10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[mlc82]

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?





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)

I was referring more to no one holding Christian institutions, such as the Catholic Church, responsible for the deeds it has committed in the past. Not anything to do with the Christian god or Jesus.

[pdamoc]

Good intentions, bad approach.

It is like trying to get someone's attention by giving them a kick in the ass.

The article is offensive on so many levels that even if I do agree with many of the points presented here I would not recommend it to anyone.

I believe in God. I believe in His Love.
I believe in the teachings of Christ and I also believe that His teachings, once understood, can be followed without any further assistance from "priesthood".
His teachings are simple, renounce violence, choose love. That's all. Simple. Unbelievably simple. Do this and you will discover the Truth and this Truth will set you free.

All Christ's argumentation was to convince us to give it a try... just give it a try... just a try...He tried to make us understand that if we just give it a try we will understand the Truth and we will be Free...

Unfortunately people saw that they have to change... and decided to learn more about this... Truth of Christ... But no more can be said about this Truth to make you understand it... It is like in the story where the disciples were absorbed in a discussion of Lao-tzu’s dictum: Those who know do not say;Those who say do not know. When the master entered, they asked him what the words meant.
Said the master, "Which of you knows the fragrance of a rose?"
All of them indicated that they knew.
Then he said, "put it into words."
All of them were silent.

You have to practice it. You have to give up violence.

Steve's article is anything but non-violent. It strikes blow after blow to the heart of any believer. Calling all sorts of names... Idiocy or hypocrisy? Inherited falsehood?

I have faith. I believe in Love, I believe that Love is the Answer to this world's problems and I believe, even if this sounds pollyannaish, that the simple refusal to take part in violence will guaranty the installment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

[Love]

I guess what tickled me was that the article didn't seem to have any inherent truth in it. I'm spiritual non-religious myself, yet I believe that the most direct route to consciousness does not have to pass through the spiritual-non religious/atheist route, nor does the route have to be one from religion to consciousness. I think that there is a counterexample for everything listed in the article. The points in the article just point to questions for the self to answer.

Point 1: Do you think for yourself?
Point 2: Are you open or blind?

Etc.

And if the article is really just about questions (as I see it) and not so much about attacking a specific point of view, then IMO there's no reason to attack anything. I can understand the idea that the article can knock people to one side or the other, and thus kind of understand the intent behind the article. At the same time, I know I wouldn't do it with the same tone if I wanted to communicate the same message. I think many things can be said in the name of humor that really should be left unsaid. But that does really only say something about me: that I am a gentle and sensitive person and I would want to communicate in a way that reflects that. It doesn't really say anything about the article itself. So, in my mind, I now respect the right for the article to exist.

[Syr]

@pdamoc: good that you belive in Love, unfortunatly a lot of people claiming to be christians seem to be focused on hate: hate towards gays, hate towards anything which doesn't fit the christian agenda. Sure, there are various grades in christianity (since it's a family of thousands of smaller religions, just like the jewish and muslim religion) but those spiteful "believers" blemish the same religion moderate/liberal people of more liberal denominations.
I've tried this christianity-thing myself, it didn't work out, so I quit it.

@mlc82: I doubt you can win (or lose for that matter) that arguement, it has more effect to shout at a brick wall.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Syr

@mlc82: I doubt you can win (or lose for that matter) that arguement, it has more effect to shout at a brick wall.

I couldn't agree more. Good old questions that were usually met with either non answers such as "God can do anything! You don't need to ask that!" and "Pray about it", being told to "quit dancing around with questions and just have faith", or my favorite, being looked at with sheer horror for daring to (gasp!) question such things are part of what drove me away from Christianity (which I was raised with) in the first place.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Syr

I've tried this christianity-thing myself, it didn't work out, so I quit it.

I was a Catholic and though that nothing in this world could convince me to ever renounce my faith. But something did... and it wasn't something that showed me the beauty of another religion but the beauty of my own religion.

The Church is so contaminated by the precepts of the State concept of life that the true core of Christian beliefs can hardly be recognized under all that dogma.

I perfectly understand someone who is disgusted with "Christian religion" the way it can be seen today. However... Christ teaching are still working inside this world. More and more people choose Love over Fear... more and more renounce violence... and even if you still have more people choosing the laws of man rather than the law of Love, that will not last much longer. Soon the "lightworkers" will be strong enough to tip the balance.

[gombosg]

Hi everyone, this is my first post here. (I'm not English, sorry for any mistakes)
I've been reading your blog for some time, Steve, and after reading this post, I must say it is quite bad compared to the quality of other posts (sorry).

You advertise being objective, looking at things from many directions, and choosing the best by free will, thus living a "conscious" life. That is cool, but in this article you end up generalizing Christianity, humiliating believers and being narrow-minded and subjective. This is just the style of the article, it has nothing to do with my or anyone's opinion.

I was raised by atheist parents, been an atheist, and became a believer for a few years. Then suddenly this spring, I lost my faith, all of it. I became conscious of my free will, I thought I can do anything but last week I collapsed a bit. Of course, there is nothing special in this, as I'm only 18 and in this age everyone experiences quickly changing feelings, even some sort of depression as their personality changes.
But I still have questions: why did I believe? Because it was good.

Yes, you can take all of the mind-control sh!t from many religions. Faith can be based on fear, so people can be controlled by their fears, so money and power can be made from this.
But hey, what isn't about mind control? Just turn on the TV, go to a shopping mall and see the zombies walking around there.
Take a look at Anxiety Culture: Intro, it has many good articles explaining how non-religious mind-control works in our everyday society, based on people's fears.

Look at the average IQ. It's 100, of course, but I'm sure you have more, even about 140. IQ and intelligence in general is about how your brain can process information: how well you can think.
You say you are a free thinker, but most of the people (even me, but I'm still young) don't, and even can't have any more complex thoughts than say what to eat for dinner.
Yesterday I had a date with a girl. Maybe she's going to fail physics, but she showed me poems she wrote earlier. They were awesome. That was when I realized how dull I am compared to her - in one way, at least. I thought that I could have complex thoughts, but just in one dimension (- she lives in another one; maybe that's why i feel there is a communication gap between us).

The average people are also very sensitive to religious control, but so am I, so you are.
StublingUpon a page I saw a book about religion - a way for people's self-conscious brains to cope with the inevitability of death more easily. A part of our brain is responsible for believing in some type of bigger power.

It's easy to say that our brains do that. It's easy to say that religion is rape, incest, submission, robbery, control, sillyness, fear, guilt and evil itself. It's always easier to generalise and talk only about the extremes.

What I realized today, after watching The Matrix and Donnie Darko (which is about God, at least in one interpretation) and reading your article is that what matters is not the existence of God.
Sure, I read several cosmological, evolutionary and physical theories about how our world works. Read about external five-dimensional universes, wormholes, singularity, physical constants and the factor of gravitational attraction, and you might say "sh!t, this can't just be by chance". But you will NEVER prove it in any way. It's easier to say there is god than to have endless external universes out there (see ~dark matter).

After tons of junk talk, finally I arrived at what I relly wanted to say
What really matters, and what you really misinterpret is the faith.
Faith can give you so much power - or give someone so much power. It has to be taught, it has to be kept up, fought with everyday, but it is one way to happiness.
One way. Your faith says: "I am in control of my life". Self-awareness etc.
Another way. Faith in God says "I am in control of my life, but it can't go bad because it is part of a bigger plan".
This has nothing to do with religion, because in its original form, religion is the way of experiencing faith within a community. It should be for the people, but it "evolved" to a form of power.

So why I became a believer? I saw it was good. I saw the people, they were happy and content with their lives, knowing they were on the right path. And they were. They were more intelligent than many-many other people, they achieved what they wanted, and they were conscious about their lives.
Just look at scouting. A worldwide movement made by ONE man, completely nonprofit and it gives real value to the young people. And what "makes it tick"? The faith in God, nothing else.
And I still haven't said a word about jews, catholics etc. There ARE Indian scouts.

That's why I miss my faith and that's why I'm a bit collapsed. I just know what I miss. Something much deeper and of much greater value than what you wrote about in your article.

It's not God's existence that makes people better, but the faith in Him.

If you are still reading this, thank you
I didn't want to write a reply which could even be a separate blog entry.
Maybe it's simply coincidence that the film I watched today (Donnie Darko) and this article were just about the same topic I was thinking about all the day. This inspired me to write more.

[runnerman]

I'll start by saying that I thoroughly enjoy your site and find quite a bit of helpful information and enjoyable reading.
I thought this blog was way out of the ordinary. I am a Christian and am not offended by other people's opinions but the way that you presented your "facts" was almost like you are angry. Not sure why. You're an intelligent guy so I assume you've based your opinions on your research, experiences, and other sources of info that you have come across, but the demeaning attitude of your blog really (for me) is over the top. That's not the way to reach people. In my opinion, to have such a closed minded approach to something as powerful as religion isn't going to bring you to "continued conscious development".
To end, I found it quite ironic that your wife is a psychic who can "get a message from your higher self or spirit guides" or "connect with a deceased relative or friend", yet you have such a horrible attitude toward religion. To believe those things but think that anyone who believes there is a God is a "moron" is quite amusing to me.

This is my first post, this blog persuaded me to take a couple minutes to post something. Wish I could debate more of what I thought.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by 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!)

I go everywhere walking and with public transport. Obviously I've got no flat tire... I should look at my shoes or so. Or maybe they don't care bout me.

[3mb]

I think your article was a little harsh lol but then of course provocation may of been intentional as it does help marketing I imagine.

I don't share your various reasoning in the article, though I'll add that I'm of no religion and agree in so much that I consider the world would be better off without any religious beliefs and with people having more understanding of directing their own thinking and emotions intentionally, and with people being kindly, simply because they have emotional consideration.

To sum up and borrow some one else's quote whose name escapes me:

Man made god in his own image and likeness

[tells]

Steve was a bit harsh on religion with his last post but it was well deserved. In a society consumed by the delusion that religion is the answer to everything, he approached this issue the only way he say effective: with a kick to the head.

Human consciousness is a mystery that should be left for neurologists. It is wrong for a religion to say what your responsibilities are in this world. It is also wrong for a certain religion to say that a certain angel will meet you in heaven or a certain number of virgins will be available to you if you commit an act of martyrdom. Such questions and mysteries cannot be answered yet, if they can ever be answered. However, answering these questions and mysteries with the notion that a supreme being has controll over them gives little respect to you own cognitave processes.

Ages ago, why the sun and moon rose during the day and night respectively was answered by a polytheistic answer of eternally warring sun and moon gods winning and losing battles. We now know that we are part of a solar system that has multiple planets in orbit with some of them having moons. Likewise, the questions of consciousness and the "soul" may be answered by scientists in the next century and the default answer of God is understandable, but still disrespectful to our collective intelligence.

Why do I say collective intelligence? Let me start by saying that having the same beliefs as your neighbor, colleague or new acquaintance only reaffirm those beliefs. Religions have that power about them that it is a self perpetuating machine given the right parameters. What this does is not only give a good base for which the religion the expand upon, it also makes way for exclusive and more polarized groups. When you have large populations so set on certain idealogies on completely uncertain events it makes our species look terribly idiotic.

I'd like to keep going but I have responsibilities at work.

But before I go I leave with one simple idea:

If you're want to take action in your life, try it without "God's help" or without the knowledge that God is looking over your shoulder (he isn't anyway). You might find completing the task to be tougher, but that is because you are now up front with the reality of the situation. Though it may seem daunting to overcome this certain task, you will most likely come up with more intelligent choices and rely less on "luck" and other uncontrollable factors. This is real self improvement.

[irtrogdor]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

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?

Because the God I believe in told me (through the bible) that he created the universe with intelligent design.

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

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........

you are right, I had my theology a little backwards. My dad went to seminary, not me
When you do something wrong, God has forgiven you as soon as you're done. Asking him for forgiveness makes you feel better on the inside. its like a shrink or something.

But even if God has forgiven you, you have stilled sinned and thus become less than perfect. Thus you can no longer be in the presence of God. In order to bridge that gap, God sent the ultimate sacrifice to earth to purify humanity - Jesus. And since God gave us free will we have the choice to either accept his gift of purification or to reject it. Other wise humans would just be like pawns on a chess board.

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

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?

But how you could you create God, who is perfect, from your image, which is imperfect? That just doesn't make any sense! Unless you are saying that your God is imperfect, but if that is the case, how can he be God? Wouldn't there be another entity above your God that is slightly more perfect, and one above that one, and so on? If God was imperfect, could you "kill" him? Would you then become God? And if you became your own God, what would you have power over? Yourself?
(Those are all hypothetical, I'm not suggesting I think that you believe any of it)

[John P]

Originally Posted by tells

In a society consumed by the delusion that religion is the answer to everything, he approached this issue the only way he say effective: with a kick to the head.

Wow. Is that ever a slippery slope.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by irtrogdor

But even if God has forgiven you, you have stilled sinned and thus become less than perfect. Thus you can no longer be in the presence of God. In order to bridge that gap, God sent the ultimate sacrifice to earth to purify humanity - Jesus. And since God gave us free will we have the choice to either accept his gift of purification or to reject it. Other wise humans would just be like pawns on a chess board.

Sin is being separate from God. Jesus didn't die so that we become sin free. His death is symbolic of the killing of the separation from God. It's still up to us to reconnect.

How else can anyone makes sense of "Jesus died for my sins"?

Some guy named Jesus that figured out how to be connected to God and then got killed for it - does not, to me, equate to me being sin free. I think the message must be interpreted wrong in the general common statement that so many religious people just say without knowing what they are saying. Tell me it's faith - go ahead. Faith of what - that some guy dieing means I get into heaven too, later when I die? How come that makes no sense to me?

[Steve Pavlina]

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex.

The following post was written within an hour after sex.

Which is better?

[Syr]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Some guy named Jesus that figured out how to be connected to God and then got killed for it

Ehm, he got killed for insurgency against the Roman Empire. Blasphemers were killed by being stoned to death at that time.

Steve: have more sex!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Syr

Ehm, he got killed for insurgency against the Roman Empire. Blasphemers were killed by being stoned to death at that time.

He got killed for being blasphemous in the view of the Jews, right? Which was to say he was the son of God - which was what the Jews should have seen in their own religion anyway but they didn't see that and called Jesus out as being against their views.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex...

Well, that might explain the cranky "tone" everyone's complaining about!

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex.

The following post was written within an hour after sex.

Which is better?

How do you define better? What is the goal for you when you write an article?

In my option, the religion article is much, much better.

What's the point of improving habits if they are the wrong habits?

The tone in the habits article is much more peaceful, but that comes at the expense of real passion. I can feel much more energy surrounding the religion article. It's an internet changer. Honestly, it almost made me cry I felt so validated when I read it.

Articles like that, so full of passion and worded with blunt, sometimes harsh statements, were initially what made me want to try veganism.

I was a twice a week steakhouse buffet attendee before I read this sentence,

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You could devote your entire life to Greenpeace, and it will only amount to a puny fraction of what you’d accomplish by living as a resource-guzzling playboy who happens to be vegetarian.

That statement definitely forced a reaction from me. I was outraged!! I knew it couldn't be true. In fact, I wasn't going to stand for you slandering peoples life purposes like that. But the more I researched things, the more I couldn't back up my arguments, no matter how hard I tried.

Absolute statements force reactions. People have to go "all in" if they want to stay in the game. Either they have better cards, or they don't. Either way, the bets been called.

I couldn't show any better hands in support of eating meat. It deeply bothered me that I couldn't, and it took me months to accept that I had no valid reason to keep on doing it.

The religion article is just like that. It's written in absolutes, it's uncompromising.

Can all the plausible positive effects of religion trump the negatives you document? I don't think they can.

You don't need religion to engage in positive social structures. You don't need religion to be a charitable person. You don't need religion be be a loving person, or to live ethically. Meanwhile, the net negative impacts of religion are a reality that many, many people need to reconcile.

To me, that's certainty more important to delve into than telling people how to improve habits.

[Syr]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

He got killed for being blasphemous in the view of the Jews, right? Which was to say he was the son of God - which was what the Jews should have seen in their own religion anyway but they didn't see that and called Jesus out as being against their views.

That's what the bible states, but I'm skeptical about this and here's why:
Crucifixion is traditionally used by the Roman empire to condemn slaves, particularly hated criminals and traitors to death. For blasphemy they usually followed the local traditions, since the Roman empire was fairly tolerant of other religions (as long as such believers didn't challenge the divinity of the emperor, which early christians did, leading to their persecution). According to the thora (old testament) blasphemers should've been stoned to death.

Yet Jesus wasn't stoned to death, while blaspheming is said to be the reason for his demise, yet he did not get the usual capitol punishment for blaspheming, so something is odd here...

[Ree]

Wow, the responses to this were almost as amazing as the article itself. When I read the posts by people who are angry at Steve, or upset with him or disappointed, etc., I see people desperately clinging to their "security blanket," which is their religious beliefs.

I know. I've been there. It's damn scary to give up those beliefs because the world and how it works is very neatly explained and categorized and made simple by religion(s).

Having faith in a religion is not difficult. That's the easy way out, the coward's way out.

What is difficult is having faith in yourself enough to make that move away -- away from the comfort of the ancient texts of the Bible and the power of prayer and the fellowship of others who are like-minded -- and step out all by yourself and start a real quest for truth.

[John P]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Absolute statements force reactions. People have to go "all in" if they want to stay in the game. Either they have better cards, or they don't. Either way, the bets been called.

The religion article is just like that. It's written in absolutes, it's uncompromising.

Can all the plausible positive effects of religion trump the negatives you document? I don't think they can.

You don't need religion to engage in positive social structures. You don't need religion to be a charitable person. You don't need religion be be a loving person, or to live ethically. And the net negative impacts of religion are a reality that many, many people need to reconcile.

To me, that's certainty more important to delve into than telling people how to improve habits.

This right here makes sense to me. What you said, Dan, is truly something to ponder. If Steve's article had a similar tone, or said it in an intelligent fashion, I would have been moved by his article. Instead he chose to compare religion to incest and pedophilia, and called followers of religion dummies and babies. And that's supposed to help people? That's the level of discussion I would expect from a group of 7th graders.

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by irtrogdor

Because the God I believe in told me (through the bible) that he created the universe with intelligent design.

Now you are aware that you could of course ask God directly and actually get an answer right? Or do you not trust yourself enough to do that? Or is it simple laziness-- like, why should I? Somebody else already got inspired 2000 years ago and wrote about it, why bother?

But how you could you create God, who is perfect, from your image, which is imperfect? That just doesn't make any sense! Unless you are saying that your God is imperfect, but if that is the case, how can he be God? Wouldn't there be another entity above your God that is slightly more perfect, and one above that one, and so on? If God was imperfect, could you "kill" him? Would you then become God? And if you became your own God, what would you have power over? Yourself?
(Those are all hypothetical, I'm not suggesting I think that you believe any of it)

If God wasn't created in the image of the people who belong to all the different religions (and by those who also don't by the way, surprise), then there would be an easy agreement about the whole God-idea. I'm sure you think yours is the perfect one. Here's a reality check. So does that muslim and that hindu and that jew and that atheist. Everybody's God is Perfect because he/she/it is created in their image. God is perfect to that person, or those people, or that religion. So yeah, my god is perfect to me. As I'm sure yours is to you. Even Steve may not have realized it but he has created a God in his own image. We all worship different things. You probably worship some descriptive god presented to you by ancient jewish understanding (at that time) of what a god looked like and behaved like.

Oh, and btw, Steve mentioned about Jesus being a fictitious character.......do you know there is no mention of Jesus in any other historical book other than the new testament? I mean, 2000 years ago, a lot of written record was maintained. We know a lot about philosophers and great people born way before Jesus. Yet all we know of Jesus is what's in the bible? I mean, the son of freaking God? Don't you think a few more than 1 book would have been a little enthusiastic to write about this ONLY son of God? And btw, why would you trust a book written by the same people who said a man could sell his sister into slavery? I mean do you really believe a man should sell his sister into slavery? Oh wait.......but it's in the bible!!!!!

The bible is simply a book of moral codes written for the jewish culture 2000 years ago. Get with the program people!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Syr

That's what the bible states, but I'm skeptical about this and here's why:
Crucifixion is traditionally used by the Roman empire to condemn slaves, particularly hated criminals and traitors to death. For blasphemy they usually followed the local traditions, since the Roman empire was fairly tolerant of other religions (as long as such believers didn't challenge the divinity of the emperor, which early christians did, leading to their persecution). According to the thora (old testament) blasphemers should've been stoned to death.

Yet Jesus wasn't stoned to death, while blaspheming is said to be the reason for his demise, yet he did not get the usual capitol punishment for blaspheming, so something is odd here...

thanks for the clarifications

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex.

The following post was written within an hour after sex.

Which is better?

The hidden moral here: Both those of us who tend to be angered BY religion, and those who become angry when feeling their religion has been insulted, need to simply have more sex and just chill out.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

You don't need religion to engage in positive social structures. You don't need religion to be a charitable person. You don't need religion be be a loving person, or to live ethically. Meanwhile, the net negative impacts of religion are a reality that many, many people need to reconcile.

I wonder if the net negative impacts of religion are not as bad as if we never had any religion. How can this be compared? To imagine the earth without religions we can see many bad events might go away - but what might have occurred without religions - we don't know, we might have ended up worse if no religion ever came about.

To me, that's certainty more important to delve into than telling people how to improve habits.

If that's all Steve's "have no religion" is saying, then it's debatable wrt the overall world state of affairs (how much war or peace there is).

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex.

The following post was written within an hour after sex.

Which is better?

Obviously you write better when you are sex-starved then.

[Tayrak]

Steve, call it done. That post was beneath you, forget the excuses. On this type of forum there are way too many viewpoints for everone to agree on everything. We are all very open minded, even those of us who dare to say we don't agree with you. Read the posts, no one has hung you, but we have had our say.

It was not the fact that you don't care for religion, it was the way it was stated. We deserve better. To say it wasn't your view point was beyond anything we ever expected to hear.

It's your blog, you may say whatever you wish, however you wish, and we reserve the right to react accordingly. It was done poorly, we reacted strongly.

We have no problems with people saying I think religion sucks, but to say I think you're stupid not to agree with me...best left unsaid.

You didn't have sex?? My first reaction was:

Steve has been abducted by aliens, this is a copy wreaking havoc on his blog. The truth is....

I think I'll just go with the abducted by aliens thing.

Tayrak

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I think Steve was channeling Jesus in that blog!

I think Steve is Jesus! Of course, so am I. I'm also Steve. heh.

So how did it *feel* to write a post like that? It seems like you were trying on a different suit - how did it fit? Was it fun?

It was fun to read.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex.

The following post was written within an hour after sex.

Which is better?

The subject of the first one was more interesting and intriguing, but the tone it was written in was really negative. Of course if you haven't had sex for 30 days, that could explain things.