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.