10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[iaggrey]

I'll admit...I kind of cringed when I saw the title of this article, but I read it with an open mind. I've been a fan of Mr. Pavlina for months now (really enjoyed the Raw Food Diet series)...sure, I've had a few disagreements here and there, but I could appreciate what he was trying to do: make the world a better (and smarter) place. It seemed like he put in a level of care and attention to detail in his editorials that seemed virtually unmatched in the blogosphere.

On the other hand, this article bares no comparison to previous entires (in my opinion) ...it's filled with emotion, no second point of view/counterargument, and no apparent sense of a higher meaning/purpose to its reader. It was like reading a "stream of consciousness"...but not in a good way considering the volatility of the subject.

Ultimately, I'm sure Mr. Pavlina thought he was doing the world good (which is commendable) by publishing his article, but were insults (direct and indirect) of others (the "dummies") entirely necessary?

Furthermore, the article instantly puts religious folk on the defensive (thus not receptive to the article) and forces everyone into the us-vs-them (conscious vs. unconscious; faith vs. no faith) situation that "is totally incongruent with conscious living" according to the same article.

This couldn't possibly be the desired result of Mr. Pavlina who strives to guide us all to a higher level of consciousness.

Also, I won't bother trying to retort with how I feel about the actual content of the subject right now because this is not the place to do so (i.e., I'll blog about it some other time).

I believe a more well-mannered article would have garnered a more effective response/change among those spiritual "dummies", but thank you for spending your time on the article, Mr. Pavlina.

P.S. I didn't read most of the comments left (due to the sheer volume), so hopefully I'm not regurgitating anything that's already been said!

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

This piece is written in a provocative style. That was intentional. The perspective is worded strongly so it will have an impact on those who read it. Wimpy wording usually falls on deaf ears and doesn't help anyone.

I've seen you use that defence a couple of times now and it's a cop out. Writing can be strong without being divisive and it can be provocative (of thought) without demonising.

You argue that you don't own this point of view, but you still consciously chose to express it. You are responsible for that expression.

If we wanted to read simplified diatribes against religion, there are countless sites out there dedicated to it. You can do better.

P.S. I have no religion, not that that matters.

[Inquisitive Raven]

Originally Posted by Plato

"It tastes good" is the only defence of eating meat and as far as moral arguments go, not a very strong one.

Not necessarily. There are, apparently, some people who simply cannot adapt to a vegetarian diet. Temple Grandin, who is on record as empathizing more readily with animals than people, stated in her book Animals in Translation that she tried to go vegetarian and ran into health issues as a result. I can't give an exact quote because I don't have the book handy (It was a library copy), but I'm sure people could look it up. Note: she is of the opinion that if people are going eat meat, they have a responsibility to treat those animals as humanely as possible even when slaughtering them. In fact, she makes her living designing humane animal handling systems, and that includes for slaughterhouses.

I'm also on an email support group for picky eaters, many of whom would starve if they didn't eat meat. In those cases, it seems to be more of a sensory issue. Many people on the list seem unable to tolerate the smell and/or texture of a lot of fruits and vegetables. That certainly seems to be the case for a lot of foods with me.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Lupe

How about 10 reasons why you should never read stevepavlina.com? Just joking.

That would be a funny post if Steve wrote it.

I would say THAT post would require even more gonads than the religious one.

[munish]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Many religious teachers (i.e. priests, rabbis, ministers, etc.) are just brainwashed slaves themselves. They don’t have any real authority and aren’t even aware of the agenda being set by their superiors.

Many temples in india are funded and owned by a few (powerful) people.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Those who preach nonviolence as a rule or law tend to be the most violent of all.

There are many institutes teaching non-violence.I don't understand how can one teach non-violence.

M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

[Angela]

One more reason not to have a religion:

If you ever run for President of the United States, whatever crazy-ass thing your pastor says will come bite you in the butt, and you'll have to end up quitting the church anyway.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Angela

One more reason not to have a religion:

When I originally read the post from Steve, I thought "Hmmm, this post is not the best way to get the right-wing religious vote when he's going to run for president"

[pianoperformer]

If you ever run for President of the United States, whatever crazy-ass thing your pastor says will come bite you in the butt, and you'll have to end up quitting the church anyway.

don't even get me started. Stupidity.... I personally thought the most recent comment that poked fun at Clinton was funny. But that's just me.

When I originally read the post from Steve, I thought "Hmmm, this post is not the best way to get the right-wing religious vote when he's going to run for president"

Haha, I doubt he'd want it. Though the chance of Steve wanting to run for president I think is about as likely as a pig flying through my window.

*ducks*

[Kent F]

Originally Posted by iaggrey

I'll admit...I kind of cringed when I saw the title of this article, but I read it with an open mind. I've been a fan of Mr. Pavlina for months now (really enjoyed the Raw Food Diet series)...sure, I've had a few disagreements here and there, but I could appreciate what he was trying to do: make the world a better (and smarter) place. It seemed like he put in a level of care and attention to detail in his editorials that seemed virtually unmatched in the blogosphere.

On the other hand, this article bares no comparison to previous entires (in my opinion) ...it's filled with emotion, no second point of view/counterargument, and no apparent sense of a higher meaning/purpose to its reader. It was like reading a "stream of consciousness"...but not in a good way considering the volatility of the subject.

Ultimately, I'm sure Mr. Pavlina thought he was doing the world good (which is commendable) by publishing his article, but were insults (direct and indirect) of others (the "dummies") entirely necessary?

Furthermore, the article instantly puts religious folk on the defensive (thus not receptive to the article) and forces everyone into the us-vs-them (conscious vs. unconscious; faith vs. no faith) situation that "is totally incongruent with conscious living" according to the same article.

This couldn't possibly be the desired result of Mr. Pavlina who strives to guide us all to a higher level of consciousness.

Also, I won't bother trying to retort with how I feel about the actual content of the subject right now because this is not the place to do so (i.e., I'll blog about it some other time).

I believe a more well-mannered article would have garnered a more effective response/change among those spiritual "dummies", but thank you for spending your time on the article, Mr. Pavlina.

P.S. I didn't read most of the comments left (due to the sheer volume), so hopefully I'm not regurgitating anything that's already been said!

Much more elegant than my feeble attempt - well done.

Steve should demand a refund if he paid a ghost writer for this. I won't go so far as to suggest Steve owes anyone an apology - I'm sure he could care less - but it is so poorly done it tarnishes his name in my book. I usually don't come here for comic relief - I can get that elsewhere.

Kent

[Erin Pavlina]

So many assumptions about motivation and intent. So many conclusions drawn on false assumptions. It might be wise to assume nothing, find out the truth, and then decide how to think and feel.

[seeker5]

It's hard for me to put this into words, but I think the post has even benefited me. I "gave up" religion about 15-16 years ago, so I didn't think it would have any effect on me. However, this past week, I've noticed that when talking about religion to others, I've been much more forthcoming, open and volunteering about not being a Christian or Muslim at all. I've lived in the American bible belt for a good number of years so I was always careful about how I talked about religion. I never hide that I was an atheist (which I was until a year ago), but I rarely volunteered that I was if the discussion turned to religion. However this past week, I've twice engaged in discussions of religion with people in my city and I felt a lot more open in volunteering what I believed. I guess seeing them as "morons" for believing in something led by a huge power group helps re-frame the situation . It's been quite neat.

[goodstyles]

I haven't finished this article, and maybe I should before posting, but the tone of it so far is such that I couldn't help but write.

Seriously, last week, I finished "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. If you want a fantastic critic of religion and why it isn't rationally grounded, how it came to be and still is, and the basis of morality etc., read this. Steve's article (so far) was just bitter/offensive. Not for me personally, since I'm not so easily offended, but it was just... an attack.

If you have the awareness level of a snail

... ? Seriously dude, is that necessary? Don't assume that since your reader might not be as "conscious" as you, that you're above them. You are just in another place...

Anyways, I have said my peace. That article, which I'm off to finish up was disappointing. Fortunately I had read "The God Delusion" and I know how a discussion on religion, it's merits/relevence should really be undertaken...

I hope this was just a bad day, and not as anyone has suggested on these forums, a post with alterior motives.

P.

[hardian]

Thanks for all the post Steve

[Hoamaru]

Lol...This blog post did exactly what it was planned to do.

It made everyone think. It made everyone respond. Some responded based on emotions, others not.

I still believe in God, but I can definitely understand a lot of points Steve makes. Ofcoarse, there are people in religion that don't fit what was said in the article, but that's not really the point of the article.

All I realy have to say is...Just think a little more before you respond to this article.

[Game Producer]

Lol. Nice provocative post.

But wrong: of course you gotta join a church.
Look for example here: Jedi Church

[Kent F]

Realizing essentially no one here agrees with Steve's style - I think what this writing clearly indicates is that even those with a tremendous level of consciousness such as Steve can still have very toxic feelings/emotions when raised in a legalistic environment.

This section was especially troubling:

When you externalize compassion into a set of rules and laws, what you’re left with isn’t compassion at all. True compassion is a matter of conscious choice, and that requires the absence of force-backed rules and laws.

The more religious a person becomes, the less compassionate s/he is. The illusion of compassion substitutes for the real thing. Religious people tend to be the most bigoted and non-accepting people on earth. They’re the least trustworthy and suffer from the grossest character defects. They pretend they’re doing good, but they’re really collaborators in a system designed to push people into unconscious slavery to a “higher” authority. They are slaves promoting slavery.

People with such a traumatic upbringing clearly have a real problem believing any good can come from organized compassion - when it's backed by a religious group.

Call me crazy - but I contend Mother Theresa was more compassionate than Steve Pavlina. So, maybe she really wasn't very religious - I could discuss that issue - but she lived her life completely for the cause of being Christ to the poor and downtrodden.

Again - I'll listen to the argument that toxic religion - which is Steve's upbringing - is not too compassionate. But, true followers of Jesus have a strong leaning toward being advocates for the downtrodden - with no strings attached.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Kent F

Realizing essentially no one here agrees with Steve's style - I think what this writing clearly indicates is that even those with a tremendous level of consciousness such as Steve can still have very toxic feelings/emotions when raised in a legalistic environment.

The irony of it all is that Steve attacks the perverted religion of Christianity and suggest something that is somehow closer to True Christianity. Unfortunately he is still using the weapons of the old theory of life.

I'd like to quote Master Tolstoy:

In the first theory of life a man's life is limited to his one individuality; the aim of life is the satisfaction of the will of this individuality. In the second theory of life a man's life is limited not to his own individuality, but to certain societies and classes of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation; the aim of life is limited to the satisfaction of the will of those associations of individuals. In the third theory of life a man's life is limited not to societies and classes of individuals, but extends to the principle and source of life--to God.

Steve is still using Violence, and that's Level 2.

There is no easy way to do this.... I discovered it recently talking with an old woman in the train. We engaged in a nice conversation and at one point I steered the discussion to religion. She was a Christian-Orthodox, believing in her Church. All I tried to do is point out certain inconsistencies between what Christ taught and what Church permits and even encourages. She was left speechless. She knew she could not contradict me. And yet, I felt I hurt her somehow. And I regretted that. At one point she took advantage of a phone call I received and pretended to go to sleep.

Who am I to wake up people?

[WageMage]

You know, this post... made me guffaw, then I looked slightly baffled, then slightly guilty.

As someone whose personal opinion is that religion/faith is a form of mental illness, and who watches the believers around him for signs that they may be "led astray", actively contributing to that "deconversion" when possible... of course I was amused by this article - it echoed of what I sometimes feel like shouting, the cheap shots I feel like taking... but resist doing so.

From whence cometh the bafflement and guilt? Well... fundamentally because after the elation of the bald-faced article, that initial "damn!", I thought.. wait a second, take a believer, any believer... imagine him teetering (fully "under the influence" people are almost impervious to any argument) - will he be more or less likely to be deconverted? My answer, for my own simulated model of believers, would be less - it would drive people into defensive denial.

So, funny as it was, I believe this article to be counterproductive to my objectives. Which aren't necessarily Steve's. Pluswhich... dropping a nuke in the pot is, admittedly, a way to stir it.

[Alfred saforo]

I am surpried no one has challenged this ridiculous post. I have written a rebutal on my own site

[Liminal Chris]

I was refered to this blog by a friend.

I have to say, Bravo. As someone who went to Catholic schools for twelve years (soon to be sixteen -- go go postgrad), this article sums up my thoughts on organized religions. Often times in religions classes, I would question and prod and challenge the teacher. Ultimately, every thing came down to "Chris, to those with faith, no answer is necessary; and to those without, no answer is possible". I found that response extremely unsatisfying. It's a cop out.

I do think answers are possible. If I have faith in anything, its in science, logic, and reason. Humans haven't been on this earth a very long time, and already much of the religious mythology has already been debunked by science and logic. I see no reason for this trend to not continue.

The article made me think of Occum's Razor for some reason. "All things being equal, the simplist solution is best". Perhaps, Steve needs to make an eleventh reason. Organized religions are just simply unnecessary. Why do we need religions to be good people? We don't! Many of the moral codes within religions already exist in social contract theory. We have the rules already, why can't we eliminate the excess with an Occum's Razor principle?

To me, I have always viewed religion as a tool. When humanity was immaute, religion became the means through which people dealt with and understood the world. Humanity has evolved and so has our consciousness and understanding of ourselves and the world arround us. I think there has been a paradigm shift, where Science is/has (and I would argue needs to) replaced religion. Eventually something may replace that, but science really is the best option we have at this point. Does it require faith, sure! Faith isn't a bad thing as long as its grounded in something logical.


Anyways, first post ever. I really felt the need to espouse my views. This is a subject that I feel passionate about.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Alfred saforo

I am surpried no one has challenged this ridiculous post. I have written a rebutal on my own site

That post gave me quite a laugh. Steve is very very far from being an atheist.
Atheists generally don't like the belief in "oneness with the source".
They also usually don't like psychics.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

So many assumptions about motivation and intent. So many conclusions drawn on false assumptions. It might be wise to assume nothing, find out the truth, and then decide how to think and feel.

I'm not making any assumption here, but it occurred to me that if I wanted to become impervious to what other people believe or think about me, writing a post like this would be a great way to do it...

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Alfred saforo

I am surpried no one has challenged this ridiculous post. I have written a rebutal on my own site

Last time I checked I wasn't an atheist, so your assumption about that is incorrect. You're not the first person to make that mistake though.

There are quite a number of philosophical positions besides Christian and atheist, including the position of not claiming ownership of any position at all.

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

the position of not claiming ownership of any position at all.

Not sure why, but...

this made me think of The Big Lebowski, and I laughed

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

To me, I have always viewed religion as a tool. When humanity was immaute, religion became the means through which people dealt with and understood the world. Humanity has evolved and so has our consciousness and understanding of ourselves and the world arround us. I think there has been a paradigm shift, where Science is/has (and I would argue needs to) replaced religion. Eventually something may replace that, but science really is the best option we have at this point. Does it require faith, sure! Faith isn't a bad thing as long as its grounded in something logical.

Science and religion have different domains... One is a tool to describe what the world IS and the other is a tool to describe were this world should go.

I recommend reading this chapter on CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.

You don't have to read the whole thing... the problem is explained in the first couple of paragraphs.

In the end religion has more to do with Science then the scientists might like to admit.

[Tayrak]

Originally Posted by Alfred saforo

I am surpried no one has challenged this ridiculous post. I have written a rebutal on my own site

I'm one of those that didn't care for Steve's post.

From your site Alfred:

"However, I also realise that this is an attempt by you to generate more traffic to your site."

Umm, and exactly what were you doing??? You could easily have given your comments here, like everyone else.

Tayrak

[GrowWear]

This article won't the change the minds of any Christians -- so what was its purpose? Perhaps to let off steam for all of the ignorance in the world and having no capacity to stop it?

[pianoperformer]

That rebuttal...seriously I'm keeping that for humor. That's all I can say.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Alfred saforo

I am surpried no one has challenged this ridiculous post. I have written a rebutal on my own site

A rebuttal, sweet. I've been waiting for one of those actually.

It seems like most people have just been crying about the tone of Steve's post instead of challenging any of the actual content. Let's get it on!

The Bible speaks of people Like Steve Pavlina so those of us who know our scriptures are not swayed by his narrow minded atheism. Steve, is nothing but a follower of a religion himself, he probably doesn't even know it. Atheism is a religion in its own right.

Well, Steve isn't Atheist.

In fact, in the article he clearly expresses that to identify oneself with a specific, limiting belief system is disempowering, a bane to personal growth.

Did you even actually read the article?

The bible warns us of people like Steve. In Mathew chapter 24:11 the Bible says " Many false prophets will rise up and deceive many."

Steve doesn't claim to be a prophet. He also doesn't preach violence or hate. He doesn't claim to be speaking for God. The false prophet label, does however, fit many Christian ministers.

A false prophet, as you use the term, sounds more like the pastors of the Christian Megachurchs who are trying to start WWIII. You know, because they think that's what God wants!

Using God's name in vain means just that: It's to use the name of God for hateful, destructive, mean spirited interests.

A false prophet is someone who claims to be speaking for God, but instead of preaching love and compassion he or she preaches violence and hate.

Like Hitler! Guess what religion Hitler was? Yep, Christian.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

The Lord works in mysterious ways, eh?!

Remember, Hitler was only defending himself against those evil Jews. Wait, it seems I've heard that somewhere else recently. Gosh, where was that?

There are hundreds if not thousands of historical examples that prove that Jesus And Moses And Abraham etc... really existed. Christianity today Can be backed up by historical facts and the bible is capable of holding it's own against any History book. Christianity is not based on myth. Check your facts Steve.

Diseases are caused by demons then?

A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32).
A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22).
A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18).
A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13).
A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11).

The Earth was created in seven days?

Where did Dinosaur bones come from?

God wants us to stone adulterers?

On a side note, are you this obsessed with all history books, or just ones that say they will save your soul? Because I can recommend some good history books to you, but they only teach history, they don't claim to be a free pass into Heaven.

Life and the reason why we are here, are only elusive concepts to people who have nothing to believe in. Atheists.

Atheists have plenty to believe in. They have an entire universe of intricate natural sciences and a complex web of human relationships to explore.

I am here because God put me here. And he put me here for a reason. To worship him.

It sounds like God is pretty desperate for attention!

I have freedom to choose to do the right. Freedom, not to conform to societal norms. Freedom and mental clarity is all that Christianity is about. True Christians are free from the chains of alcohol, drugs, fornication, adultery and all things that the world celebrates.

That doesn't exactly sound like freedom.

How exactly would you define fornication? Is that any time that people have sex outside of marriage? What about masturbation? Is that fornication too? What about sex after divorce? What about sex after annulment?

I will bet that 99.99% of the people who are in prison today for sex crimes against children are atheists like you. They are people who are lost and have nothing to believe in and no moral standard to subscribe to because the world has been overcome by smooth talkers (false prophets) like you who would have us believe there is no God. No wonder our prisons are overflowing with criminals.

As someone who has worked with prison ministry, I can tell you without a doubt that nine out of ten prisoners are Christian. Nearly all of them have "found God."

How much it says about you that you are so ready and willing to bash prisoners. How sad that is. Wouldn't God want you to minster to people in jail, instead of calling them names?

You do know that Jesus was a criminal, right?

So who knows how old the earth really is? certainly not you Steve and definitely not science.

You are typing "Science doesn't know anything!" on your blog. I wonder, does that strike you as a bit ironic? You are publishing over the internet, from your home personal computer. You probably own a car and cell phone as well.

It sounds to me like science knows a whole lot more than you give it credit for.

Radio carbon dating of rocks is struggling to hold its own against new scientific methods. If you believe in all the man made drivel that has been fed to you by science you should actually concede (if you are as wise as you think you are) that there is a God.

Huh? Did you just say scientific methods are struggling to hold their own against scientific methods?

How dare you! with your puny human mind try to comprehend what the Almighty God can do.

Uh-oh, here comes angry, vindictive God! I guess a long Christian tirade wouldn't be complete without that.

Your puny human mind that I created has angered me! Rawr!!

Maybe God is a Velociraptor. They were pretty smart dinosaurs, you know.

Do you know what lies at the very bottom of the sea? do you know what causes you to be conscious? Have you counted the stars in the universe? what is the smallest particle that quantum physics cannot find? what is inside a quark or a lepton? Have you asked yourself what was there before the Big bang? Of course not, you are an atheist you don't even know why you are here.

Again, Steve is not atheist. And none of the things you mention say anything about religious institutions.

However, I also realise that this is an attempt by you to generate more traffic to your site. Well done. You got my attention.

That's always a convenient fall-back isn't it. The author who gets 2.4 million visitors per month to his site wrote the article for the traffic.

If you want to stir up a bit of controversy why don't you try and find out the 10 reasons why Atheism and atheists like you are eroding the moral fabric of society.

If everyone was atheist, the world would be a much better place.

Without God, murder is forbidden by human law; it is only for those acting on behalf of God, that everything is permitted.

I have nothing to loose in having faith in the teachings of Jesus and believing that there is a God. I am a better person because of it.

Nothing to lose except your freedom, intellect, respect for others, love and joy. Nothing to lose except everything, it seems.

To you it may seem like foolishness but then again what do you know? ...but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.- 1 Cor 1:23.

More Christian disempowerment. Why would God be so mocking and derisive? Is that really the God you believe in?

Amen!

Ramen to you too, friend.

[Liminal Chris]

Padmoc:

I don't see how this shows organized religion as being absolutely necessary. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Do you not think Human being aren't intelligent and sophisticated enough to figure it out without the aid of organized religion?


"The man who holds the divine theory of life recognizes life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities (in the family, the clan, the nation, the tribe, or the government), but in the eternal undying source of life--in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family and social welfare. The motor power of his life is love. And his religion is the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of the whole--God. "

It's comments like this that make me cringe.

Are we really talking about the same religion that has done such heinous things as run the crusades or outlaw homosexual marriage? Love being the motor power behind that? I wince when I read stuff like this. Why would god even require someone to sacrifice his or her individual self, falmily, or social welfare? Wouldn't God find it a crime to sacrifice oneself, and especially another person!?

I don't have a philosophical problem with the core message of religions. I have a problem with the perversion of their implementation. It's the organization in organized religion that makes them dangerous and against human growth.

So I ask again, why is organized religion SPECIFICALLY necessary?