. What's inside your head is a reflection of what's outside your head, so to understand your mind, is to understand how all minds work and society. But, this sort of direct revelation is quite different, as the definition of "god" is quite different. God, in this sense, means everything, not the creator who communicates with you and blesses your little heart, thereby allowing you to smoke, drink and fuck while claiming to be "born again". Meditative revelation is about watching your mind and learning from it. It's scientific method for an invisible and elusive subject (yer brain).

Don't they have Magic, Religion & Witchcraft courses in the Universities in Canada and England? It's the easiest class you'll ever take and it's very interesting.

They're institutions started by and run by human beings. How could they by run in a godl-like manner? Human beings aren't gods. The fact that human beings in general are assholes isn't the fault of religion. You might as well blame natural selection for the ills of the world.

Ethan, the lady has some unpopular ideas, for sure. It doesn't make her correct points incorrect. It just makes her a convenient target. But, like RAWilson and a few others, she goes out on a limb. I like that. That doesn't meen I want to worship everything she says. If you see above, I DID only give specific links. Make of the entire site what you will, but there's plenty of sillier things in the nearest holy book.

I stick with my revelation above: quasi- Kantian justification for non-God belief (ie that it makes you a superior person) => jerky prauncing QED all up thread.

Clearly the whole moral relativism thing went way over your head aswell, so I pretty much give up there.

So does work, so does love, so do family, so does fucking life in general.

"it's the same book", yes but read differently (not because of translation as "alder tree" from some plant only found nr Hebron(, but becuz difft passages — in a big ole bulgy book full of potential contradictions — are picked up in difft places and difft times and striped voah w. today's yellow highlighter. You yourself pointed out how recently Revelations came to be introduced into the canon: as before, you can't have it both ways. Intro of Rev = new material = shift towards difft (possibly fatally difft) version of Xtianity (hence central office panic, inter-Xtian wars etc) OR Intro of Rev = same old same old in which case nothing to rest anti-Xtian case on in itself.

G'night sweet vulcan see ya tomorrow if my pore LC475 survives ("she's gunna blow captain"). I don't believe in God either: but I also don't believe in Rubbish Persuasive Tactics just by Accident. You're dicking everyone off because deep deep deep down you want ppl NOT to come over to yr camp: if you REALLY wanted to, you'd make it seem a less pissy place to be in.

But, seriously, if you're going to say I can't know I'm right, that any religion could be TRUE, you'd have to give some reason to believe that maybe one religion was right. And, to do this, you'd have to start from an historically accurate standpoint and work your way through the teachings and history of the religion. True, the actions of a Church are the actions of man, but when they are acting in accordance with written word, things become difficult, don't they? When the texts don't jibe with older texts, when historical inaccuracies pop up, when the religion comes up with new additions throughout the years, when the absorption and distillation of other religions becomes factual and dated, you've got issues to deal with regarding this one true religion.

"Religion = Waste of Life. Is that clear?"

Well, ask a stupid question...

Dan, I can see how it could be off-putting, but, cripes, my own mother just got a glance at the religious database I'm putting together and agreed with 99% of what she looked at, especially the stuff about OTHER religions, of course. After years and years of disagreement at a very basic level, she emailed me this today:

 "I agree with you - including your belief about

religions controlling people!  The wars prove that.  Celebrations

of  holidays proves that.  Hatreds of people of other faiths/races

proves that. Ethnic "cleansing"  proves that, etc., etc.  People are like

sheep, really, myself included, wouldn't you agree?



However, I try, I really try, to have the courage of my convictions -

religious and otherwise.  However, like I said, I am a sheep.

[Probably a fat ewe is a more accurate description...  :-))]



 (I know, you are thinking "Mom, YOUR religion controls you, too!")

Well, it is definitely a major force in my life!



However, I believe I am my own person,  as I strive

to use my mental faculties, my life's experiences, common sense,

education, the media, etc., to formulate how I will live and make

decisions.  I hope you can see that I do this. (No comment

necessary.)



Most surprising, I find that you have read your Bible! Sorry I doubted you, 

[Spock]. :-)

Coming from a cult-like mindset of extreme Christianity, this is a big deal for my mom to say. In fact, I've never heard her say anything remotely close to this. The major problem for me now is copyright infringment. I have no idea how I'll deal with this if I make this database public (which I'm not sure I'd do unless I can find a way to spoof my IP).

I also consider myself agnostic, but what I think that means is that I can't (yet) judge about religions. So what I'm asking here is for my own learning, not to spite you or anything.

All that business about how Judaism and Christianity come from the mythologies of other cultures is completely missing the point. Maybe this makes them more valid rather than less valid. Many ancient cultures had similar aspects in their mythologies: floods, crop gods, sacrifices, afterlives, etc. Does that mean that it's all bunk? No. Maybe that symbolism, the symbolism of the course of history and the dynamics of give-and-take in life, shouldn't be taken literally, but somewhere in between literally and poetically (because seeing too much metaphor destroys any actual reality something may have, which is my quarrel with my English teachers, not you).

Science can be a roundabout way of finding things people already came up with. Your conception of God sounds like a possible conception that I formed after reading not quantum mechanics, but Buddhist doctrines and the Tao te Ching. Buddhism and Taoism are based on internal observation and thought, while science is based on outward testing...is it that impossible for them to come up with similar things, or for humans to make the same interpretations? Science answers how questions, and religion answers why questions, even though there's a few last ones no religion can answer.

Another thing. Why do you call yourself completely logical and still refer to things as good and evil? You transfer what you want out of life - no pain or religious restrictions - to things that other people should avoid, too. And that's not moral relativism.

Religion can also give you good perspective, even if you don't follow it. Thoreau, for example (I use him a lot, I'm doing a research paper on him you see), studied Christianity, the Upanishads, classical literature, and the Tao, all of which he frequently spoke of. He was not a follower of any specific religion, but he took the insights he wanted out of all of them. That makes it not a waste of life.

Okay, last. If you've got a religion that you're absolutely positive of in your faith, why not try to convert people? Why respect their beliefs, if yours is right? I bet I wouldn't, if my religion was exclusive. As long as it's true, that's all the excuse you need. (The problem is when other people don't agree. But it's a purely internal decision.)

Maria, the reason it doesn't is because it combines several different aspects of several gods and creates a new one. Historically, it was done to convert new territories and assimilate new people under the tyrannical invading religion. No one religion is the only culprit of this behavior. No religion today can be considered a pure religion. So, what is actually true about them? Interestingly, the religions they've replaced are to be considered "evil", while the aspects they've appropriated are considered "holy". Where is the "truth" in that?

Many ancient cultures had similar aspects in their mythologies: floods, crop gods, sacrifices, afterlives, etc. Does that mean that it's all bunk? No. Maybe that symbolism, the symbolism of the course of history and the dynamics of give-and-take in life, shouldn't be taken literally, but somewhere in between literally and poetically (because seeing too much metaphor destroys any actual reality something may have, which is my quarrel with my English teachers, not you).

This is a good point. So what's wrong with this? The problem is when a religion adopts characteristics of other religions and then condemns the prior religion for what it has, in fact, adopted. This is why holy books are inconsistent and better off left to "scholars" to interpret for you, such as preists, etc. However, is this then coming from God at all? What is the point of a religious doctrine if its words are not infallible and consistent? How is the doctrine then any more valid than another flawed holy book?

Science can be a roundabout way of finding things people already came up with. Your conception of God sounds like a possible conception that I formed after reading not quantum mechanics, but Buddhist doctrines and the Tao te Ching. Buddhism and Taoism are based on internal observation and thought, while science is based on outward testing...is it that impossible for them to come up with similar things, or for humans to make the same interpretations? Science answers how questions, and religion answers why questions, even though there's a few last ones no religion can answer.

There is a very good reason Buddhism has been considered the "sensible" religion by many westerners who've come to see it as the superior religion. But, there is not one "Buddhism" religion and you'll find that there are many different "paths to enlightenment" depending on which Buddhism you're referring to. Buddhism, as a technique/discipline for meditation is not the Buddhism that has a violent history (surprisingly). Buddhism's "scriptures" are extremely lengthy in comparison to christian scriptures. This is because there is no specific Buddhist doctrine. Therefore, the practice of Buddhism you may practice in your living room, from a How To sort of Buddhist book is not the religion called "Buddhism". If you find the volumes of Buddhist scripture (Penguin books has one that's a classic, by the way) you'll find a lot that does not jibe with the Buddhism you've learned in various simplified introductory books. My favorite Buddhism book is called "Buddhism, Plain & Simple", in which the author, an ordained Buddhist minister specifically says he does not consider himself a Buddhist and he is not impressed with anyone who does.

Another thing. Why do you call yourself completely logical and still refer to things as good and evil?

I don't. If I do say "evil", I usually put it in quotes, like I just have. I've been saying that these terrorist actions are not done by evil people since the beginning here on ILE and I don't think such a thing as Evil even exists. I believe in a Buddhist interpretation of "right seeing, right action". This means that, if you claim you want peace, you don't go around killing people. Simple as that. People are vessels for ideas and bad programming and they can change at the drop of a hat. Evil is a concept that was invented, by the way, a semantic distinction from "Good" to instill fear, and doesn't make sense from a wholistic perspective. People do things you don't approve of, but what makes you correct? Perhaps they do these things because of what your ancestors did to them. There is no Good and Evil. There is a bastardized concept floating around that is useless.

You transfer what you want out of life - no pain or religious restrictions - to things that other people should avoid, too. And that's not moral relativism.

Moral relativism is what I just described. Who has the right to declare what's "evil"? Um, maybe God, if there is one, but in that case which religion has the proper God to determine such a thing? Here is why religion is a "waste of life", as I said. To trace back the word of God accurately, you must lie, because no word of God to this day can truthfully be considered the actual word of Yahwe or Allah or Krishna or Buddha or whatever (Buddha's just a guy, anyway, who may or may not actually exist under the given name Buddha). It is just a simple, documented fact. If you research the origins of these beings, you find that they come from other ideas. The point of this is that each religion declares that it is the true word of God. None of them are. In fact, where is the logic to selectively believing any of it? It's easier to let other people decide what to believe and be done with it. You can very easily reject religion and remain "religious" by "right seeing and right action". This is not an endorsement of Buddhism, just common sense.

Religion can also give you good perspective, even if you don't follow it. Thoreau, for example (I use him a lot, I'm doing a research paper on him you see), studied Christianity, the Upanishads, classical literature, and the Tao, all of which he frequently spoke of. He was not a follower of any specific religion, but he took the insights he wanted out of all of them. That makes it not a waste of life.

That is not religion in the sense I meant it, then. This is actually personally defined morality, using myths as guideposts. Let me also clarify that I did not mean that if you are religious, you might as well kill yourself. When I say "waste of life", I am talking about moments, instances of life, choices and opportunities that are forbidden. I am also talking about people killed in the name of God. I am talking about blindly following lies. To read all religions and say, "I like this idea" and "I like that idea" is a perfect way to use your mind. But, the religions themselves have pitfalls which makes their totality less than benign. Belief in false ideas doesn't do much to help a person. As I said, the religions themselves are devisive, not inclusive. While Gale's church may be the best open-arms kinda church in the world, I doubt they'd allow anyone to celebrate Chanukkah there and there is always the belief that Jews killed the savior, so that's not too sweet a set-up. I am talking about the religions themselves, the limitations they impose and the uselessness of following such limitations. For example, it MAY make you feel good to wait until you're married to have sex. Then again, what would you're opinion be on the matter if it wasn't drilled into your head as some kind of sin? Masturbation is a sin. Believe me, there are people who lead humdrum lives simply because it's expected of them to follow the family religion.

Okay, last. If you've got a religion that you're absolutely positive of in your faith, why not try to convert people? Why respect their beliefs, if yours is right? I bet I wouldn't, if my religion was exclusive. As long as it's true, that's all the excuse you need. (The problem is when other people don't agree. But it's a purely internal decision.)

Well, that's the point I'm making above all, isn't it? What do you think Zionism, Jihad and the spread of Christianity was all about? And, then again, when you take into account that you can never be absolutely positive in your faith, that throws another monkeywrench in the whole shebang. To be absolutely positive would require turning a blind eye to faulty logic.

Actually, this hasn't really been brought up, but the fact that you ask this is no doubt due to a certain carelessness of mine, which I erroneously thought would be understood. "Right" and "wrong" in the sense I've been using them are similar to the right and wrong answers of a mathematical equation, not "right" and "wrong" as in "good" and "evil". (Language almost creates more problems than it solves, as each word has several meanings.) This is not a universal "right" and "wrong", but the right and wrong that would define itself relative to utopian goals, as most religions and political beliefs have these so-called perfect aims in mind, excluding, obviously, such religions as Temple of Set. In this case, "right" and "wrong" define themselves as terms in a means to an end. In this way, true also means "good", as in the opposite of false/garbage or "bad". An incorrect answer to a mathematical equation is "bad" or false. A true answer is "good" or valid. This is what I have meant every time I've used the terms "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". It is due to my complete familiarity with this identification system that I have been unclear in this regard, simply because I take this interpretation for granted. It is common in Buddhism, for instance. Believing things are intrinsicly true and good will get you nowhere, as Ronan has made clear. I, however, thought his points at moral relativism were more a "devil's advocate" sort of nuissance, rather than an actual point of contention. Like I said, I take it for granted that my terms are understood. Sorry about that. However, things can be true within a system, as in a mathematical equation. In this case, the system would simply be "right seeing" and "right action" in terms of building a utopian society. It is for the simple reason that devisive ideologies exist that there is no agreement about what is "right". Religions are not content with peaceful cohabitation, with "right action". They need to wipe out infadels and destroy those who are not of the bloodline or refuse to convert. While each religion claims divine origin, each denounces the other as false and evil. In the end, there is no way for this utopian equation to work itself out unless there is mass murder and mass conformity. Even then, the equation is false because this "right action" would not stem from "right seeing". It would only stem from fear. And, as we all know, fear of religion does not keep people from rebelling against the system. Therefore, there would be no true understanding to complete the equation. In N + X = Y, N and X must actually be N and X in order to equal Y.

People will never wake up as long as they are blinded by political and religious ideologies. The world's problems are due to devision, selfishness and pure lack of understanding that this system/ these systems are not going to work and on some level are always failing. You can't separate people by class, religion, etc. and let half the world starve while the other half counts it's millions and expect to maintain a peaceful existence. There can be no "holier than thous". Someone upthread has said, "well, people are just assholes"...and that's completely true in a certain respect, but the situation is not going to be helped by prolonging the belief in these institutions that create these assholes and foster these assholish tendencies. The political structures of this world will never create lasting peace. At best, the end result will be extreme government with continued class distinctions because people fear "evil". They fear others. They fear losing what they have. Greed is caused by fear, but the existence of greed is what creates cause for fear. Without greed, there would be no fear (barring fear of death and random disorders such as agoraphobia, of course). If everyone saw that to harm another was to harm oneself (in the long run), this would lead to "right action". There is enough food to feed the world, enough money to house the poor. If the system was set up in such a way that no one was without and no one was in need, the equation would gradually work itself out. Money is security against the things we fear. We don't want to be destitute or worry about debt. We hoard money because we learn to do so in this set-up. People will kill people for money. Nobody has learned the simplest ideas since the beginning of time because there has never truly been security.

I'm not saying that the consumer attitude of buying and owning and hoarding is caused by fear on an individual basis, but more out of sheer ignorance. The cause of this result stems from fear. The governments are a reflection of the people, but the people aren't always fully aware of global concerns. The prevailing selfishness and devisiveness is what has set up this lovely balance we have today in the world. "Right seeing, right action" has no chance of working on a global scale until people actually realize that there is more benefit overall in sharing the wealth. Given the attitudes of most, this will not happen until they have no other choice but to get along. Even at this point it would take a simultaneous, global understanding (Riiiiight. Given the quantum leaps in education from one area to the next, a global understanding will never occur). This "understanding" would most likely necessarily start off as a governmentally-enforced set of laws. I see that the powers-that-be are already aware of this and are coming closer to a New World Order even as we speak, the current chain of events seeming quite like a set up. I am quite sure that if a New World Order rises from the rubble, there will be class distinctions, but overall this may be a step in the right direction. Like I said, extensive government does not equal freedom, but it may actually be necessary to force some people to play together nice... However, this is not my idea of utopia.

Damn is that on already? What channel and when?

Mr Safran lives down the road from me. I saw him at the Coles in his Pope John jacket.