10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

I found this article while searching for something completely different some time back. The author is most certainly irreverent, and even insolent, but I think his approach is both interesting, and amusing at times, and was worth a read through.

Here are the reasons, and a few snippets to boot.

1. Spirituality for dummies.

If you have the awareness level of a snail, and your thinking is mired in shame and guilt (with perhaps a twist of drug abuse or suicidal thinking), then subscribing to a religion can help you climb to a higher level of awareness. Your mindset, however, still remains incredibly dysfunctional; you’ve merely swapped one form of erroneous thinking for another...

2. Loss of spiritual depth perception.

One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying “I am a Christian” or “I am a Buddhist.” This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately.

3. Engineered obedience training.

Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will. They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate.

4. Toilet-bowl time management.

If you devote serious time to the practice of religion, it’s safe to say you practice toilet-bowl time management, flushing much of your precious life down the drain with little or nothing to show for it.

5. Support your local pedophile.
6. Incest is best.
7. Idiocy or hypocrisy – pick one.
8. Inherited falsehood.
9. Compassion in chains.

10. Faith is fear.

Religion is the systematic marketing of fear.

Blessed are the poor (donate heavily). Blessed are the meek (obey). Blessed are the humble (don’t question authority). Blessed are the hungry (make us rich while you starve). Blessed are the merciful (if you catch us doing something wrong, let it go). Blessed are the pure of heart (switch off your brain). Blessed are the timid, the cowardly, the fearful. Blessed are those who give us their power and become our slaves. Muahahaha!

Personally, I agree with much of what he has to say. Especially when it comes to organized religion, and its leadership. I think we're better off without gods and goddesses as a society. But to each their own, it's a decision each individual must make for themselves.

If you're interested, do take the time to read the rest of it before you comment. It's not that long. If not, that's OK too.

Source

reply to post by Klassified


To me it's simple.

Organized religion is for people who enjoy cults.

Personal religion are for those who understand what spiritually really is, a personal experience.

Personal FTW

~Tenth

Interesting, i have found a trend in Athiesm/non believers that parallels negativity. This guy is a pessimist. Instead of trying to push forward and prove existence of a higher power, he talks about how certain labels do not exist or are bad altogether.

I feel sorry for the author, as he seems to think he is outside of the box and all knowing, but is trapped in an illusion that allows him to believe it.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

That's a good way of stating it, and looking at it.
I agree.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree maybe personal FTW should become a new saying on ATS when someone try's to preach to us all.
OP was it Chris Hitchens? the author ? If so he is the man.

reply to post by boymonkey74

Steve Pavlina. It's his website.

reply to post by Klassified


Ohhh gonna look into him cheers

reply to post by Klassified


The author believes in free will. Free will is an illusion. The only thing man can do is adjust his focus. What the focus lies on changes the path that is already predetermined.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Klassified

 

To me it's simple.

Organized religion is for people who enjoy cults.

Personal religion are for those who understand what spiritually really is, a personal experience.

Personal FTW

~Tenth

Bingo. I think most people join a religion out of pressure and annoyance when describing beliefs that cannot be summed up with a single word.

"Why you should never have a religion"
>Complains entirely about Christianity (and Judaism and Islam by proxy), implying it's the only religion or spiritual philosophy in the world, and that all religions and their denominations are about submission, fear, and worship.


Is this guy even trying? Right, it's hip and trendy to poke at the "mind-slaved" Christians and say religion is regressive to consciousness (couldn't believe that one), but his crude, arrogant, and ignorant over-generalizations make this impossible to take seriously.

You go, Horus!

Zeitgeist educated Atheists (I'm assuming he's one) are the funniest.


reply to post by tothetenthpower


Pretty much agreed.

reply to post by Klassified


As much as I might bad-mouth, bash, make fun of, and disrespect most organized religion, it fills a cultural need for identity, community, and belonging for many.

Granted, these are the needs of typically average intelligence and lower sorts that need someone or something to tell them what to do, but, all in all, it fills that cultural need among many for that sense of belonging, community, and definitive identity.

One of the biggest problems I have, personally, is where faiths, primarily the JCM trio get off on a doctrine of entitlement where their way is the only way, as well as doctrines of intolerance for anyone not in their club, plus crusader like dictates to convert others to the following.

We don't see Hindus running around forcing their faith onto others.
We don't see the Buddhists kung-fuing their way across the Asian continent to win converts.

They're fairly benign faiths, as with some others that hold prodigious cultural significance and identity that's entirely relevant and worthwhile an observation to practice.

While the Jews out of the JCM trio aren't as offensive when it comes to unregulated assertive cancerous growth as it is with Christians and Muslims, there's still that centrism and self entitlement among all three that makes for lots of ugliness.

Do away with entitlement in exchange for observation of acceptance and tolerance for other cultural ideals.
Cut out the mandates to crusade everywhere for converts in just accepting other for who and what they are.
With such, religion might not be as ugly a monster as it is.

Sure, each flavor of faith has its problems; Hinduism has that ugly caste system for instance, where most faiths are somewhat misogynistic if not more than somewhat.

All in all, however, average folk need that sense of community and belonging to something that resonates with their cultural sense of place, time, and being.

So long as it's mostly harmless/benign, then, religion can actually be a 'good' thing.

reply to post by Druscilla

Yes, I can be rough on Christianity, but it isn't because I don't understand it. It's because I do, all too well.

The problem with curtailing their "entitlement", is that they have it pounded into their heads by their "scriptures" and from the pulpit, that their god's way is the only way. Period. End of story. They're also required by their own scriptures to proselytize. They really have no choice in the matter. Christians call it "the great commission". They must share the gospel by the command of Christ himself. And of course, it is these two behaviors that non-believers detest most.

I honestly have nothing against spirituality. I have my own ideas of possibilities in that area. But admittedly, I do despise organized religion. Though I try to keep it to a low hum. It's time we, as a civilization, wean ourselves from these religions that espouse an elitist mindset among their followers.

Thanks for your input, and your thoughts.

The last two posts have got me thinking about a sort of natural selection applied to religions. It is terrifying to think that the most aggressively expansionist religions are likely the ones to become most widespread and the more sensible ones are likely to be converted at swordpoint.

And the nature of aggressively expansionist religions meshes quite nicely with power hungry leaders. It is a great pretext with which to conquer and control, which only makes these things only more likely to happen

Buddhism is a great example of how to spread a religion in a way that isn't damaging. It can coexist with other more local religions quite well and as a cultural admixture I think Buddhism can be quite a stabilizing influence.

reply to post by Mkoll

Terrifying indeed. Un-natural selection might be a better description. Catholicism is a great example of just such agressive expansion. They converted whole cultures at the end of a sword.

reply to post by Klassified


S/F, my friend!

Yes, the author is "all-up-in-your-grill" in his style, and I'm sure some believers (LOTS of believers) will take offense. No one likes to be smacked down, so..... I'm wondering how this message can be delivered ever-so-gently, handling the believers with kid gloves, validation, and compassion, while still exposing how they've been misled.

The most important point, I think, is for them to realize that their leaders don't even know the answers. I wonder sometimes if religion would have died out long ago if the "Holy Handbooks" had never been made available to the masses! On the surface, it might seem that allowing the vulgate to have access to the writings is giving them the opportunity to come to their own convictions rather than listening to their leaders' interpretations ONLY; but then it also gives EVERYONE the same opportunity to twist it round and teach it....
regardless of their ability to make sense of it. In fact, it doesn't make sense...none of the Abrahamic books make sense.

Would you be willing (here or in u2u) to share your experience in becoming one of those leaders? Who taught you? What was the curriculum? How did your teachers style themselves to get you to where they thought you needed to be?

Presumably, ANYONE can decide they are a "religious leader" with a "divine calling and message." ANYONE.

Should there not be some sort of "vetting" process? And how much does "luck" have to do with becoming a Religious Star?

Yesterday I was just surfing out of boredom and came upon a strange little documentary called The Eyes of Tammy Faye, from 2000.

While rather poorly produced, with insipid puppets introducing each section, it still told the story. Many of our younger members here may not have ever even heard of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye. I had, naturally, growing up during the time of their ministry (although only because they were famous - or "infamous" - much like youth today all know the name of Beyonce, or The Dalai Lama - but I didn't know the whole story.

She was a laughing-stock for the non-followers at the time, but hugely popular among the evangelical crowd. I recommend viewing it, for some background into televangelism. Fascinating.

Poor thing. I feel bad for her now; she seems to be honestly a sweet person, who got caught up in the whirlwind of love, fame, and politics. A naive young woman, brought up in Assemblies of God in the extreme northern Midwest.

Do you have any thoughts about her, Klass?

reply to post by wildtimes

I have mixed feelings about Tammy Faye. On the one hand, I think she was sincere in the beginning, but the money, the fame, and the temptation was just too much. Also, from what I understand, her background put her in a position to crave the limelight, and the circumstances in which she was looked up to. Jim however, is a different story altogether.

My rise in the church was more the old fashioned way. I got it as I earned it. The only trainer I had was the bible, and many hours of detailed study and prayer. There were those I looked up to, of course. Those I thought were role models for Christians to mimic. But as an elder(deacon), I was expected to be able to preach, teach, and minister in the pastors absence, or by request. I learned by doing. If I had any help at all, it was by reading books written by those who were experienced in ministry, and a pointer here and there from a few evangelists, and others I could ask questions of. I don't think I ever got comfortable with it, but I did it enough to at least become proficient at it.

Yes, anyone can be a "leader", but if you want the churches support, you have to go about it the proper way. Most fundamentalist churches believe, as a minister, you should be "under authority" of a presbytery. Otherwise, you're just a rogue Christian out there doing your own thing without the support of a body of believers, and most likely, out of the will of God. So there is a vetting process of sorts, but there's a lot of politics involved in it.

reply to post by Klassified


So you was a deacon but gave it up? with what church did you belong? what changed? and what do you believe now?
Sorry for the questions but I'm intrigued.

reply to post by boymonkey74

It was a fundamentalist, independent church. Their beliefs were similar to Assemblies of God, and Pentecostal. What changed, was at the time I saw way too much going on among the leaders of the churches that had nothing to do with God, and everything to do with the devil they scorn.

But later on, I realized I had been living a lie, and belonged to a cult called Christianity. I am now an atheist. Though maybe not your typical atheist.

reply to post by Klassified


Good for you fella.
Oh and thanks for answering me .

reply to post by Klassified


I ran across this and thought you and any readers interested in this thread might find it interesting if not already known:

Almost Half the New Testament is a Forgery

It's old news from May of 2011, but, still interesting -

Nearly half of the New Testament is a forgery, according to a provocative new book that charges the Apostle Paul authored only a fraction of the letters attributed to him and the Apostle Peter wrote nothing.

According to the biblical scholar (Bart Ehrman), at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him. "Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon," says Ehrman.

Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, he adds.

I've no certainty regarding the validity of any of this, as from my perspective, any and every document claiming to be inspired by any god is a 'forgery' sham put on by delusional people that convinced themselves of some fantasy, so, it matters not to me, but, others who still attach significance to any ammunition they can gather against these mythologies may find it of note.