So I've thought a lot about inventing a religion since my ascent into non-religiosity. Just a place where people can come once a week to socialize with their neighbors, dress their kids up and teach them good manners, and listen to good advice about living well and how to treat others etc.

But I'm afraid of having any sort of religious ideology, even if it's something mundane like "one should treat others with respect." I'm afraid because obviously ideology can be used for nefarious ends; so I'm wondering if I invented a religion with the teaching of, say, "one should treat others with respect," if that would be used to, like, torture people in the future because they don't adhere to the ideology, or because they don't follow the teaching. Obviously that would be hypocritical, but it's happened before.

But lastly I'm worried about having no ideology, which is an option I suppose. I feel like that might just be too vapid. Say my religion was called Cerifism, if there was an Ideology you could say "I'm a Cerifist," and that would mean (hypothetically) that you believe in the ideology of Cerifism, like treating others with respect. But if there is no ideology then I feel like it would be less meaningful.

Also, if I were to have Philosophers or councilers or ethicists in place of priests, then it seems to me that not having an ideology would be a little anarchic in their "sermons," like, the audience wouldn't have any idea of what to expect. If the ideology which the congregation signed up for were to treat people with respect, then they would have some idea of what they were in store for come sunday morning (or whatever).

Wow that was really long and pointless, I obviously have too much time on my hands. But anyway I've been thinking about this a lot lately so someone help me think this through.


Cliffs:
Ideology often leads to bad things.
No ideology seems kind of meaningless.
Maybe this just illustrates that even well meaning religions are doomed to failure?

Or is ideology only destructive when it is paired with "god." Like, if "god" gives you an order then you better kill or be killed for it, but if it's just philosophy then maybe it's not so powerful or destructive.

I think the "fanaticism" of belief is proportional to the allowed level of reflection; simply a scale going from "nothing else can be true" to "anything else can be true". Extremism (as in the acceptance of violating common moral norms to further your view) would necessitate even more factors present.

Destructive here becomes a descriptive; two different people seeing the same belief might not share opinion on how destructive it is. I, for example, view creationism as more destructive to humankind than religious terrorism (this isn't a commentary on singular acts, consider it more comparing "erosion" too "avalanches") , but I don't expect a proponent of intelligent design to agree.

It is therefore best to describe destructive via som fairly objective metric ala "number of green cars scratched with key per year".

Don't invent a religion then. The purpose sounds nice, just sell it as what it is. Are you American?

What does it mean (to you) when you say that you want to invent a *RELIGION*? What separates this out from, say, a social group like a knitters club or one of those intense fantasy baseball leagues where guys sit around and geek out over stats? (Except that your social group is all about telling kids to dress nice and behave?)

there's a good video on youtube from dan dennett about a church (in boston?) he and many atheist visit to listen to their orchestra, and about a fella who wrote "atheist gospel music"

sorry for lack of detail, if you find the video it might give you some ideas

What is different between Cerifism and Humanism?

I imagine one of them pays better for Hector.

Truth.

Lol, awesome.

Probably not much -- I'm thinking it has more to do with procedure than anything.

I just grew up going to church, and feel like something is missing without it as I begin to raise my family. Going to a ***** humanist "meeting" or whatever seems weak to me. I want the whole church experience. I want to sit and listen to some "preacher" talk about how to live a good life, sing songs with members of my community, and maybe pitch in or do good deeds or whatever when there's a need in the community.

I just don't want this to create divisions in humanity and used as a justification for evil. I don't know if it would or not, though; but it's worth thinking about.

I think your question is important because as you define what no ideology really means you begin to set yourself free.

Ideology must be passed through system and system is always dead and corrupt since it is born of the past.

Truth is detachment from the idea of the past and future.

Those that are the starting point of each religion (Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha...) embodied this detachment, and any attempt at systematizing their teachings was a reattachment to the corruption of time.

Your no ideology sound like an ideology...

All hail Cerif.

Non-Cerifists shall feel our (non) holy wrath.

A life lived sans Cerif is no life at all.

Not to be confused with sans-serif.

--

Even something as simple as typography can stir up hatred in humanity:

http://sixrevisions.com/graphics-des...loves-to-hate/

There's no hope for a religion that does not cause any division at all.

This thread makes me happy.

One good way to stir up rage among graphics designers is to inform them that Comic Sans was based on the lettering in The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. 90% of them grew up reading comics IME.

This is interesting and again makes me want to ask if you're American? Despite the Secularism of the founding fathers and the separation of religion from politics (hah...) the church seems to be part of many American's self identity, almost like an extended family. I've heard a theory that this dates back to when America was being settled by immigrants who used it to replace what they had left behind in their native countries.

The irony is that in the UK, where the Church is institutionalized and our monarch is the Head of the church, we have drifted away from it and attendances continue to fall.

So, why not start an FSM church if it has to be a religion. You could start another splinter group with subtle disagreements about how to worship the FSM and what it's actual intentions are, that way it would begin to resemble real religions.

I think for me a church can give you a sense of social identity, which is missing in modern culture. When human beings were first invented we had a personal identity, but also identified as part of a tribe. After agriculture we were individuals and families, until the present, but this sucks because families suck.

So I think it's really important to our human nature to feel like part of a society, and I think a church can help facilitate that. (yes american)

I'd go further and say that to a large part, organised religions depend on creating that feeling for their survival.

[QUOTE=Hector Cerif;38414042]which is missing in modern culture.[/quot]

This I don't agree with. How have I, with no affiliation with any religion, have no social identity? What am I then?

I don't think it's as simple as this. We evolved from primates that had already selected for group living as a survival behaviour. It's why, even now, we're hierarchical. Tribes may have become nations but that feeling of identity is still there.

Not sure what you're saying here. Hunter Gatherer groups had families and I'd guess that the tribe identity was more important then than after the advent of Agriculture when we became 'settled' rather than moving around in a group. Frankly, a lot of our problems can be traced back to Agriculture but that's a different discussion.

Why do families suck?

I don't think churches 'help facilitate that', I think they take advantage of it.

I can't speak for you, but I have friends, as well as people I work with, and family and so on; but don't really feel as if I'm a part of a community or a tribe or any larger social structure.

I think this is just a symptom of modern life. We isolate ourselves in our little houses, don't talk to our neighbors etc.

I'd be really curious to hear about your social situation if you do feel like you're a part of a community.

Assuming that this is true, is the only alternative a religion? Of course not, so why default to that when trying to establish a community? Perhaps I should be asking why you don't feel part of a community, or that you have a social identity, without it?

I live in a small village,we don't feel part of the local community and frankly the local community would never consider us 'locals' because we're not from here originally, which is typical of humans isn't it. We have a need for community and at the same time we love to do 'them and us', it's such a contradiction.

I feel that I'm a part of the largest community that there is, the Human Race. It greatly disappoints me that we continue to be fractured and tribal.

No offense, but then maybe you're not the best person to help me think up how to foster community. Really, don't you think it would be great to actually feel a part of the local community? And if there was a place you could go to get to know your neighbors once a week wouldn't you think that's a good thing?

This sounds great, but how many people do you actually know in the whole of the world? So you feel like a part of the global community, but you don't actually know your neighbors name sounds pretty sucky to me.

****

As for ideology/no ideology I thought of an example. So in Mormonism and other religions you're not supposed to drink or do drugs (which don't get me wrong I do). So you could have a "church" that ideologically opposes drinking and drugs, and the "priest" could get up and talk about the damage that drinking and drugs does to people.

Now, instead of this you could personally identify with not drinking or doing drugs, and go to a church with no stated values (just for the community aspect) but then what would the "priest" talk about?...

What is stopping you from joining a religious community? That seems to be what you want to do...

I don't know where you live, but there are lots of opportunities to join a community of like-minded people in most cities. Do you like to play a sport? Or are you interested in politics? Do you write or paint, etc?

I grew up in the 3rd largest city in the UK and spent my 20's in London. You shouldn't judge me by where I live now or the attitude of the locals to 'blow ins' as they refer to us.

If I wanted to part of the local community I'd make more effort to be a part of it. I don't particularly. For one thing, I don't have enough toes.


We know our neighbours well actually, they're friends, you're making a lot of underinformed assumptions about me.

I wish we lived in a global society without the sort of divisions that religions help to perpetuate. Think what we could achieve if we stopped arguing over who's version of religion is correct or whether or not there are actually any Gods. No nations, no borders, no 'them and us', it would be wonderful. That's a community I'd be proud to be a part of.

From my perspective, your need to create a religion is driven entirely by your exposure to the current American obsession with religion. I don't think you need it as much as you think you do.

Why on earth would you want to oppose drugs? Do you realise that as a religion, you could actually have the highest court in the land support your drug use? Where cancer sufferers are prosecuted for using Cannabis to ease their pain, you could get as high as a kite quite legally if you claimed that it helped you to communicate or somehow experience your god. Why not make the undeserved respect that religions enjoy work for you.

I enjoy a number of pastimes and I'm a member of several clubs, I think OrPs question is a good one.