10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[goodstyles]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

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

Isn't that contradiction?

How about.. there's are lots of thoughts in your head, including the thought of having no thought. It's still a thought even though the subject of the thought is 'no thought'.

hehe, that analogy probably helped not at all. but my point is, such a position, whether you like the idea or not, is still a 'position'.

P.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by goodstyles

hehe, that analogy probably helped not at all. but my point is, such a position, whether you like the idea or not, is still a 'position'.

Not really. To define a non-position as a position is simply playing a game with the semantics.

When you hold a fixed position by identifying with it, that's an entirely different experience than keeping your identity free of any fixed position and allowing yourself to consider multiple perspectives.

Atheism, for instance, is a perspective that allows you to see reality a certain way. You can peer through that perspective without owning it. If you own it, you limit yourself from considering other perspectives with an open mind.

I haven't yet figured out a way to write perspective-free articles since the act of putting thoughts into words seems to require projecting those thoughts through a perspective window.

[Fullcrum]

Why don't you consider writing two articles from opposing perspectives, juxtapose them, and leave them to the reader to consider.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Why don't you consider writing two articles from opposing perspectives, juxtapose them, and leave them to the reader to consider.

I already do that with certain perspectives such as the lightworker/darkworker articles, but most of the time that isn't necessary. If I'm writing about alternatives to a mainstream, socially conditioned perspective, it's isn't necessary to advocate for both sides because one side already has plenty of advocates.

For example, if I write about diet, there's no need for me to explain SAD (Standard American Diet) because advertisers already do that well enough.

It saves time when I take advantage of what media and social conditioning have already taught people to believe and just explore the alternatives.

[Fullcrum]

The socially conditioned paradigm does not so clearly outline its ideas, and though they are "easy enough" to find, it's harder to find an indepth layed out analysis of the socially conditioned perspective.

And as for lightworker/darkworker, your lightworker bias comes through; even you admit it. I'm saying really associate with the different perspectives and write the articles as if you were an adamant advocate of them.

It's probably really good practice for writing skills. You're ENTJ, right? It's only a model of personality, and personalities change, but if that's the way you think, it should be easier for you to fight from both positions. I'm INTJ and have no problem arguing any side for argument's sake. In fact, I often notice the fallicies in my own argument as I make them, but make them anyway. It's somewhat weird .

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

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!?

Actually no, we are talking about 2 different things. The part with crusades, homophobia and xenophobia is specific to the State perverted Christianity. This Christianity has little to do with the teachings of Christ. Just like fundamentalist Islam has little to do with the teaching of Muhammad.

The sacrifice Tolstoy is speaking about is not a violent sacrifice, his entire book is about non-violence. It is about the sacrifice of ones desires. The sacrifice of the family is something like what Steve has done, choosing to rather have minimal contact than live like them. The self sacrifice is something like what Gandhi said "There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for."

Also, organized Christianity is an oxymoron since organization implies hierarchy and Christ specifically forbade such a thing when he said "Call no man your father on earth" and when he pointed out that superiority is in serving the others. Sure, various churches perverted the teaching and interpreted them in a way that justifies their existence.

To give you a better idea, the old theory of life is based on Fear. People's actions we guided by their Fear of the Law. The new theory of life is based on Love. When a person renounces Fear and accepts Love, he is truly FREE. This is the freedom pointed out by Christ when he said "Ye shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you FREE". A person that has no fear cannot be coerced into doing anything. If he or she believe in God's Love and in the fact that no matter what will happens he or she will always be in this Love, no person in this world will be able to tell him (or her) what to do, how to run his or her life.

As a contrast, the Church is pointing out continuously to Hell and Heaven. Having both in mind is toxic. A person's job is not to live so that he or she may go to Heaven or to avoid Hell, this is FEAR, and this opens one to manipulation. According to Christ, a person's job is to LIVE in the NOW, without worrying for tomorrow, trusting that God's love will take care of everything. The Christian should enjoy life to the fullest by becoming the incarnation of God's Love on this earth.

The core teachings of Christ are "renounce violence, love everybody" and most people say that's unreasonable, that that's extreme. But they don't understand that Christ is talking about an entirely different theory of life and in this theory of life, that eventually will be embrace by the human race, this "extreme" request is the definition, just like the definition of the circle is the sum of points equally distanced from the center. You don't see people arguing that this is "extreme" that maybe some of the points should be closer or farther form the center. This happens because they understand the concept of a circle. Unfortunately, few understand in the same manner what Christ is talking about.

Here is another quote from Master Tolstoy that might shed a little more light:

The difference between the Christian doctrine and those which preceded it is that the social doctrine said: "Live in opposition to your nature [understanding by this only the animal nature], make it subject to the external law of family, society, and state." Christianity says: "Live according to your nature [understanding by this the divine nature]; do not make it subject to anything--neither you (an animal self) nor that of others--and you will attain the very aim to which you are striving when you subject your external self."

[Jamie]

For a long time my major gripe with organised religion, has been that it inhibits the natural spiritual development of people, and puts intermediaries between you and god (which when you look close enough, you will discover are one in the same). I also very strongly, agree with the notion that people need to defer to their own inner core, their own hearts and intuition; rather than any external source.

However, within the context of life on this planet; it's natural for humanity to organise and come together is this way (organised religion), and it a symptom of the state of our collective consciousness. Which, in the vast vast majority of cases, is I think, switched to the 'off' position. It's changing though.

I suspect the article is somewhat designed (intentionally or otherwise) to provoke controvesy; and that Steve is as good a manipulator of the masses (for his own ends), as is any religious leader. However, I do not know what goes off in Steves' head; his true motivations for doing this; but, it does seem like courting controvesy, and that's a sure fire way to stir things up, create movement, and perhaps some personal financial gain from that (aka sex pistol syndrome). Or, the motivation may well be to raise peoples' awareness on the issue of organised religion? Only Steve will know the real real truth of it ...

Ultimately though, I think it's for the individual to decide, what value they derive from their own participation in whatever it is they participate in (be that organised religion, or anything else).

There's an interesting dynamic; an interplay between the group consciouness and the individual. Perhaps, as people, we are either manipulated by the group consciouness, or we are a manipulator of that group consciouness, and there is no middle ground? I think that would make an excellent topic for debate.

Anyhoo, remember kids; do not become imprisoned by they very thing that is supposed to set you free ...

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

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

That's because the content is a grossly simplistic diatribe that has been refuted in detail myriad times in the past, and in multiple locations on the web.

Real discussion of the merits and flaws of religion is addressed at a much more meaningful level than the frankly childish interpretation in Steve's post.

I, incidentally challenged the merit of the content - I just didn't really see the point of rehashing the basics when it's been done so many times before.

[Kent F]

Originally Posted by Keith

That's because the content is a grossly simplistic diatribe that has been refuted in detail myriad times in the past, and in multiple locations on the web.

Real discussion of the merits and flaws of religion is addressed at a much more meaningful level than the frankly childish interpretation in Steve's post.

I, incidentally challenged the merit of the content - I just didn't really see the point of rehashing the basics when it's been done so many times before.

Ditto for me Dan.

I've posted specifics on this - and neither you nor Steve has responded - which is certainly fine. I really do appreciate your thoughts about dinosaur bones and how God must be a loser, but, I really don't think that's the point of Steve's article, nor do I wish to debate those fine points.

Steve comes at this writing from a toxic viewpoint - and it shows. That's the whole point. He thinks Catholocism is the only organized religious viewpoint. Not true - that's just the basis for his rather myopic and obviously jaded position.

He thinks all Christians are Catholic, all clergy are pedophiles, etc. Again, very adoloscent talking points on his part.

His combative, toxic position reflects a poorly presented, non-Steve type article.

That's the point.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Not really. To define a non-position as a position is simply playing a game with the semantics.

When you hold a fixed position by identifying with it, that's an entirely different experience than keeping your identity free of any fixed position and allowing yourself to consider multiple perspectives.

Tolle parrot!

Atheism, for instance, is a perspective that allows you to see reality a certain way. You can peer through that perspective without owning it. If you own it, you limit yourself from considering other perspectives with an open mind.

I don't know - it almost sounds like not taking a stand. Or not really believing the perspective at all - just trying it out. That doesn't give you the full experience of believing something, don't you think? Own what you want to believe or you won't be able to really have the experience of that belief, but don't think the belief defines you (Tolle). However, I always say to not "hold onto" your belief (which is the identifying with it). Owning a belief is being able to choose that belief as real for you at that time. That is the only way a belief with do anything for you - otherwise it's just thinking about it.

I haven't yet figured out a way to write perspective-free articles since the act of putting thoughts into words seems to require projecting those thoughts through a perspective window.

But not owning them, ha?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

But not owning them, ha?

So you think the advantage of owning a belief is that you're able to experience it more fully and that if you don't own it, you'll be missing something?

That doesn't resonate as truth to me.

I don't need to own a book to experience the story -- I can check it out from the library and return it later. If I want to re-experience it, I can check it out again, but I need never become the book's owner.

Similarly if I do a role-playing session with some friends, I can immerse myself in playing a character without having to permanently own that character's beliefs.

You can dive deeply into a belief system while still realizing that you are a being independent of all beliefs. It's like being a self-aware computer. Even as you run certain software, you know that you are more than the software and still capable of running new programs you haven't installed yet (as well as uninstalling old ones). This doesn't make you any less capable -- quite the contrary.

If you remain convinced that you must own a belief to fully experience it, why is that so?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You can dive deeply into a belief system while still realizing that you are a being independent of all beliefs.

This idea alone seems to be as upsetting to some people as the religion article. And it may be the single most valuable thing I've gotten out of the Pavlina character.

[Steve Pavlina]

I know it's very scary to consider the idea that our identity isn't merely the sum total of our beliefs. We get so caught up in identifying with our lives that we don't realize we're free to change the software that we're running in our heads.

Consciousness is like your computer's hardware. Your thoughts and beliefs are the software. It's true that the software empowers the hardware, but you can also change the software when you want to experience something new.

This is essentially how I went from convicted criminal to award-winning game developer to personal development writer. I realized that I'm more than the software that runs within my consciousness. I am not my thoughts. I am the thinker of those thoughts, and that gives me the freedom to choose different thoughts and thereby reprogram my life by choice to have different experiences.

If I turn "personal development writer" into my identity, then I can be nothing more. But if I realize that this personality is nothing but software running within my consciousness, I'm always free to change it.

We needn't be victims of our thougths. We can change the thoughts.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

We needn't be victims of our thougths.

...nor anyone else's!

[Dave Kaminski]

"But Steve, wouldn't that make me schizophrenic!?"

Originally Posted by Angela

...nor anyone else's!

Exactly.

I see a lot of people as scared of this idea, that they can change quickly and easily.

I'm usually so quick to change that I don't even realize the change; before I realized what you were talking about (in re: viewpoints and belief systems not being who you are), it was a problem.

Now that malleability is a total advantage - I enjoy EVERYTHING I do because it's all a matter of whether or not I want to do it and how I want to do it.

It all stems from this belief of adopting multiple perspectives and it is a real experience-enhancer.

Thanks again Steve!

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Keith

That's because the content is a grossly simplistic diatribe that has been refuted in detail myriad times in the past, and in multiple locations on the web.

I would submit that Steve's article is written simplistically because this is a pretty simple issue.

Originally Posted by Keith

Real discussion of the merits and flaws of religion is addressed at a much more meaningful level than the frankly childish interpretation in Steve's post.

Are you saying that Steve shouldn't write anything because it may have been discussed better elsewhere? I don't think that's a very well thought out perspective.

What are the merits of religion exactly? Why would people need an intermediary organization in order to act ethically?

What people need is knowledge and security, not obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Keith

I, incidentally challenged the merit of the content - I just didn't really see the point of rehashing the basics when it's been done so many times before.

You say you challenged the merits of the content, where exactly?

[munish]

Originally Posted by Angela

This idea alone seems to be as upsetting to some people as the religion article. And it may be the single most valuable thing I've gotten out of the Pavlina character.

Being able to experience multiple beliefs is the fastest way to grow.

[munish]

The biggest problem with Hinduism is that ,though they do believe in the continuity of consciousness ,but there are alot of confusing theories.

Like Shiva is the god of death.He gives you the life of human being after you complete the life cycle of 84,000,00 lives of all beings.

And there are millions of other gods.Yeasterday was birthday of the god Shani.

Shani is a Deva and son of Surya (the Hindu Sun God) and his wife Chhaya (Shadow goddess) and hence also known as Chayyaputra. He is the cousin of Yama, the Hindu God of death.

[pianoperformer]

munish,

See that's what confuses me about Hinduism. They have some great ideas about consciousness, but why do they need all of those gods?