Help Me Start A New Religion!

Great Debates
21

why should reincarnation be the default? why not eternal life in heaven, or the fact that god is a big purple unicorn? none of these conjectures have any evidence supporting them, so each is as valid as the next. so why choose reincarnation. just because you personally find it pleasing is not sufficient reason to justify its acceptance. why not take the simpler position that we just lay around and rot in the ground after we die, and that (despite your admirable screen name) there is no soul that lives forever. at least, until we find evidence to the contrary. occam’s razor, and stuff.

-b

22

And I’m trying to help you define it. I’m pointing out that you are arbitrarily selecting bits and pieces from other religions because you happen to like the sound of them. But that’s not how the game works. That’s just wishful thinking - “Wouldn’t it be lovely if this were true…”.

pan

23

So life’s a game? Founding religions is a game? I think not. I chose the reincarnation thing (which by the way isn’t necessarily central to this religion) based on the assumption that we exist for a reason. Why would the universe be created, in which sentient chemical reactions exist? That is, after all, what we appear to be; sentient chemical reactions. Is the universe a battlefield, a classroom, a playground, or something else? If this religion teaches that the world is a battlefield (between good and evil), would that promote peace? No. If this religion teaches that the world is a playground, would that promote the pursuit of knowledge? No. I want this religion to promote both peace and the pursuit of knowledge. A classroom is the best analogy to promote the pursuit of knowledge, and it does not promote violence. I don’t want people killing in God’s name.
Remember, odds are that NO religion on Earth is correct; a religion’s main goal should be to teach what to believe, not what is.

As for Occam’s razor…
I believe that the creation (and definition) of the universe being caused by a higher power is simpler than it simply spontaneously created with no outside force.
I have yet to see a logical explanation of how a chemical reaction (like a human body) can become sentient. An outside force (a soul) using a body as a vehicle seems more logical to me than sentience caused and maintained by an arrangement of atoms and molecules (no matter how complex).

And why do traditional religions have more merit than this one? They define the universe arbitrarily as well. Why a heaven/hell afterlife? Would a benevolent God (as portrayed by Christianity) allow his children the possibility of going to hell? Not likely. Is hell logical at all? Is heaven much more logical? This paragraph is rhetoric, by the way; I don’t actually mean to hijack my own thread.

I actually intended this religion (and I use that term loosely) to be more of a philosophy than an explanation of how the universe works.

24

As a soft-hearted atheist, I find myself occasionally jealous of people who have a defined set of religious beliefs. How convenient, I think, to have a whole bundle of ideas simply handed to you, and to be absolutely certain that what you believe is right!

I think I understand what you’re getting at, Max, and it’s a pretty nifty idea, IMHO. Traditional religions remove from their followers the burden of firguring out what’s right or wrong, what happens after death, why good things happen to bad people, and a host of other sticky problems. You instead propose to face this responsibility head-on, crafting your own system of beliefs.

Of course, such a thing can be done without inventing a god.

However, belief in a powerful (or all-powerful, if you prefer) and benign god comes with some benefits. You’re never alone; someone is always there to listen to you and protect you, imaginary though that protection might be. Death doesn’t have to be the end of your existence; in fact, you can look forward to something better, be it heaven or another life. If something bad happens to you, you can just tell yourself that your god is testing you, or that he or she “works in mysterious ways.” If evil goes unpunished in this life, you can take solace in your belief that evil-doers will suffer later on. (I know you’d specifically outlawed karma in your religion, but I’m trying to illustrate the mass appeal of religion here, not suggest actual tenets of your faith.)

So what SHOULD be the tenets of the new religion? I dunno. I guess I’d start with a code of ethics. Basic stuff like treating others as you’d wish to be treated, or asking yourself (a la Kant) “What would happen if EVERYONE behaved like this?” Drat…I’ve forgotten the term for that…is it ‘universalizability’?

When it comes to actual religious beliefs, well, you’re on your own. What do you want your god to be like? An active, benevolent force in a war against evil? A Watchmaker sitting back and observing his or her creation? A miracle-worker? Della Reese?

What are the rules, if any, of reincarnation? Can we ever break out of the cycle? Are the poor simply less spiritually advanced than lucky folks like you and me who have homes and jobs? Cumulative learning from each successive life is fine, but toward what goal? Nirvana, or something like it?

How does the soul get from one body to the next? Are we immediately reborn, or do we spend some time in limbo?

These are all things that cannot be proven or disproven by science. They are also, from my perspective, much less practical than the ethical code. But a religion just isn’t a religion without at least some answers to these questions. And at this point in inventing a religion, the directions become “Make stuff up.”

If I were to suddenly decide that I needed something spiritual in my life, I might latch on to neo-paganism. I like how their eight holidays are spaced evenly throughout the year, and they have a pretty cool Goddess/God birth/death cycle. Plus, you get to light candles and chant spells and stuff. Man, I’d love to believe in magick.

But I can’t.

25

So what you’re saying is that you know that your religion will probably not reflect the truth. In which case how are you ever going to convince yourself to believe in it? Religion without faith is nothing.

Christians (for example) have faith because they genuinely believe that Christ was the son of God. This belief is reinforced by the fact that lots of people believe it.

To repeat myself in an earlier post, whence your faith? You will know that you made lots of stuff up, based on no actual revelations. It’s an exercise in self-delusion. You don’t like the consequences of believing that the universe just is or even worse, that it really may exist as a battlefield for all we know. So you want to push those possibilities to the side and deny them. But this denial is based not on personal knowledge of God; it’s just based on your desires of what you would like the universe to be.

Of course life isn’t a game. Games have clearly defined rules. Games have obvious goals and direction. Life doesn’t. If you want to subscribe to a religion in order to give life goals then good luck to you, but it won’t work unless you believe.

pan

26

40,000 lemmings can’t be wrong…

You know, kabbes, you really ought to work on your constructive criticism skills.

27

Aw c’mon. I didn’t say that they were right to believe it. I just said that their belief is reinforced by the fact that lots of people believe. I don’t think that this is too much of a claim.

My constructive criticism? Each time you’ve replied to me you’ve taken one small quote out of context and chosen to reply to that. How about addressing the thrust of my scepticism against pick ‘n’ mix religion rather than going for the soundbite?

pan

28

Max the Immortal wrote:

Oh yeah? Well, my god can beat up your god!

29

You know, I don’t feel like arguing now. I think I’ll just let this thread die and start another one like it in a few months. Perhaps then I’ll be able to get help defining the “what?”, instead of being tangled up in the “why?”.

30

PINK! PINK! THE UNICORN IS PINK!
Invisible Pink Unicorn. Never mind the fact that invisibility and pinkness are not only contradictory, but mutually exclusive. And people have trouble with the Trinity. I find the concept of three Persons in One Godhead infinitely less incomprehensible than the idea that a Unicorn can be both Invisible and Pink.

Anyway, it’s Max’s religion, he can do whatever he wants to with it.

Oh, and Max, I’ve been doing some thinking since my last post. I think a big part of the reason I had trouble with doing the self-styled religion thing was because I was trying to do it on my own. You need to get youself a body of followers with whom you can enjoy fellowship, affirmation of your faith, and a weekly quota of hugs.

31

Religions based on sound principles dont capture the imagination. If you really want to kick off a religion you need to be supremly confident, have the ability to discount logic through circular arguements, eternal existance (which you promise) , a strange and mysterious godhead (you again)and the scent of ‘it will all be better after your dead’. I think you stray from the path where you go accepting science. No true cult/sect/religion will take you seriously if you go round paying attention to science. Also, you say you dont want money!?! come on! How else can people salve their perpetually nagging conscience without the relativl easy solution of vast donations to your worthy cause. The people dont want truth or a ‘nice’ religion. They want blood and fire, the suffering of the unworthy and the reassurance that death will not be the end for them.
I suggest a different Dogma for your people.

  1. Science is Heresy
  2. God will SMITE the unbelievers.
  3. God doesn’t do what you think he will, he does what he tells ME he will.
  4. God has a reason for everything. Even circus peanuts.
  5. There is a Hell, and it is far worse than you can imagine. Most sermons should be composed of descriptions of these horrors.
  6. The only way to avoid hell is through flagellation of the soul, achieved by deprivation due to vast donations to the CAUSE
  7. The CAUSE is unknowable and undiscusable and further questions about the cause will be regarded as Heresy, which will force us to perform the good Lord’s will.

That’ll put the fear of god into the ingrates.

32

Isn’t that a description of the worst kind of christianity that was ever practiced? Not only am I trying to start a NEW religion, I’ve decided to wait a little while (until december or january) before continuing.

Now, could The Powers That Be (in charge of these boards) kindly lock this thread up? Thanks in advance.

33

How can you have a discussion of the what without the why? Good god man, that’s the most fundamental of any strategic thinking - you have to know your aims and objectives and in order to do that you have to know why you’re planning the project. If the “why?” is flawed then you throw out the project. I’m telling you why I think that the premise is flawed and hence why you’re going to have difficulty in forming any kind of cohesive religion. You’re telling me that I’m just being some kind of irritant and you’re going to come back in a few months. Presumably you’re hoping that there’ll be a lot more sycophants on the board at that time.

Here’s another “why?” - Why come here to ask our advice and draw on our collective talents if you’re just going to ignore the response?

pan

34

Max
The moment you depart from science and accept dogmatic and axiomatic premises you enter the realm of the absurd. Seems to me that is not the intention here so you should rethink your initial assumptions regarding the acceptance of the existence of God and the occurrence of reincarnation.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the church issue. Such organizations are often misguided and tend to be, to a certain degree, political in nature. Having people believe blindly in your precepts just eases the road to manipulation and exploitation. Sure, the level of corruptness has, in the Catholic Church at least, decreased significantly. Anyhow, they still hold a great deal of ideological leverage and as you know, ideas, in the form of the actions they motivate, are the forces that govern the dynamics of our society in all of its dimensions–political, economical, etc.

The best religion, IMHO, should be a marriage of moral philosophy, science and pragmatism. As such, its fundaments should lie firmly on the grounds of empirical evidence and its teachings directed to the benefit of the human race, from a pragmatical standpoint of course. No sense in preaching unrealistic and excessively romantic values like giving the totality of your riches to the poor.

Better to stimulate the believer, via the establishment of reasonable moral values, to better comprehend the inner workings of society, the crises subjugating the masses, the political maneuverings taking place and the such.

That would pave the way for the surfacing of an empathic and educated perception of the overall situation which, in conjunction with ethics, should create a relatedness to the problems engulfing society and lead to a path of intrinsic goodness and collaboration towards the advancement of the noble cause that is relieving social problems in general and individual afflictions in particular.

On a related note

I posted this on another thread but since the nature of God and the origin of the universe are of relevance here I am posting it again with a few minor changes to more properly adapt its content to the current subject.

From the standpoint of divine intervention, I foresee only five plausible scenarios that can justify our existence:
[ol]
There is only one god, eternal in Nature, who has existed forever and in a moment of solitude created the universe and let it evolve to the point where there could blossom rational beings capable of questioning their origins.

There is one and only one God who suddenly materialized itself out of nowhere and, in a flash of creative inspiration, created the universe.

There is a concatenation of “Gods”, much ala Greek mythology. The initial God either has existed forever or came to be at a particular juncture in time–if there was time prior to His existence, which doesn’t seem reasonable. In any case, if we abide by our current conceptualization of God, only the primordial God could be regarded as such, the other being minor Gods as far as the creation of our universe concerns.

There is no God, the universe is an orphan creature which suddenly bolted into existence. It emanated out of nothingness at a particular moment.

There is no God, the orphan universe has existed forever, its eternal nature preventing the localization of an initial moment in time which could have marked its genesis.
[/ol]

Anyhow, there is no way, at this stage of our intellectual and cognitive development, that we could answer these inquisitions regarding the origins of the human species, the universe in which it blossomed into life and the Creator responsible for its existence.

35

It should be clear by now, but most religions, new or old, are at their least effective when trying to make concrete physical (or metaphysical) pronouncements. Max’s silly insistence on reincarnation is an obvious example of that- it’s the first thing that you can genuinely, concretely, object to. Likewise, even most atheists don’t have a problem loving their neighbor as themself- it’s the framework that they object to, and the claim that by agreeing with “love thy neighbor”, you are also asserting that everybody on the planet is descended from a guy with a boat full of animals.

If you really want to be a religious leader, there are two ingredients that are a part of almost every successful religion, at least in their early years:

 1.A moral code that affirms local behavior as the             pinnacle of righteousness.

 2.Ritual, and lots of it.

Odd as it may sound, the ritualism is probably the most important part: it builds community among worshipers, and fills what is essentially a basic human need for structure.
The actual ritual (little discs of bread, praying in a cetain direction, etc.) is unimportant, so long as you can get people to do it. Once they do, boom! You’ve got religion…

36

I agree with Some Guy. Ritual is very important. I’ve been to many Protestant Churches where once the hymns were sung, you just sat there and listened to the preacher talk. Subject of the sermon was usually what a fine Christian the preacher was. Granted, some of them were interesting, dynamic speakers, but in the end I really didn’t get anything out of it.

The Catholic Mass (or liturgy, if you’re of the Eastern persuasion) gives the congregation a real sense of participation.

So, yeah, ritual. Candles, incense, the whole ball of wax.
Write a lot of litanies, and prayers with verse/response.

And in the middle of it, you have to have a break for some kind of sign of peace, so everybody can run around and hug each other.

Hugs are important.