Don't be stupid. There is an incredible amount of satanic destruction caused by drugs; which this pro-drug website glosses over. Drugs cause once wonderful parents to abandon and abuse their children. This is something I've seen with my own eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the legalization of drugs, but you Boosh, are committing an act of evil by euphamizing the destructive potential of drug use.

Well, I am not sure about this whole ideology/no ideology thing. To me it seems, we all use some ideology just to get through the day. Red light means stop, you go in through "in" doors, drive on the proper side of the road, etc ...

So, I don't think of it as "no ideology," but rather how we form and relate to our ideologies in life, religious or otherwise.

You seem to be talking about rules of behavior and that if we have no rules of behavior (no ideology) what would the "priest" talk about ... well, what if instead of some prescriptive rules, the ideology consisted of some principle. So, its not so much "don't do this, don't do this, don't do this, etc ..." The idea promoted was to act in such a way as to maximize human flourishing.

That is, we may teach our kids very specific acts, e.g., look both ways before crossing the street. That is a good thing to know, but what is more important may be the principle behind such a simple rule, "Safety." So we emphasize the principle and point out/discuss actions that may or may not promote the principle, so in the end the child can use their own wisdom and intelligence to make the appropriate choice (as opposed to just going through some rote actions).

hmm..

Semantics to the max -- but I think this is just another ideology. So even if one of the principles of the "church" was "safety is important," that would be an ideology.

Rather than religion, I would compare it to political parties. The different political parties -- firstly are seemingly inescapable -- but also have different values and whatnot that parents can pass on to their children. I don't think much violence is caused in the name of parties, though there are divisions for sure.

****

So, some random concepts I think I would realistically incorporate as the tenets of my religion would be:

• The existence of God is not something the Church of Cerif takes a position on, one way or another.
• One should try to treat others with respect.
• One should have compassion for plight of others.
• Regardless of the reality of freewill, the mind we are born with and the mental state we develop in relation to our environment are real, and they are outside of our control.

And maybe that's it.

I'm not sure if those are as bad as a political party or a religion or not though.

Anyway sorry for trolling you, sore subject. It could be. I've just never felt as much a part of a community as when I went to church.

Maybe the "religion" title is making you wary. Really you could call it a community center or whatever.

Edit: also church of cerif is just a working title of course. I've been kicking around the name "First Human Church." Sounds pretty humanist though maybe there are copyright issues.

Semantics, I dunno - maybe, but I would say language matters.

Anyhow, you won't get away from ideology. If so, you could run red lights with no consequence.

I pretty much agree with your "concepts" except for the last one, how you relate to your environment is totally within your control.

No problem, although I'm not certain which bits were the trolling.


Yes it's definitely the word 'religion'. Open a Bar, that would be an easy way to enjoy both drugs and being part of a community.

would this be similar the sort of division that you keep perpetuating, the division between religious and non-religious? Or is that a different kind of division?

lol, I should just come over to the dark side? Or we should all follow one religion? In a situation of 'lack of belief' vs 'which belief to follow', which is really the dividing influence?

To aid this goal of uniting us all in religion, which religion should I join Neeeel? Also, how realistic do you imagine the scenario of a world united in one religion to be?

I wasnt suggesting you join a religion. I just found it funny that you were attacking religion for perpetuating division, while perpetuating division yourself, thats all.

Its a human thing, its how the mind works, divide into categories, us vs them, etc. It helps simplify the world so that we can use beliefs and assumptions, rather than having to work everything out each time.

I understood that which was why I presented two options. The only way to remove religious divisions is to all become atheists without beliefs or all follow one religion.

Of the two, I see Atheism as the least troublesome course. Studies have shown that Atheists tend to be better educated, more tolerant and more liberal. I imagine an Atheist world to be a thoroughly more pleasant place to live than a religious world.

Yes it is, I'd agree, but that doesn't stop me wishing it wasn't the case and when I look around I see religion as one of the primary reasons for it being the case.

All told, I find it sad that Hector is even considering founding a religion or that the idea would even be in his thoughts when considering how to create a community. All he'd be achieving is creating a new sub division of a larger community but not one united in a shared pleasure but one opposed to other people's beliefs.

Why are religious divisions bad, but your divisions are ok? that was my point. Im pretty sure that there must be more that 2 options, arent you presenting a logical fallacy of some kind?



And what I am pointing at, is that you are just as full of divisions, and those divisions are the primary reason for suffering in the world.

Religion is not the reason that we divide into categories, us v them. Being human is the reason we divide into categories.

I don't think so. Maybe you're thinking of the False Dichotomy but I'm not presenting two options as if they were all that currently exists, I'm suggesting that only way to prevent religious divisions is to have a completely religious world or a completely atheist world.


And one of the most prevalent, damaging and limiting categories is 'your religion'. There are others (such as political differences) but this is RGT. If you removed all the religions and everybody was an atheist, you would have no religious divides. If you removed all the atheists, you would have a world divided by religion, something that people die and kill for.

Now tell me that my lack of belief is as equally divisive as religious beliefs?

Dont these two contradict each other?


and its you that is creating the category "your religion". You are the one that is dividing the world up into us and them ( with you as obviously the good guy).

We appear to be going round and round
I am making a simple point

You accuse religion of "creating divisions"
I am pointing out that you do exactly the same, you create divisions.
Its not that religion as a thing creates divisions, its that its a human characteristic to separate, divide, identify. Religion is made up of humans, so yes, it creates divisions. But so do you. You are doing it right now, when you divide between religious and non religious.

Thats all I am saying.

Do you believe that "something that people die and kill for" is limited to religious beliefs?

The error you're committing is that you're oversimplifying the problem. Yes, this is RGT, but the approach of trying to ignore other differences merely because you're discussing issues in a particular forum is a large mistake.

Your diminution of the role of ethnic/racial/cultural diversity in a large number of human conflicts is extremely problematic for your view.

Your "lack of belief" can be as equally divisive as religious beliefs. The reason is that you don't have a lack of beliefs in all areas. Your lack of religious belief is not as equally divisive as religious beliefs, but your other beliefs can be as equally divisive, or even greater than, religious beliefs.

Just as a point of fact, I believe your other beliefs has caused a division between you and another atheist.

No


Agreed. Although I'm not sure I'd use the word 'error'.


The bolded I'd agree with. The sentence that follows I wouldn't, at this point. Can you offer an example of belief systems that cause significant divisions between human populations where the lack of those beliefs is more divisive than lack of belief is in the context of religion?

Weren't a majority of the wars in the 20th century based more on political divisions than religious?

Political divisions do not pit political vs apolitical, they occur when contrasting political ideas meet and cannot compromise. Is there even such a thing as apolitical?

Atheism in and of itself does not lead to anything and so cannot be divisive.

The major religions include incompatibilism with other religions built into their religion. So do certain political ideals. The way war does NOT break out, whether religious or political or xyz, is by their members compromising or not being fanatical. If there is no compromise or fanatics are in power, people will go to war.

A third way to end or reduce division is for different ideologies to simply accept each other, hence there are differences but not divisions. I think most people live this way...mostly. But fanatics and those unwilling or unable to compromise exist in politics and in religion.

What word would you use?

Huh?

So... You don't believe that you have other beliefs that has caused a division between you and another atheist? The fact that you're not agreeing on the characterization of your claims is not a division? I'm very confused.

This really makes me want to ask "Is there even such a thing as a-religious?" I'll grant you atheism, but can you really extend that type of perspective far enough to be meaningful?

I agreed that I was simplifying the issue and that I wasn't including the other ares you mentioned. There was no error being committed though. We're discussing this at a very generalised level currently.

I agree with the bolded, that my lack of religious beliefs are not as divisive as religious beliefs. In fact this is my point, thank you for agreeing with me.

I don't necessarily agree that I have other beliefs that are as equally or even more divisive as religious beliefs. At this point I'm not sure if there is anything more divisive than religion.

I don't see what's huh about that.

Possibly but no where near the magnitude of the divisions caused by religion and it's the magnitude that we're discussing Aaron.

Yes, this should be unproblematic. Areligious would mean something ala "a subject who holds no particular religious standard, principle, code, or knowledge".

Since the core aspect of "religion" is that it is organized, so you could essentially even believe in a god and be areligious under this definition.

For each thing you could label as a religion, what makes you think it is unlikely for someone to NOT hold to such an idea, or that they must hold at least one?

I don't know what you are getting at with this.

I'm still confused as to why you would want all the hassle of starting your own cult rather than just joining an established church/synagogue/temple?