10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[Intrawebs]

Originally Posted by Sindre

I think people who actually get upset by this article and claiming to unsubscribe from Steve's RSS-feed really is shooting themselves in their own foot.. Obviously you got some more personal development to do. I think it's a childish approach to get mad over one simple article, that really was written this way only to challenge the way you think.

The point you are missing is some are unsubscribing becuase they feel duped that they were getting advice from a professional who knows how and has done their research. Once one offense happens like this from ones trusted sources of information (especially in the context of personal development) it makes it very hard to continue a relationship like this.

So, Im not "mad", and this was no "simple article" amogst the rest of Steves. The good thing is it's the Internet...Steve can do what he wants with his site and it's readers can move onward when/if they choose.

And to comment a tad bit more...It's a shame that at least in the USA (K-12) two fundamental things arent being taught wich are at the root of so many conflicts and problems in the world...religion and personal finance. There are ways to teach both of those without favoring or dogma, it's a real shame.

[outdoorsnewzealand]

Originally Posted by Intrawebs

It's a shame that at least in the USA (K-12) two fundamental things arent being taught wich are at the root of so many conflicts and problems in the world...religion and personal finance. There are ways to teach both of those without favoring or dogma, it's a real shame.

Very interesting ... It's the same here in New Zealand. The only schools that teach religion are religious school and of course they present heavily biased material.

[Ecce Homo]

I'm still wondering how many of the posters here in this thread, both the lovers and the haters of Steve's article, have used this opportunity to take a really good look in the mirror? After all, this is supposed to be a "personal development" site, so how many of us have actually decided to use this article to spur, oh, I don't know, personal development? How many of us have actually wondered at the strength of our emotional reactions, both positve and negative? How many of us have found those reactions curious enough to spark a round of introspection and self examination? Our responses to the article say way more about us than they do about Steve. Knowing yourself is far more important than proving someone else right or wrong.

[Kaja]

Steve you are just amazing! You are such a marketing genius on top of it all, considering you posted this highly controversial article - which might upset big numbers of those sheep you are unmasking - just a few months before your book is getting released just look at the amount of responses the article already got in the 24 hours after publishing! Well done.

But your article definitely makes me think, as what is true about major religions might as well be applicable for many spiritual schools. I certainly know that I have soaked up spiritual knowledge (for example what Erin teaches in her blog!!) and tried to "learn" spirituality from there. Oops.

So at the end of the day we have to learn access our connection to the divine ourselves, trust our own intuition and take guidance that others provide merely as that - guidance. The map is not the territory.

[RTF671]

Ecce, I agree with what you just said whole-heartedly. A noble thing to say, especially since your name literally means look.

Originally Posted by 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).

The only good points I saw were 1, 2, 3 some of 8, 9, 10. But you say that if rightly understood, the bible does not contradict itself. But the same applies to Steve. Take a filter/grain of salt, whatever metaphor you want, just keep the positive things he said and add them to the positive things to religion and just be happy.

[MidasGirl]

Hey I think Steve was kinda lenient on religion actually by calling it spiritual immaturity. He wasn't even as bad as Bill Maher who calls it a 'neurological disorder'

I had to laugh at the 10,000 year thing though. Do you not have to actually kill a part of your brain to believe that life has inhabited this planet just a few thousand years?

Oh and btw, I go to church, every Sunday. Unity church is great if you want to be around free thinking dogma.

[Syr]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

I'm still wondering how many of the posters here in this thread, both the lovers and the haters of Steve's article, have used this opportunity to take a really good look in the mirror? After all, this is supposed to be a "personal development" site, so how many of us have actually decided to use this article to spur, oh, I don't know, personal development? How many of us have actually wondered at the strength of our emotional reactions, both positve and negative? How many of us have found those reactions curious enough to spark a round of introspection and self examination? Our responses to the article say way more about us than they do about Steve. Knowing yourself is far more important than proving someone else right or wrong.

A very valid point. Fortunatly for me this is one of the few area's where I don't have to develop myself.

[impaul99]

* shrug * I didn't really get this article at all.

It's not the kind of "value" I've come to expect over the years from Steve's site. And the explanation of this being an opinion, not his opinion is even more confusing.

It's kind of like if I asked a friend "What did you think of Spiderman 3? Did you like it?" and he says "It was a great movie.", so I go see it and lets say it sucks and then he says "Well, I didn't say I liked it, but some might say it was a great movie."

I kind of just want to hear Steve's opinion/perspective on things. Have we reached the end of that?

Steve, will you write "10 Reasons You Must Become Religious" and post it on your Blog with just as much constructive emphasis on finding a religion to follow as your previous article was destructive to religions? If your "point of view" wasn't your own, and it was just your left eyeball's perspective, then I'd love to read an article from your right eyeball talking about Pro-Religious stuff.

If you prefer not to write such an article, then it shows that anti-religion IS actually your perspective, no?

Or am I missing something?

[Thomas]

Georg Carlin on Religion: YouTube

[Tayrak]

You said it clearly, Steve, and perhaps more than the few that spoke up will listen. "I am a pointer" . You can't really be a follower of someone who doesn't actually go where he says he's going. You can be a puppet, though. Forget the Kool Aide, Steve doesnt need Kool Aide, he's got strings firmly attached.

My point of view, which is my point of view, btw, dismay, complete and utter, dismay.

Tayrak

[Tina McLeman]

I love this article. It is very well written! You have completely summed up my thoughts on religion. I have never followed a religion, but I am open to the idea of god.

I don't like to believe and have faith in anything other than myself (and even thats difficult enough at times) but scientifically thinking, I think it is completely possible that a god may exist (and until disproved, it is a viable theory). I think there is room for science and god/s (not religion) to fit together. Sometimes I like to think that god may be responsible for the creation of the universe (the big bang), and nature took things from there (the creation of our solar system, Earth, evolution etc...). However, that does not explain how god was created. God must have come from somewhere! It's completely mindboggling to think about these things, but as a scientist, I enjoy asking questions such as "just how did it all begin?".

Tina

[Bradshaw]

I've found myself basically agreeing 100% with the article so i can't say much, but, from my outside perspective:

So many people are thinking about the article, so many people are angry at the article, so many people are being defensive about the article, and so many people are discussing the article, etc.

Isn't this the very core of raising consciousness? Regardless of weather you agree with the article or not, it is definitely making people think/angry/defensive/discuss it.

The article's tone works well. I've grown to like Steve's no holds barred style of writing, and i doubt he was about to tone it down just because a number of people will perceive it as controversial. Hell, if it was me i would raise the tone on purpose for that very reason. Oh yeah, sounds about right.

Your beliefs are being challenged. If you're all here i assume you are interested in personal growth. I'm seeing a few personal attacks on Steve(which i doubt he cares or takes personally), which is ridiculous. This article has challenged beliefs, made people think, angered people, made people defensive and people are discussing it. All marketing theories aside, this article is working brilliantly on one thing:

Raising people's consciousness.

Whew. But that really was a fun article.

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

I'm still wondering how many of the posters here in this thread, both the lovers and the haters of Steve's article, have used this opportunity to take a really good look in the mirror? After all, this is supposed to be a "personal development" site, so how many of us have actually decided to use this article to spur, oh, I don't know, personal development? How many of us have actually wondered at the strength of our emotional reactions, both positve and negative? How many of us have found those reactions curious enough to spark a round of introspection and self examination? Our responses to the article say way more about us than they do about Steve. Knowing yourself is far more important than proving someone else right or wrong.

What Ecce Home said too.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by The David

Someone has already beaten you to it

Ok. I don't mean getting married but what we call a "love relationship", or even less clear, "a relationship". But as Steve has one, I don't think he's ever gonna write that, only the getting married one.

[Didi]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Steve, will you write "10 Reasons You Must Become Religious" and post it on your Blog with just as much constructive emphasis on finding a religion to follow as your previous article was destructive to religions? If your "point of view" wasn't your own, and it was just your left eyeball's perspective, then I'd love to read an article from your right eyeball talking about Pro-Religious stuff.

If you prefer not to write such an article, then it shows that anti-religion IS actually your perspective, no?

Or am I missing something?

I would also like to see this. I remember when Steve posted the 10 Reasons to never have a job article, there were balances to the blatantly anti-job viewpoint that said for certain people or under certain circumstances, having a job was ok, even necessary. I belive the same could be said of religion.

If anything I should thank Steve for writing this post, since it is really motivating me to find out exactly what this organized religion thing is all about. I haven't been to any service since high school, but perhaps there is a community out there who break away from all the negative images as painted in this post.

[beautyscientist]

I thought it was a well written and entertaining piece of writing. To pick up on what Steve said earlier about perspective, from here in the UK it is NOT a contraversial article. It would probably represent the majority view point. I find it fascinating that the US and the UK, which are culturally not that different to one another in many ways are so different on this particular issue. Unless the post includes references to colour or flavour it is rarely possible to guess whether it is written by a yank or a brit. But if you see someone talking confidently about their religion it is almost always by an American. There are plenty of religious folk over here, but even the big cheeses like the Archbishop of Canterbury are always apologetic about it.

I can't think of any good explanation for this, but I think it might be because the established church has been such a flagrant tool of the government for so long that it has lost all its credibility. In the US the very praiseworthy separation of Church and State has probably saved the religious from even worse excesses and preserved their credibility.

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

Although there are some good points, I really disagree with the accusative tone of the article. I already had this feeling whith the "10 reasons why you shouldn't have a job" article, but here it's even stronger.
It seems like a view from outside, and an over generalization.

Although I'm not a follower of a religion, I strongly believe that the religions are not the problem. It's rather the level of counsciousness they're stuck in. Inherently it's not bad to have a religion, it's just an access door to spirituality. It's exactly like having a job. It's not inherently bad, it depends who you work for. If you're working for a higly counscious light working company, that can be great, or at least a great starting point !

Seen from the perspective of time, religions are not a collection of fixed beliefs. They evolve with time. Inside the religions, there are many differents school of thought, confilcting positions and evolution.
Has any one heard of the Islamic Sophism or the Christian Mystics for instance ?
It may seem hard to believe, especially for US residents, but it's possible to be highly conscious and follow the rituals of a religion.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

My role is to help define a point of view, not to become it.

Ok, but it seems to me that currently you resonate with the point of view of this article

[jshine2]

Screw the haters man.. This is the best article you've ever written. My sentiments exactly.

A lot of the points you brought up are more hard-hitting than some of the most hard-hitting polemicists around. I think you should write more articles on religion, even a book.

Maybe some debates are lined up in the future... taking on the likes of Ravi Zacharias, Dinesh D'Souza, and R.C. Sproul

[Angela]

Originally Posted by theknightwhosaysni-NI

Ok, but it seems to me that currently you resonate with the point of view of this article

I like that -- that expresses it nicely. Impaul -- does that make more sense to you?

[MidasGirl]

Rest in the comfort that he'll roast in hell for eternity. God gets angry at those who mock his name and created a fire where they can spend eternity paying for a sin or two.
However, I fear God might have overcome his low self esteem by the time Steve crosses over and he might actually get away with writing this little article. Oh well........

[Angela]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

Rest in the comfort that he'll roast in hell for eternity. God gets angry at those who mock his name and created a fire where they can spend eternity paying for a sin or two.

Hey, that's true! Everybody can just relax -- god's got it covered. Anyway, Steve is practicing living in eternal hellfire by living in Las Vegas.

[kenakari]

Originally Posted by Syr

I disagree with you: you can have faith in yourself, your friends, prophets/gods or goals. In my opinion "faith" is the relation of trust/hope you have in whatever you believe in. Religion is the unnecessarry bullshit who tries meddling with said relation(s).

My husband shares this view.

My view is that people like Mother Theresa and Ghandi show a balance between faith and religion. In those cases religion was the frame for their faith. From what Steve is saying these people were not spiritually conscious, and they lacked compassion because they subscribed to a religion? (My interpretation - I'd be interested in other views).

Besides my above rant, I find the article sub-par as well compared to other articless. The header "Support your local pedophile" was especially poor. In fact (and I'm going off-topic here), I wish child-abusers were only pedophiles, it's pedosexuals I have a problem with. While the first is a sexual preferrence and doesn't have to be practised, the second is the actual activity which tends to destroy lifes (same applies to incest, most childrapes are in fact done by family-members). Religious tradition (based on shame and fear) hatches cultures in which sexual predators can work easier than in secular cultures, but religion doesn't necessarily create the predators.

Ah! That's what seemed off to me, the generalizations. I didn't burst into flames when I read some of the things in the article because I thought I was being too sensitive. We had something awful happen to a child down here yesterday - and it wasn't a priest who did it. Predators go when there is prey, so what was said could apply to teachers, soldiers, politicians - professions, not just religions.

He does make good points about fear, hypocracy etc. but those items aren't the sole property of religion.

[Didi]

Originally Posted by theknightwhosaysni-NI

Ok, but it seems to me that currently you resonate with the point of view of this article

To me all this carefully worded jargon is a little like saying income tax is an "income adjustment", or other such nonsense. Why is it so bad to say that "I have this opinion, I have this point of view, this is MY opinion"? The argument is that it defines and constricts you, but who says that it has to? People are perfectly capable of changing their opinions, and should not be afraid of the ownership of whatever comes out of their minds and souls.

Perhaps I am really missing some fundamental piece of knowledge and am unable to fully grasp the significance of this whole opinion thing. I just honestly think that it's dancing around the issue, like a politician evading difficult questions. For example, when the tragic events in Rwanda were occuring back in 1994, the UN refused to explicitly say that it was genocide. Instead they labelled it "acts of a genocidal nature" which meant they didn't have to intercede. I apologize for the extreme example, but I feel like the same sort of word play is going on.

[Steve Pavlina]

Alright, which one of you put out the intention for the flat tire on my car this morning?

Some deities need to work on their humor skills.

[cobaltblue09]

Steve you're responsible for everything in your life

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Didi

To me all this carefully worded jargon is a little like saying income tax is an "income adjustment", or other such nonsense. Why is it so bad to say that "I have this opinion, I have this point of view, this is MY opinion"? The argument is that it defines and constricts you, but who says that it has to? People are perfectly capable of changing their opinions, and should not be afraid of the ownership of whatever comes out of their minds and souls.

Didi, I get what you are saying, and I can see how it would look like word play -- it did to me at first, until I was able to see the ballerina spinning in the other direction.

When you refer to an opinion (or anything else) as "mine" -- like, you own it -- you are creating something with language. You create that opinion or thing as part of you. Little kids do that -- "Mine!" is one of the first things they learn to assert. It's the ego's way of strengthening itself; by enhancing ourselves with "our stuff" we try to convince ourselves that we're more or better. And that blinds us to the moment; it blinds us to our infinite joy and abundance, it has us believing that others are wrong and possibly even need to be punished, and it gives us the illusion that we could possibly "lose" anything -- all of that feeds the ego, and keeps us unconscious.

Believing that thoughts, opinions, or religions are "yours", they are Who You Are -- it's not so much that it defines and constricts us. Of course we're always free to change our minds and our perspectives. It's that it keeps us from the beautiful consciousness of who we really are.

[puduman]

I had a flat tire too, no joke! Maybe the gods did not like my idea of oneness...

Anyone else with a flat tire here? (Maybe that's a way to find out who's right!)

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Alright, which one of you put out the intention for the flat tire on my car this morning?

Some deities need to work on their humor skills.

LOL. When Jehovah Witness' came to my door and wouldn't leave I said to them "Listen, I respect your beliefs and I'm glad you believe in something. However, I do not share your beliefs as I have my own, and I ask you to respect my beliefs, and not come to talk to me about yours anymore, ok?" and they were super nice about it, probably happy I didn't slam the door in their face like everyone else and they haven't been back and we left on pleasant terms.

I didn't tell them that they are idiotic dummies with no spiritual depth perception, following an engineered obedience plan of an incestual pedophile who uses fear to spread his falsehood.

I felt that by speaking to them in a pleasant tone and pointing out that I accept their beliefs as valid for THEM and asking for the respect to allow me to hold my own beliefs as valid for ME, we both left at a higher level of consciousness as human beings.

If instead I called their religion stupid, I really doubt it would have raised their level of consciousness... my guess is that it could have pushed them over the edge and maybe the next day I would have a flat tire.

[irtrogdor]

Originally Posted by Dave McNamee

Truth would be better served by helping those enslaved by religion to understand the freedom and personal strength that can be attained through learning how to be truly spiritually awake and take responsibility for their own lives. Then if they are enslaved they will be able to free themselves. Attacking religion itself is not the way to free the slaves. Teach them true principles and they will free themselves.

Hmm, interesting. Why is it that because I believe in intelligent design of the universe (verses chaos and random life), a God that compels us all to do good (verses somehow finding goodness from within your animal self), and knowing in my heart that I will be with my God after I die (verses fading out of existence or something) that I am enslaved? Why is it that I have to reject a personal God who loves me for who I am to be truly spiritual?

Originally Posted by mlc82

I suppose I get annoyed with organized Christianity's apparent "Get Out of All Atrocities Free!" pass.

But why? Isn't it liberating to know that the God of the universe will forgive you no matter what? That all you have to do is ask and its done? (you do have to ask though)
The idea of forgiveness isn't to bypass responsibility, on the contrary! The idea is that you are recognizing your faults to God and then taking responsibility for your actions here on earth. Forgiveness means that nothing you do on this earth (short of completely rejecting god) will affect your salvation. That is if you have in fact accepted Jesus Christ as your savior (remember, salvation is a privilege not a right)

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by irtrogdor

Hmm, interesting. Why is it that because I believe in intelligent design of the universe (verses chaos and random life), a God that compels us all to do good (verses somehow finding goodness from within your animal self), and knowing in my heart that I will be with my God after I die (verses fading out of existence or something) that I am enslaved? Why is it that I have to reject a personal God who loves me for who I am to be truly spiritual?

I don't really like this article Steve wrote either, but I don't think he's saying what you're saying here. I would venture a guess that Steve believes in intelligent design. I don't think he believes we disappear into nothingness after we die.

After all, his wife is a psychic who has seen or spoken to spirits of people who have left their bodies, so I'm sure he knows that when we die, we don't die. I think Steve's whole argument is with the concept of organized religion as the method of knowing God, instead of doing "your own thing".

Now that I think about it, I would imagine that Erin with her psychic abilities probably doesn't get a lot of love from organized religions such as the Catholic Church. Heck, a few hundred years ago they would have burned her alive for saying she talks to spirits.

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by irtrogdor

Hmm, interesting. Why is it that because I believe in intelligent design of the universe (verses chaos and random life), a God that compels us all to do good (verses somehow finding goodness from within your animal self), and knowing in my heart that I will be with my God after I die (verses fading out of existence or something) that I am enslaved? Why is it that I have to reject a personal God who loves me for who I am to be truly spiritual?

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a compelling need to believe in one and not the other? What harm would it do your mind to be open to the possibility, possibility now, that intelligent design and random chaos are all part of the big picture? Do you define God as so limited that he/she/it/whatever can't comprise both these possibilities? Or is it more that your mind refuses to comprehend the possibility of both? IOW, do you think it has anything to do with the Truth of who/what God really might encompass, or does it have to do with your (our-humans) need to define things based on what we are comfortable with?

But why? Isn't it liberating to know that the God of the universe will forgive you no matter what? That all you have to do is ask and its done? (you do have to ask though)

Why do you think God has a need for this restriction? That in order to be forgiven you have to ask? Why couldn't he just wake up one morning and feel that he's on a forgiving roll and just go about forgiving.......how would that hurt his ego? If god expect YOU to forgive without even being asked (or does your religion teach you you have to wait for somebody to ask you for forgiveness in order to to it?) why is it so hard for him to do the same? Talk about not walking his talk........

Now, of course my belief is that we create God in our own image. Which is the reason it's so easy to blast Steve for his article. He hurt the ego of the people who've created God. I have a hunch God(if he exists) could care less what a blogger had to say.........he's got more important missions, methinks. And I think he only has 24 hours in a day, just like you and I, eh?