If you could flip a switch and erase all religion would you?

Post Reply New Topic

Well he told me himself he's a Pastafarian, and who are you to be the judge there to claim Pastafarianism isn't a real religion? If you say that then I say Christianity isn't a real religion. And if you're going to question my cat talking to me, I've got the same amount evidence for my cat talking to me as anyone else does for having angels talk to them.

Meh. I've been wrong before.

Hey my cat is a Pastafarian too. the trouble is the other cats in the area interpret the religion differently and they all keep fighting.

As a believer in Jah Pastafari, I smoke linguine.

(But only for ritual purposes.)

Albania actually did ban religion, from 1967 to 1990.

Enver Hoxha (the guy who led Albania during most of its communist era) had this big ego thing going on. He even gave himself credit for the laws of gravity.

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 14 Oct 2008, 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If he banned Jah Pastafari he's no f*****g hero of mine or my cats. BTW chever how do you manage to keep the linguine alight, I have horrible problems with this and it is such an important part of the ritual.

Oh yeah, wasn't it the only athiest state at the time?

It sure was.

I actually would be interested in hearing more about that if you'd care to elaborate.

That looks a bit like my faith that everyone who indiscriminately loves everyone and everything in this entire universe [which I see as God's creation] as much as they love themselves, will be liberated.

Uuurrrggghh, I am feeling particuarly ill today. I'v been sober for like 3 weeks. I am starting to realize why I drink. This autism/cognitive disorder stuff is like coming down, 24 hours a day.

I write religion personally. It's my gift.

There is a simple reason that I write religion.

Religion is going to exist whether one likes it or not, one can either create religion worthy of the gift of Existence, or step aside and let someone else do it.

Religion is going to be created whether you like it, or not. There is no point in complaining about religion, seriously. Either step up and write religion, or step aside and leave it to the experts. Leave creating religion for the people who want to create a better future for humanity. Leave the creation of religion to those who want to bring at least a degree of sanity to religion. Or alternatively I guess you could leave creating religion to the psychopathic, megalomanical narcissists that want to corrupt the power to create religion in the Universe for their own amusement. They do tend to be in the majority afterall. You know I have to give them a mention. I'd hate people to think I am being biased, or unobjective, or anything.

Personally, I don't trust anyone else but myself to write religion responsibly to the high level of quality that I demand of myself.

Human beings have two choices. A human being can either ignore, or complain about religion and let religion run completely rampant. Or a human being can do something constructive about religion and write religion that is actually worthy of the gift of Existence.

I'v chosen to take personal responsibility for the power that exists in the Existence to create religion in anyway that can be rendered by the mind onto the surface of the Universe. What can I say? I like a challenge?

First a definition of religion that is worthy of the gift of Existence: Religion is simply a set of beliefs and preferably a set of facts about what human beings know, and what human beings don't know about Existence that are shared by a group of people so that they can relate to each other better.

This is obviously an immense oversimplification of the problem. But the truth is: so long as human beings are faced with Existence and so long as human beings have a fear of the unknown, then someone will come along and create religion. Existence = complete unknown. Existence = complete mystery. Existence = complete f*****g shock to the nervous system, to anyone with a set of eyes and who has the enlightenment and vision to use them.

There is a huge market for religion, and so long as there is a market, someone will come along and create a product to try and tap that market.

The only way to combat the laughably primitive and rather infantile examples of religion that are part of the human sphere of Existence, is with religion that is designed to be superior in every way to what actually exists... It's a vicious cycle.

I think one of the main problems with religion on Earth is that as far as I know, aside from the religion I myself write there are no examples of religion on Earth that are actually, truely worthy of the gift of Existence. Therefore people tend to base their often short sighted understanding of religion based on the only examples of religion that humans have. This is unfair to religion. Every aspect of a religion can be designed in anyway that can be rendered onto the surface of Existence by the mind. Religion can be designed to be anything we want. Religion can be designed to be healthy, both intellectually and spiritually to the individual. Religion can be designed to be in absolute harmony with science.

The bottom line is that the creation of religions and the perpetuation of existing religions is almost an inevitibility. One cannot stop religion. One cannot make it go away. The only choice human beings have is to take control of the power to create religion and they must learn to harness and channel that power for the benefit of the individual and to shape a future worth having for our species.

I mean how are you going to stop the creation of religion. I am writing religion off the top of my head right now.

Last edited by Transcention on 16 Oct 2008, 7:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

It doesn't effect me whether religion exists or not though I dislike it when it tries to play science or claims to be truth as it isn't. The reason again why I would erase religion if I could is more of a "why wouldn't I?" question. I mean if I was given the opportunity and it didn't require effort, sure why not. It's a pet peeve and a pet peeve gone is great.

Well at the end of the day, the fact remains. There is no way to erase religion from human Existence, aside from brute force, and brute force would, most likely, just drive religion underground. I guess I wish I could press a button and erase all competing religions to my own so that I could bring equilibrium to humanities spiritual and intellectual evolution. But that's a wee bit fanciful. One can only hope and pray that natural selection extinguishes 99.9 percent of the religions of Earth over the millennia.

Religion is whatever you design it to be.

Religion and science can be in complete harmony with each other.

Here let me give you a better example.

72

In Universalism science and religion are two sides of the same coin. The lessons learnt from science, is not just information and data. The lessons learnt from science are religion in Universalism. For example, evolution, as a scientific concept is just a theory, but it's a bloody good theory, in fact, while it may not be completely right about how the Universe and Life evolves, it certainly seems like an idea headed in the right direction. Evolution as a lesson learnt from science, is religion in Universalism. That is how Universalism works as a religion. The lessons that are learnt from science, is the religion of Universalism. All scientists in a sense that make progress in their respective fields are essentially, unwillingly, most likely, and almost certainly unwittingly, at this point in spacetime at 2008, writing the philosophy of Universalism. Of course since all the science in the Universe is essentially the philosophy of Universalism, then the philosophy of Universalism is far more vast than my own simple little Life can encompass. To think, every time a scientist learns something new about Existence, they are unknowingly writing the philosophy of Universalism, for me, and consequently for all Universalists. I find that immensely amusing.

Just because no religion exists on Earth that actually "IS", in almost perfect harmony with science, this doesn't mean that religion "CAN'T", be created to be in almost perfect harmony with science.

A lot of religions claim to be in harmony with science but I have never found a religion outside of the religion, of Universalism that I write, that actually "IS", in harmony with science.

Never make the mistake of of thinking that religion can't be designed to be in almost perfect harmony with religion just because you have never seen a religion that actually is.

I consciously and fanatically, objectively, to the very extent of my human ability try to make sure Universalism as a religion is almost completely at one with science.

I am a big fan of the history and philosophy of science; the methodologies of science, and so forth. To me personally, the distinction between science and religion is gone. To me everything learned through science is part of my religion. The planets revolve around the sun? That's my religion. There are how many stars in our galaxy: 150 billion? That's my religion. The theory of Evolution, even if it's a little flawed. That's my religion.

It's pretty simple in principle to almost perfectly blend science and religion into one, at least in terms of designing one's philosophy to represent this principle and premise in the philosophy and religion one writes. Of course, it's easier than it looks. One has to practice and perfect it.

Religion is however you design it to be. Every living being in the Universe, if they don't like the current state of religion they are experiencing, has the absolute right, to step up and do a better job of it in relation to the religion that exists around them. Every living being in the Universe has the right to stand up and create better religion than the religion that exists around them, if the religion around them offends them so much.

It's harder than it looks to do a good job of it though. You know. There's a lot to think about... There's a lot of things to consider before one starts writing religion, at least, if one wishes to do a competent job of it. It's lucky then, I think, that I have thought long and hard about the subject. I like to think that all the groundwork, thought and consideration I put into writing religion shows.

Of course, I tend to find most people whether they like religion or not, no matter what religion they belong to, whether they believe in God, or don't, are pretty irrational and unobjective about religion. I'm just not cursed with this lack of objectivity, or rationality. I am not cursed with a lack of vision. I am not cursed by a lack of insight.

I am, of course, cursed with this terrible Aspergers/cognitive disorder. I have felt particuarly ill with it lately.

But you know, I make the most of what I'v got in Existence. And write religion through my illness the best I can. It certainly makes my work that much harder. I guess Life is just harder for some, than others.

Last edited by Transcention on 16 Oct 2008, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

A lot of it is based in the Gospel of Matthew (which, thanks to acting in the musical "Godspell" over the summer, I now know fairly well)...

The first part of it is the two greatest commandments: "Love the lord with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind", and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus states that "all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments", which means that those two take far more priority than anything else (contrary to what Fred Phelps will try and tell you).

Now yes, the first of those two says "Love the Lord...", but that's where another part of Matthew comes in: The parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Click here for a link to the wiki of it, or if you have a bible handy, it's Matthew 25:31–46. I'm not going to repost the parable in its entirety here). Anyway, Jesus states “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Therefore, by feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc., Jesus says that doing such actions to your fellow human being means you're doing such things to Him as well. Same applies to doing the reverse.

What I take away from that passage is that, even though it's established elsewhere in Christian theology that no human, however virtuous, is enough on his own to enter Heaven, doing good deeds still earns one the equivalent of brownie points with Jesus, regardless of what the person in question believes in (since doing good deeds for your fellow human translates into doing good deeds for Jesus).

In contrast, merely believing in Jesus is not grounds for In Matt. 7:21-23, Jesus says:



In short, Jesus sees maintaining good ethics as far more important than going through the motions of the religion.

Last edited by ToadOfSteel on 15 Oct 2008, 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I voted no because:

a) Removing anything that has had as much of an impact on society (for better or for worse) as religion would almost certainly have some sort of unforseen consequence on world history that no one could have predicted. It could be something good, but it could in theory be something horrible. It's a bit like saying, "Let's remove nationalism and see what happens." It might even affect the way thought and early philosophy were conducted.

b) I'm a transcendentalist with some panentheistic tendencies (or is it the other way around?), so I'm a bit biased in that regard.

Even though I've done a lot of thinking to get to where I am belief-wise, I won't be frequenting this sub-forum very often. This is because every Internet debate on theology that I've ever been involved in seems to accomplish nothing but start a flame war. The last one I got into was on one of the most civilized, intelligent, and erudite boards that I know - the Rifftrax forum. I put forth my views and ended up getting blasted from both ends of the debate. There was one creationist who came out of the woodwork (he hadn't posted much before, and hasn't posted at all after) who ended up basically calling me a heretic who didn't truly believe in God at all, while one of the atheist forum members said that I would think more like he did if I didn't "hate myself so much" (his actual words). It had been going on like that for about eight pages, but that comment made me just go "screw this, this is pointless."

Yeh I voted no as well.

I don't think there is anything wrong with religion in its self. Hell I love religion. I just don't like any religion any human beings have created. I mean, aside from the religion I write anyways.

Religion is what human beings make of it. Just because human beings have completely botched the job doesn't make religion bad.

Yeh I feel your pain bud. I don't like to post on forums either. I just get so frustrated with my Aspergers that sometimes I just need a place to express myself once in a while.

It's hard to find rational, reasonable discussion on the Internet. It's sad that a man with my talents has not a single soul to talk to aside my wife about religion. Every now and then I just turn to the net to let some of the pressure off my mind. I think I'll have a couple glasses of champagne tomorrow and do some personal writing.

Geez I had to look that one up.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the source of universal truth. This concept of God is closely associated with the Logos as stated in the 5th century BC works of Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), in which the Logos pervades the cosmos and whereby all thoughts and things originate; e.g., "He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one." A similar statement attributed to Jesus by the John 10:30 and interpreted by the New Thought movement as being synonymous: "The Father and I are one."

While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme affect and effect" of the universe. See Cosmotheism

I'm agnostic personally. I believe that is the most trancendent position one can take if one wishes to be totally honest about Existence. The religion I write is wholly agnostic. It is my belief that human beings have no true knowledge about what governs Existence, not yet anyway. I believe that to be enlightened, one must first be as honest a reflection of the actual reality that human beings experience, as they can be. Even if that means, honestly reflecting the truth that they themselves do not know a lot of things about Existence.