10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[ksenia]

Hi,

This is my first post, I've registered to thank Steve for this article. It takes courage and intelligence to write, especially in such religious country as US...

I also want to recommend Richard Dawkins's book that goes very deep on the subject of religion:
Amazon.com: The God Delusion: Richard Dawkins: Books

First chapter can be read on the author's website and gives a good impression on his writing style:
RichardDawkins.net

[Kazeko]

Moonlite, thank you very much!!!

I wanted to write a similar post, because I disagree with many things Steve had written in his article. But you've saved my time

I am a follower or Russian Orthodox Church (Christian religion). And my religion tremendously helps me on my life path of growth and lightworking. It inspires me to create my life with lots of consciousness and responsibility for myself and people around me. When I pray, I ask God to guide me, to give me strength when I'm weak, to catch me if I fall and so on. I ask for more love and compassion for the world. And I raise my vibes doing it. Erin uses the help of her spirit guides, and even direct help of Jesus, when she heavily needs protection (read her blog). I ask Jesus, Mother Mary and my Guardian Angel to be my lifetime guides.

Steve, do you honestly beleive, that there's no more powerful entity in the world except a human being with a sharp mind? What about the Source?

For me, my religion is the way to stay connected to the Source, while I live my life as I choose. And the New Testament is the source of advice, like your blog - not the source of obedience. What is better? To obey 10 Commandments of Holy Bible, or your fresh 10 Commandments of atheism?

Steve, if I were you in your religious environment, I would have a similar disappointment, I can tell. I have a great compassion for you. And I'm very grateful, that our religion never had inquisition or crusades. Yes, ♥♥♥♥♥ happens in any social environment, including our religion's. But try to see the sun behind the clouds.... find your own religion...however as I see, you are the creator and follower of the Personal Development for Smart People(tm) Church

[Blueguy]

Now I have to say that I have been a steve pavlina reader for about a year now and I thought all of his content was original, refreshing, and straight to the point and also very useful!

However after reading bits and pieces of this article... Yeah I couldn't even read all of it because of how insulting it was.

"Religion is spiritual immaturity"

That was one of the final statements in the article.

What is immature is you being very arrogant in your tone and degrading many years of culture and history and on top of that painting it with a liberal-biased brush in order to sound witty and clever.

Oh and also, I wouldn't call dabbling in the occult very mature either. You should google: medjugorje and garabandal while your at it, maybe you might learn a few new things that will change your perspective on Christianity. Hey it may even re awaken your faith because some of the stuff you will read will surprise you(if you are brave enough to google that stuff, that is..)

I can honestly say that I think you really did a stupid thing posting this article.

All you did with your rude,arrogant,ignorant,insulting post was lose the respect of a lot of the readers. personal development? I think you need to go back to the drawing board and re examine your life and values. Also to some of you reading this, Steve is a smart guy, but just because he says something doesn't mean you have to follow it. Personal development? Sure... Doesn't mean you gotta follow everything he says though.

Steve I can say that a lot of your articles and podcasts were very inspiring but this last post just showed us your true colors and that accepting your word is like believing a 8 year old when he/she tells us that 5 x 5 is 106.

I will not be referring anyone to your site in the future. Way to piss off your readers.

[JustBe]

People should view there are a lot prophets here on earth.. all the time.

Jesus was a prophet
Mohammed was a prophet

And I've seen a lot video's of prophets this moment:

A guy in India who can create mass,
a guy I saw on vid who had a message that everything is energy (he putted knives in his body to demonstrate)..

and actually all people connected to spirits can be seen as prophet. They all have their message to earth from the spiritual world.

Life is not so digital (prophet or not, who decides?) but there are people on earth from time to time that are really amazing..

Messages of prophets are timed.

2000 years is a long time.

[Bradshaw]

Oh man, this was an awesome one. I just have a feeling this one is gonna be one of the most popular articles on the site, just watch.

The tone, the theme, the topic: Brilliant!

[bossb]

Interesting post. The post doesn't really come alive until I read a few comments from this thread though.

• If you're a religious to the max person, let's crucify Steve.
  
• If you have that anti-religious slant, Steve you're preaching to the choir. Off to digg to search for more Richard Dawkins posts.
  
• If you step past the snarky tone though, maybe now you have some questions on your mind about the idea of religion.

That out of the way, I choose to agree this week's post for the most part. I've yet to experience enough bad crap in life that would force me into looking for a big bearded guy in the sky. I get a lot more satisfaction viewing that my life is a result of my actions.

And if I was wrong all this time, see you all in Hell. We'll be playing Uno. Pick up +666.

[Ninja]

You took the words right out of my mouth. I can't stand it when people blame God for everything and not look at themselves. No, your aunt did not die because of God's will, she died because her religion does not allow blood transfusions, inoculation or other life saving treatments. And that child you birthed at age 15? He's not a 'blessing from above': he's the result of you being too lazy to use birthcontrol. Take responsibility for your life!

[Fullcrum]

It seems like the insulted people aren't asking too many questions about their beliefs. Nor are they likely to change them from reading this.

The people who agree also aren't questioning their beliefs too much. The article validates what they already think.

Win.

PS - I know a particular druggie teenager who reasons their atheism nearly IDENTICAL to the way it is done in this article. It sounded like he was talking in a few parts, specifically about how religion causes war and such. Interesting.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ahh beautiful article Steve, I loved it. Give religion the good ole bashing it deserves...

[Fullcrum]

^^^

See, like that. No offense Akashic, you just illustrate my point so...beautifully .

Victory for rational thought.

Steve, how do you explain your wife's spiritual beliefs? Do you stand by them? I mean, you advertise her business and all, and while I'm sure it's all otherwise good, it seems that questioning something like that would be in order.

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

^^^

See, like that. No offense Akashic, you just illustrate my point so...beautifully .

Victory for rational thought.

Steve, how do you explain your wife's spiritual beliefs? Do you stand by them? I mean, you advertise her business and all, and while I'm sure it's all otherwise good, it seems that questioning something like that would be in order.

I don't recal Erin saying she is religious, and I don't recal Steve saying he is against spirituality... which is a complete different thing. What are you getting at?

[Fullcrum]

I never implied that.

I'm just saying we should apply the same standard of questioning to all beliefs, whether they be labelled religious or spiritual.

Being "new", "spiritual", or "free from thousands of years of political bondage" does not make a belief absolute.

[Erock]

Agreed. Nuff said.

Erock

[wayland]

I came here expecting a list of 10 *good* reasons why you should never have a religion. Instead I came away with the impression that Steve is against the Catholic church (and so am I), and has very little real understanding of Protestant Christianity (and quite possibly most other religions).

1. Steve makes the assumption that religion is nebulous group-think, unlike, say, the Steve Pavlina forums (whoops, my mistake -- we get that here too ). This is what they call a straw man argument -- put up a straw man instead of a real one, and you have a lot more chance of knocking him down.

2. Steve makes the assumption here that, just because people believe one system to be true, means that they can't use other perspectives. For example, there are parts of evolutionary theory that I disagree with, but I can still write "According to evolutionary theory, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor". See? Multiple perspectives, but I only believe one of them.

3. This shows Steve's Anti-Catholicism. As a member of a Presbyterian-type church, I belong to a church with a democratically elected leadership. But there is other information in the post. Steve talks about submission. I agree that submission is a part of religion, but let me introduce you to one of the great slogans of the Reformation: "The Bible alone". This means submission to your understanding of the Bible, not to a hierarchy. I assume Steve knows this though. Steve acts as though submission is an inherently bad thing. I doubt he feels that way when he asks his children to do something though .

He also spends time talking about conflicting information. I wish he'd given an example, because there's nothing here to refute. Rightly understood, Scripture never contradicts itself. There are a few standard paradoxes (maybe 3-5), and while the detail is somethign argued over, the concepts themselves aren't that much of a problem. Probably the most controversial these paradoxes get is "If we have free will, how can God know what will happen in the future", with the paradox being that I'd argue that we do indeed have free will, but that God also knows the future. But as for the Bible contradicting itself, without examples being given, all I can say is, it hasn't been interpreted correctly.

4. Steve starts from the assumption that religion is false, and then says it's a waste of time. Well, I mean duh! It's not a reason not to have a religion, it's a consequence of whether you have one. I mean, if religion is false, then of course you don't waste time on it. And if it's true, then there's nothing more important.

5. Steve says that because some religions people are bad/evil, that it must be false. No doubt there are evolutionists, scientists, bloggers, and others who are just as bad, but does that mean that we should doubt evolution/science/blogging just because they do it? Have to say, the idea is laughable.

As for not providing value, the people in the church obviously think they're getting value. I know our minister spends most of his week preparing his sermons, and some of it talking to people who want to see him. In fact, it reminds me very much of Steve Pavlina's business model. Steve spends a fair bit of time writing in his blog (sermons), and Erin at least spends some time talking to people who want to see her (readings). So Steve here is pointing the finger directly at himself. Lucky his argument is weak (ie. I perceive value here, just as I do at church), or I might have to stop reading the website.

6. Incest is best. Well, someone else pointed out that consciousness-raising people are an even smaller religious network than most religions. In fact, if I recal, it was Steve himself who advocated carefully choosing your friends based on the life you want to live, and getting away from people who drag you down. Lucky his argument is rubbish again, or he would've shot himself in the foot again.

7. Steve has here defined two categories. I don't exactly fit into either of them, so Steve would no doubt label me an idiotic hypocrite. You see, as a Protestant, if I see something I think isn't right, I also have the option of trying to find an interpretation that makes sense. This is why I said (above) that the Bible doesn't contradict itself /if interpreted correctly/. You can spend a long time searching for the correct interpretation. But sometimes you learn that you're wrong .

[prasunsen]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I consider myself a Buddhist so forgive my lack of spiritual depth perception a moment as I point out that Steve offers no spiritually mature alternative to popular religious worship. No vague New Ageism doesn't count. Sorry to rain on the parade but I see no one has offered a dissenting view point and that makes me worried about the amount of independent thinking going on here.

Why would someone offer you a viewpoint? That's the point, you should take the responsibility and develop one yourself.

I loved the article. One of the best things I've read recently. It was touching, amazing and lot of fun.

[Paul C]

If my understanding of Steve's nature is anything to go by... I'd have to mention that he doesn't hold to one perspective all the time, he continuously changes between them (at least that's what I've come to understand from his many articles already). This inevitably effects how any article would be written, more often than not a specific perspective is chosen to heighten the effect it has on it's readers.

In whole, it's of little concern if the approach used threatens the identity that people have made for themselves in the mind. The emotional backlash could be evidence that some of these identities based around religious belief are lacking and could be replaced with something more universal and deep (that's not to say this is only goes for religion, obviously). Those who take this article too seriously will no doubt miss what it's really trying to express.

It's kind of humorous reading a few of the strong, egoic, reactions, because it reminds me of the ego within myself and how it can so easily lash out in defense of one's mental identity.

[PerDev]

Anybody who is truly religious never bias about any religion or I would say never have prefix perception about one religion as truth

[wayland]

8. Steve makes the point that you're a product of your environment. I've got no beef with that. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Question -- what if I happen to consciously choose the religion I was born into?

As for his point about religious leaders being brainwashed by their superiors, Presbyterian clergy don't have superiors. There's a committee that's in charge of them, but they're part of the committee themselves. So I don't see how you can say they have superiors.

As for the central figures being religious, let me ask, what Jesus a devout Jew? Does Christianity claim to be the continuation of Judaism? (For those not in the know, the answer to both is "Yes").

9. People have already commented on this one that Steve is showing here that he's strongly anti-religion, but not justifying it. All the faithful of stevepavlina.com, repeat after me: "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." Dogma! And hate speech . Or more likely, just an indicator of Steve's limited experience.

Having said that, though, there are some pretty horrible people who claim to be Christians (Hitler springs to mind). But I refuted this above under point 2 -- just because horrible people believe it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

10. Steve starts out with a mangled version of the beatitudes and mocks each (using his old straw man technique again). The first one should read "Blessed are the poor in spirit". His views on meekness and humility are naturally skewed by his Catholic upbringing, but I hope he'll admit that they're better than overweenig pride and arrogance. As for the hunger part, the quote is "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled". So it's saying, if doing the right thing makes you happy, then you're going to be really happy because you'll do the right thing and be happy . I hope Steve isn't advocating that we do evil instead (ie. abuse our parents, murder, steal, nick other people's spouses, lie, and the like. The bit about being pure in heart is similar. Then he starts talking about cowardly, timid, and fearful. I can assure you they're not mentioned in the original text.

Steve then says "That’s the kind of nonsense religion pushes on people. They train you to turn your back on courage, strength, and conscious living." I think he's misinterpreted things. Because I think it takes a lot of strength and courage to be eaten by lions (as happened to the early Christians) while being mocked by a stadium full of people.

The rest of Steve's point is built on the idea that faith = fear. I think I've disproved that already .

Anyway, I hope I've broken up a little of the groupthink here.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Paul C

It's kind of humorous reading a few of the strong, egoic, reactions, because it reminds me of the ego within myself and how it can so easily lash out in defense of one's mental identity.

I agree with this. Thank you!

I am also learning that "beliefs" have nothing to do with how "awake" or how conscious a person is. I know this within myself especially.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Isaiah666

10 reasons? I got 12 reasons why you are all blind.

The man Jesus quoted on hell is proven by physical evidence to be 100% correct.

12 for 12 Isaiah666.com - The Bible and Hell. Archaeology and Isaiah's Historical Accuracy

Game Over

from the link
"40 for 40 - The odds you bet your soul on when you trust Evolution as fact. "
HAHAHA

please people dont look at the link, some guy is just promoting his crap

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

I never implied that.

I'm just saying we should apply the same standard of questioning to all beliefs, whether they be labelled religious or spiritual.

Being "new", "spiritual", or "free from thousands of years of political bondage" does not make a belief absolute.

I'm pretty sure we do apply the same standard of questioning to all beliefs, here.

I like to use logical progression to break down points of each argument. Erin's claiming she can experience it - who am I to say she cannot?

Are you truly going to say that you have conversations with God when you pray and he talks back? If so, you may have some merit. If not, you're talking to yourself.

[natmad]

People can have fulfilling lives believing anything they want - its a subjective thing. 'Ignorance is bliss'. Everyone will always be ignorant because we can't know everything. People leading fulfilling lives absorbed in their beliefs may now read this and be confused. They may now doubt their religion.

And if they do then have you really set them free? They may throw out their religious beliefs and try and follow your course to a higher consciousness. Will they make it like you? What if they try but can't get to your level? Won't they have had a more fulfilling life in their previous religious mindset?

The way we view the world determines our fulfillment/happiness/peace - whatever you want to call it. You saying this shows people your view, and it makes sense...but does this mean that people in seeing this view will suddenly have a desire to try and follow your path? I think that it will simply confuse them more, possibly making them feel stupid because what you say does make a lot of sense, yet on the other hand their beliefs give them fulfillment and purpose already.

Its like a small island of people, all happy in their ways, suddenly being told that their is a greater island somewhere out there, where even more happiness and fulfillment is to be found. So they all set out on boats on this knowledge. How many do you think will make it? And how many will be lost at sea until they die. Maybe staying on the happy island is best.

Don't let your intelligence make you arrogant - which I know your not

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by irtrogdor

Steve (and anyone else who loved this article), please humor me by reading this book. Maybe even write a review. It was written specifically to combat people who have your opinion about religion, especially Christianity. Even if you don't agree with the author, I think that you will find it to be an interesting read.

~Ian

That book is about Jesus, who possibly existed ~2000 years ago.

Not to say he didn't exist (I think he may have, and the pagan beliefs propagated around him were probably the falsified part. Christians are essentially sun worshipers, as the research I've seen suggests) but if I spent a year researching his time I imagine I could write a book about someone's life back then and make it fairly believable too!

[Dylan]

Steve - just wondered if you've ever looked into Unitarian Universalism. The UU approach to religion is consistent with yours. People who eschew dogma but enjoy being part of a community that fosters spiritual growth often gravitate to this group (as well as people who just like potluck dinners).

[garym]

Holy **** talk about going for the jugular!

Having just read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and being a deconverted Christian, I can appreciate Steve's strong manner in this article. Religion and spirituality are two different things that must be divorced, full stop. I know too well the conditioning that I am still dealing with, such as fear and guilt, which was a part of my life for far too long.

If you can truly say that your experience with religion is a positive one that makes a positive contribution to the world, then I'm sure you are in the smallest of minority.

[Savage]

For clarification... I don't identify myself with the content of this article. This article isn't a collection of my beliefs because I don't hold myself to a fixed belief system.

If I identify myself with this content, turning the article's points into my beliefs and never allowing myself to consider contrary perspectives, I'd be falling victim to point #2 in the article. Of course if you take this article as if it were a personal attack on you, that's exactly what #2 is all about.

This article proposes a perspective. To say this is my personal perspective is to say that I am my left eyeball. I prefer to remain free to explore other perspectives as well.

The perspective in this (and all articles) is offered as something for you to consider. You can praise it, attack it, ignore it, whatever. I won't take it personally because I don't turn a set of beliefs into my identity.

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.

Will this article have a positive impact on people? I know from experience that it will. It's written in the same style as 10 Reasons You Should Never Get a Job, a piece that dozens of people have told me was the push they needed to start their own businesses... and others have told me made them feel more confident about their choice to stay employed.

This article won't help everyone, but it will help those who need a little something extra to push them off the fence one way or the other, so they can continue to explore life with more passion and energy instead of remaining stuck in limbo.

How do I decide which perspective to write about in a case like this? Often I pick the one that's least popular. The more popular perspective already has plenty of marketing behind it. I seek to tip things a little in the other direction, so people have more freedom to choose.

[CaptainStubbs]

Great article Steve, you smashed organized religion with a hammer. Sounds like you're kinda bitter though. ;-)

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

This article proposes a perspective. To say this is my personal perspective is to say that I am my left eyeball. I prefer to remain free to explore other perspectives as well.

Uh, so you're saying these aren't your opinions? "This is what some people who don't like religion think?"

I liked it better when "Steve" was saying it. You were talking about personal anecdotes from your life. Maybe I read your response here wrong.

Your book is going to have your name on it right?

[Hyperchiller]

This is really going to raise consciousness. Period.

[liverpool footballer]

(:





(: