Let's make up our own "Religion"

[SleepyWitch]

hey folks,
why don't we make up our own "religion" instead of insulting each other?
I'm putting religion in " " here because what I'm talking about is a set of values that we can all agree on rather than any kind of detailed doctrine or rituals etc..
maybe we can leave God out of the picture for a minute... yeah, i know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, but I think most religions share a basic set of "human" values and arguing about God's (non-)existence might obscure these common features... also things like values are more concrete then abstract concepts like "God"
of course, you can contribute values that stem from your particular religion as long as you don't use them to prove the 'superiority' of your creed.
I'd also like to invite my fellow agnostics/atheists to take part, because I'm sure they believe in lots of principles even though they don't refer to any god.
maybe it's best to name some value you wouldn't want to miss at any rate first.. something that's totally indispensible to you... there will be plenty of time for hairsplitting later
oh yeah, one more thing... maybe we could just assume for a minute that there is no need for 'salvation'.. let's just assume that life isn't all that bad and humans aren't all wicked (God or no God)
ok, I'll make a start (although not a very imaginative one):

helping people (as long as it doesn't encourage too much dependence) reasoning behind this?.
none... it's just something I feel is essential to human relations

[amanda_isabel]

i like the idea, sleepywitch. but i'll have to think about what i'll add to the litnet's new religion. i'll post it when it hits me.

[Azazello]

Yes, you may worship me!

S.

[Mililalil XXIV]

The idea of finding what we have in common has the potential later for reflecting back a possible universal consciosness of a particular ENTITY. Once that should be found to be the case, poeple can mutually compare their lines of reason to clearer agreements.

In the meantime, the idea of values intrinsic to the general idea of religion, distinguished from personal selfishness made into irreligious excuses from moral decency, is not a bad idea, sleepywitch. It takes being more honest with ourselves about what ideas attend our heart apart from culturally stimulated doubts from externally developed modern ideas. If we can determine the human nature in a whole state, then we can rightly consider man as in GOD's Image.

Religion is pointless unless it is for an earnest purpose. The word implies reconnection to something. Stakes support growing vines, but one using them for nothing of the sort doesn't take their purpose very seriously.

[cuppajoe_9]

maybe we can leave God out of the picture for a minute...


The idea of finding what we have in common has the potential later for reflecting back a possible universal consciosness [sic] of a particular ENTITY.
If we can determine the human nature in a whole state, then we can rightly consider man as in GOD's Image.Well somebody didn't read the original post.

Anyways, we need a set of values. How about we start with 'no killing people under any circumstances'? We value human life, in other words.

[kilted exile]

Ok, something I think we can all sign up for:

No required gatherings at the weekend (especially in the mornings)

[Mililalil XXIV]

Well somebody didn't read the original post.

Anyways, we need a set of values. How about we start with 'no killing people under any circumstances'? We value human life, in other words.
Seeing as it was near the commencement of the thread, I merely said those things as showing just what was said, and in no way introduced an equation, therefore I did not introduce GOD into one. She, if you read her words carefully, did not rule out our doing as I said may very well end up happening. She only said maybe not to use discussion of GOD for now, in getting the discussion under way. Your criticism has no basis when you read what sleepywitch wrote, then actually read no more in what I wrote than what I actually did write.

We hadn't gotten past the beginning, so, as an introductory comment, to the effect that doing as was suggested may, under true comparative assessment, lead us through a growing awareness of just how people arrive at things not apparent at first to all, was not ignorance of what had been suggested. To suggest that no such outcome will be arrived at later is rather narrow-minded, being said without so much as a shred of reason for it.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Since we are trying to be orderly, in saying no killing under any circumstances, let us leave aside, for the moment, the thing about no exceptions to not killing. Let it suffice to say that the principle behind never killing be a must for looking into. Many believe in the death penalty, or in abortion, or in euthanasia, etc. Obviously, then, the principle for not killing must precede all talk of no exceptions to not killing.

This brings up a mutually supportive pairing:
1)We must seek the utmost support of all humanity's life;
2)This, already sounding essentially related to Love in some way, must lead us on to consider whether we shouldn't also seek the utmost wholeness for the lives we want to preserve - and what does this involve, to give one another the utmost quality of life?

[cuppajoe_9]

Ok, I like Mil's points, but the wording on number two could use work.


Other possible main points:

1. All human beings are of equal dignity and worth.
2. The happiness of the people around you must come before your own.
3. Suicide is strongly discouraged, except to save someone else's life.
4. Taking more than you need is forbidden.
5. Unnescisarily inflicting pain on one's self (or causing pain to be inflicted on one's self) is discouraged. (I would rather this religion be martyr-free, in other words)
6. Sex between concenting (I want to say 'adults' here, but that's not quite what I mean) persons who have gone through puberty is completely fine.
7. Absolutely no killing others or yourself for your religion.


What are we going to call this religion, anyway?

[cuppajoe_9]

Hey, new idea: we should be an agnostic religion. i.e: We take absolutely no position on whether or not there is a god.

[happenstance]

How about keeping the word "Religion" out of this "New Religion"?

Be kind to others. Help those who cannot help themselves. Take time to enjoy the simple things in life. Have you noticed how beautiful a clear sky is at night? Take a look.

It will all work out.

peace

[Virgil]

What are we going to call this religion, anyway?
How about wishy-washy? :D

[cuppajoe_9]

Give me a break man, I can't start a religion by myself. You contribute somthing.

[happenstance]

What are we going to call this religion, anyway?


Howzabout... Philosophical serenity???

[cuppajoe_9]

Works for me, but what do we call the members?

[SleepyWitch]

This, already sounding essentially related to Love in some way, must lead us on to consider whether we shouldn't also seek the utmost wholeness for the lives we want to preserve - and what does this involve, to give one another the utmost quality of life?

hm... and this is were it gets complicated... what do you mean by "wholeness of lives"? do you mean in spiritual terms or material things like standard of living etc?


Taking more than you need is forbidden.
i like this point a lot, but how can we define how much a person needs/ is entitled to?
thanks for posting so many ideas cuppa, i like all of them :) but maybe we'll have to discuss them to see if they are watertight/ if there can be exception to them and under which circumstances

[SleepyWitch]

Ok, something I think we can all sign up for:

No required gatherings at the weekend (especially in the mornings)

:lol: hehhe :) plus, no 15 min bell-tolling on Sunday mornings

[jitendra]

Why one more religion ? The world already has enough. The only thing that we require is to follow the religion which is close to our heart and grow as a person with human values. Its only the bad followers who corrupt the religion, not the religion.

[cuppajoe_9]

i like this point a lot, but how can we define how much a person needs/ is entitled to?Thank you kindly. I don't think that 'how much you need' requires a strict definition, even if one existed. Individual interpretation would be sufficient. If one person is feeling a bit Thoreauish and decides that all they 'need' is a 25sq foot log cabin on a lake, then they can feel free to donate all their worldly possesions to a good cause. If a person feels that they need a larger house for their family, and that they need a computer for their work and a car to get there, that's also fine with me. However, anybody buying several acres of virgin forest and cutting it down to build a gazillion square foot mansion would clearly be in violation of this rule.

[Virgil]

However, anybody buying several acres of virgin forest and cutting it down to build a gazillion square foot mansion would clearly be in violation of this rule.
But that's how much I need. I'd like to live alone with no one near by so I need lots of land. And then I'd need a big house for my entire family, with individual bedrooms and studies and libraries and game rooms. Who's to say how much a person needs, unless you're a dictator of course.

[cuppajoe_9]

Fine Virg, but both of us know you're lying.

The idea is to live simply, I'm not going to steal anything from you.

[Virgil]

Fine Virg, but both of us know you're lying.

The idea is to live simply, I'm not going to steal anything from you.
I'm just teasing a bit, Joe, if you don't mind me calling you that. ;) Well, perhaps that's an ideal for a religion, but if a gov't told me what or how I should live, I would think it would be taking my freedom. If I earned that money legaly then I should spend it as I see fit.

[cuppajoe_9]

Fair enough, but I don't think you (or anybody, the government included) has the right to destroy a virgin forest to build a ludicrisly large house (or anything else). This is, in a sense, telling you how to live, but only to the extent that you don't inconvenience everyone else by living in a particular manner.

[Virgil]

Fair enough, but I don't think you (or anybody, the government included) has the right to destroy a virgin forest to build a ludicrisly large house (or anything else). This is, in a sense, telling you how to live, but only to the extent that you don't inconvenience everyone else by living in a particular manner.
I understand that. And under most circumstances I advocate it too. People in a community vote on how their neighborhoods are organized. They district out commercial areas, residential areas, and wilderness areas. I feel it's best left up to the community. I hate to tell people who live a thousand miles away (even if it's my own country) how they should district out their area.

[Mililalil XXIV]

:lol: hehhe :) plus, no 15 min bell-tolling on Sunday mornings
Once it has been determined what the underlying values of the proposed religion are, only then can the superficialities be weighed. Whatever the beliefs behind bell-ringing, it probably is simply a good indication of believing in something. As a spiritual principle, there should be simplicity of foundation and roots - but as these flower into something, to restrict manifold intricacies that are simply the ever growing extension of understanding a simple truth more deeply, we are making an inorganic box that tramples out the beauty of life illustrated in endless ways throughout all of nature.

[shinigami]

Well, I don't mind killing.. as long as it's for the right purpose.. As in, a baby is a baby but if you know that that baby will suffer through starvation as a result of an unwanted pregnancy... then abortion [in it's own is a sort of killing] should be allowed... as well as the death penalty.. for offenders I mean.. Of course there should be an extensive trial before one should give such a punishment as this...

Everybody should be equal with regards to discrimination and what not, but of course people must still acknowledge professional heirarchy...

There should be no limitations to what a person, be it a man, a child or whatever, have in terms of free will, unless it becomes morally wrong.

People should only do the right things.. not the good things...[There is a difference.]

People should not be required to do anything against their will so this "new religion" should not only be loose enough sopeople won't feel restricted in what their oppurtunities may be... [Example.. no eating of.. animals... In a dire situation one must eat... So it would be bad to make other people feel bad because they "betrayed" their religion in favor of living... - again.. I wouldn't like any martyrs...] but still strict in a sense that people do have rules to follow...

I'm sure people would agree to this...

1. No Rape.. under any circumstance..

2. No Inhuman Acts like starvation, beating, sleep deprivation...[even during war]

3. No corruption of child-innocence.. [wouldn't want any childto get hold of pornography and become a "lady of the night".]

4. Good will should be spread to everyone else when it can be afforded.

5. Everybody should learn to say "please" and "thank you"

6. People shall be judged according to their actions and not of their intentions...

[I have an idea... Castration for Rape...] [Exile for Adultery...] [Celibacy for Prostitution..]....

[cuppajoe_9]

Well, I don't mind killing.. as long as it's for the right purpose.. As in, a baby is a baby but if you know that that baby will suffer through starvation as a result of an unwanted pregnancy... then abortion [in it's own is a sort of killing] should be allowed... as well as the death penalty.. for offenders I mean.. Of course there should be an extensive trial before one should give such a punishment as this...Abortion, perhaps. Death penalty, no. I don't want any part in a religion that kills people to show that killing people is wrong.
3. No corruption of child-innocence.. [wouldn't want any childto get hold of pornography and become a "lady of the night".]Survival of the species demands that childhood innocence be corrupted at some point (hopefully before one turns 25).
[I have an idea... Castration for Rape...] [Exile for Adultery...] [Celibacy for Prostitution..]...And burning at the stake for witchcraft? You're a scary dude.

[ShoutGrace]

There should be no limitations to what a person, be it a man, a child or whatever, have in terms of free will, unless it becomes morally wrong.

How would you be able to judge what is morally wrong?

[shinigami]

Hm.. god questions.. and it's dudette by the way... Corrupting of Innocence as I call it should be part of the school curriculum.. as in.. sex-ed... not blatant.. I'm a 4 year old kid and I walk in to a triple X movie-stuff... Yes.. I am scary, in a sense...

The Death Penalty can be waived...

What is morally wrong? Hm... As long as it does not intervene with the rights of others, and the other laws, [like no killing, no inhuman acts] it could be considered morally right... hehehe

[muhsin]

Wow! What a hot discussion?
It's absolutely good, keep on posting views.
By the way. We have to mind our language in public.Because, I heard one called other as "liar" this is perfectely unacceptable in this Forum-as I think, ok? As one great scholar said:"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."

[Anna G. Appel]

The creation of a new religion is an extremly hard concept, and I wouldnt say that it is the greatest thing to do or think about doing seeing that many minor religious groups are hated, despised, and protested against due to the people who are in another religion, or those who just disagree. Seeing society today not everyone would be able to agree with a specific religion, or a religion at all. A worldwide religion would be so general if come to agreement because no one would be willing to compromise their own beleifs. I see it going on in this thread.

[miss tenderness]

Sleepywitch, it's nice of you to try gathering us in one corner .However, I do not think that I'll join in till I know who is my God and does he deserve my worshipping. I can't put the God issue aside cuz it's vital to me and to any religion. what sense does it make if we adopt a religion without a God. Sounds like a house without a ceiling. The idea is invalid. I do think that we as humans share most of the instinctive morals (love, help, mercy…) and religions come to cultivate and give them more value. Taking it humorously, as most of the above did, I suggest that it takes the name of LitNet religion but the name of its member must be decided deliberately lol. Something that sounds rocking and exotic.

And hey constructors, no stealing from other religion's teachings, if you gonna do such, then why not adopting the origin version???

[Mililalil XXIV]

Sleepywitch, it's nice of you to try gathering us in one corner .However, I do not think that I'll join in till I know who is my God and does he deserve my worshipping. I can't put the God issue aside cuz it's vital to me and to any religion. what sense does it make if we adopt a religion without a God. Sounds like a house without a ceiling. The idea is invalid. I do think that we as humans share most of the instinctive morals (love, help, mercy…) and religions come to cultivate and give them more value. Taking it humorously, as most of the above did, I suggest that it takes the name of LitNet religion but the name of its member must be decided deliberately lol. Something that sounds rocking and exotic.

And hey constructors, no stealing from other religion's teachings, if you gonna do such, then why not adopting the origin version???
As an aside, I have to find Miss Tenderness' logic here quite legitimate, as religion did in fact begin in an attempt to reconnect to GOD. There was no non-theological religion to begin with. What we might be looking for here, though, as trying to fulfill Sleepy Witch's suggestion, is the perfect essence of ethics common to the like need of all - but this, in proportion to the existence of GOD HIMSELF, reflects back on HIM as the FIRST CAUSE of all Good. Even looking at isolated bits of Goodness, it is simply as looking up close at cells of a person with a microscope - you connect it all, stand back for the bigger picture all at once, and you see GOODNESS personified. We shouldn't be afraid to look at the parts - who's afraid of the Truth if one is on a legitimate Quest? From where Sleepy Witch is coming, her line of inquiry is logical, while from what Miss Tenderness already accepts of the Reality of a DEITY, and of the historical origin of Religion, her comment is logical.

[Jay]

As an aside, I have to find Miss Tenderness' logic here quite legitimate, as religion did in fact begin in an attempt to reconnect to GOD.
At high school in one lit class regarding mythology, we were talking about people 'inventing' gods to explain things they didn't understand, mostly weather and seasons changes or answers to the philosophic questions such as 'why am I here' etc. Having a deity held responsible to all the unknown/beyond understanding would be convenient.

[SleepyWitch]

sorry i haven't been able to post in a while.. got a term paper due next week. I'll be back towards the end of next week and join the discussion

[shinigami]

hm... I miss this too...

Um... may I suggest that this religion may also conform to the laws of science and math...

[miss tenderness]

sorry i haven't been able to post in a while.. got a term paper due next week. I'll be back towards the end of next week and join the discussion


good luck Sleepy :)

[Mililalil XXIV]

At high school in one lit class regarding mythology, we were talking about people 'inventing' gods to explain things they didn't understand, mostly weather and seasons changes or answers to the philosophic questions such as 'why am I here' etc. Having a deity held responsible to all the unknown/beyond understanding would be convenient.
Things like that are often said in school, but that could be for the mere convenience of trying to use the school system to stamp out belief in GOD. There is no proof that the idea of a GOD WHO is SOURCE of all things came from observing nature. Only pantheism seems to fit that notion. Though pure pantheism may be a modern illusion of retro-misunderstanding: pantheism often involves personifications of many aspects of nature under a Chief Deity that fills everything but is more than mere nature.

It seems to me that modern minds invent many things:
black holes, for example, are a rationalization about appearances observed with limited understanding and knowledge;
evolutionists speak of things willing to fix infixed problems, giving the mythical sounding idea of a universal will in nature that pushes things through a progression of forms - but who has proven that if I sense a need to have longer Elf ears, my future progeny will attain that evolutionary aspiration in several millennia?
people try to explain some of JESUS' Miracles of Healing with hypnosis - but modern science can't do half of what they attribute to hypnosis under known hypnosis in the most-controlled settings;
and on it goes.

The earliest traces of religion cannot verify an invention of the concept of Spirit and Deity, but show a presupposition of both beneath an attempt to relate to both.

[Jay]

What I was trying to say was that it'll be logical to first 'create' a god (or several, doesn't really matter), and then try to get in touch with that god (eg. create rituals that'll please a god and it'll rain more). You first need to have a god to try to 'connect' with one. I was trying to say that 'religions' at first had to have gods and only then try to connect with them (use them for benefit, eg. if it rains more, they'll have better/more crop).
I have no idea what you're trying to say by mentioning Jesus's miracles of healing. I never said anything about Jesus. I wasn't even talking about Christianity.

I don't think 'you sensing a need to have Elf ears' (for whatever reason) would make it important for your genetic make-up to agree with your wish (unless you'd want to have an Elf-ears gene put into your DNA ;)).

Let's not discuss black holes (unless you'd want to include them in the creation of 'our new religion' :p )

As a side note: Why do you think school systems would try to stamp out belief in God? Not sure what made you say that. I didn't say we were taught that God didn't exist.

[earthboar]

The idea of finding what we have in common has the potential later for reflecting back a possible universal consciosness of a particular ENTITY. Once that should be found to be the case, poeple can mutually compare their lines of reason to clearer agreements.

Nice, Mililalil. That was Carl Jung's premise of the collective conscious. Find common themes and archetypes across cultures that had nothing to do with each other, and extrapolate an underlying uniform basis for humanity.

[ShoutGrace]

I think that if you were trying to create something, it would have to be true. If you create a God I guess you have to be a SuperGod, or something, ish.

I think that you have a historical model for creating the perfect 'religion'.

----Give people a sense of worth and dignity
----Give them a sense of purpose (convince them that they are here for a reason). Advise them of a purposeful higher calling.

----Have a Super-Personable, loving, kind, self-sacrificing, loving, loving, part of your 'God' exist experentially in the hearts and lives of your believers.

That'll convince em.

[shinigami]

Um.. not actually.. as it is a human defense to ignorance that we first created a Fod... no offense to you shoutgrace, but it's true... that's where aliens come from..
and God...

[ShoutGrace]

Um.. not actually.. as it is a human defense to ignorance that we first created a Fod

I won't affirm that I am right or that you are wrong - or vice versa - I just want to point out that this statement is your opinion and not necessarily a truth.

Mine is completely different. In my opinion, if someone could show me how my faith has a solely human source, it would be very convincing/persuasive.


no offense to you shoutgrace, but it's true... that's where aliens come from..
and God...

You're telling me that you think that the most important, all encompassing aspect of my life is a mere product of human incompetency.

None taken?

[earthboar]

I think that if you were trying to create something, it would have to be true. If you create a God I guess you have to be a SuperGod, or something, ish.

Your last sentence of the above quote is pretty difficult to refute, ShoutGrace. As for the first, I create art, but none of it is perfect. Would you agree on that basis the creator of the art is probably imperfect, as well?

[ShoutGrace]

I think that if you were trying to create something, it would have to be true. If you create a God I guess you have to be a SuperGod, or something, ish.

I think that you have a historical model for creating the perfect 'religion'.

----Give people a sense of worth and dignity
----Give them a sense of purpose (convince them that they are here for a reason). Advise them of a purposeful higher calling.

----Have a Super-Personable, loving, kind, self-sacrificing, loving, loving, part of your 'God' exist experentially in the hearts and lives of your believers.

That'll convince em.

I was just trying to point out

1.) how crazy it would be to create a 'religion'
"1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." if it weren't grounded in utter truth,

&

2.) how impossible it would be to create a true supernatural order . . . or whatever the right word for it is; which you would have to do to ground your religion in truth.


As for the first, I create art, but none of it is perfect. Would you agree on that basis the creator of the art is probably imperfect, as well?

On a strictly technical level, of course I agree with that. You create art (I'm assuming here in our actual reality). No one would or could argue that either you or the art is 'perfect'.

On an analogous level, not at all. I don't think that this illustration works. God isn't solely an artist and people aren't art. People have different properties than paintings and sculptures, and they are effected by different things in different ways. And the Universe is not merely a canvas or block of ice.

[earthboar]

On an analogous level, not at all. I don't think that this illustration works. God isn't solely an artist and people aren't art. People have different properties than paintings and sculptures, and they are effected by different things in different ways. And the Universe is not merely a canvas or block of ice.
thank you, ShoutGrace.

What art is just a canvas, block of ice, lump of clay, block of wood, or what have you? I think the illustration of imperfect art = imperfect artist works exactly as it is intended on the analogous level. An artist isn't soley an artist, and paintings and sculptures have different properties than just their physical constituency, else it would not be art. The thing (art work) has a purpose, too. The purpose is to elicit feeling and thought, regardless of whether that feeling or thought is objectified in words. Every "i" doesn't have to be dotted; every brush stroke doesn't have to be just so for the thought or feeling to arise in the observer.

In fact, it looks to me like the artist is imperfect--and therefore the Artist who created the artist is also imperfect. For now, that explanation satisfies many troubling questions. The sacred is often explainable by use of the clear and evident analogies found in the natural world. Hence, the parable. As for religion, it is a human construct anyway, so why not indulge in this little exploration of ours? It's fun and educational!

:)

[Mililalil XXIV]

What I was trying to say was that it'll be logical to first 'create' a god (or several, doesn't really matter), and then try to get in touch with that god (eg. create rituals that'll please a god and it'll rain more). You first need to have a god to try to 'connect' with one. I was trying to say that 'religions' at first had to have gods and only then try to connect with them (use them for benefit, eg. if it rains more, they'll have better/more crop).
I have no idea what you're trying to say by mentioning Jesus's miracles of healing. I never said anything about Jesus. I wasn't even talking about Christianity.
All I said in the first paragraph of response - my main response - was the following:

Things like that are often said in school, but that could be for the mere convenience of trying to use the school system to stamp out belief in GOD. There is no proof that the idea of a GOD WHO is SOURCE of all things came from observing nature. Only pantheism seems to fit that notion. Though pure pantheism may be a modern illusion of retro-misunderstanding: pantheism often involves personifications of many aspects of nature under a Chief Deity that fills everything but is more than mere nature.
I mentioned nothing about JESUS or Christianity in it - and I want you to know that you were not accused of anything in regard to commenting on either. What you have said above has logic in stating that a religion has to be formed around an already percieved "god", though it does naturally beg the question (as bringing us to the next step in a line of reason), why would anyone have invented the "god", rather than just presume a phenomenon as atheists today do? How could the concept of "DEITY" be invented at all?

As for my mentioning "JESUS" or "Christianity" at all, I did so after my main response to you, in which I showed a list of things that seem fanciful if you take a fresh look at them. Mentioning "JESUS" and "Christianity" was connected to one of these points, not reflecting back on your words at all, but on the myth made up in modern times to explain something away. I only brought up this list of things to illustrate that mythology is a modern practice, to show the context into which what is often said in schools today is propounded upon the developing minds of trusting, impressionable children.

That list is commented on point by point in your words as follows:



I don't think 'you sensing a need to have Elf ears' (for whatever reason) would make it important for your genetic make-up to agree with your wish (unless you'd want to have an Elf-ears gene put into your DNA ;)).

Let's not discuss black holes (unless you'd want to include them in the creation of 'our new religion' :p )

As a side note: Why do you think school systems would try to stamp out belief in God? Not sure what made you say that. I didn't say we were taught that God didn't exist.
My point about ear evolution was to give an example on which to pin the idea of evolution occurring. There is said to be this genetic wish that determines slow changes of species. That aspiration of the genes itself sounds like a fairy tale. Some non-personal will that has whims, but still is neither accounted for, for really identified nor defined as to what it even is supposed to be, this guiding principle that is purposely branching out without any reason.

In my country, the school system does exert itself to the end of stamping out Christian belief in children from their first year in school. We used to say the Our FATHER in elementary school, when I was little - though my parents told my teacher I wasn't allowed to say it with the class. A couple years later , that was thrown aside. We were suddenly taught that Christianity and Judaism were absolutely known by all to be lies, and that evolution was not a theory, but the main fact learned when a child got to be our age (twelve). We were told that no one in the Hebrew Scriptures had ever existed, and so on.

[Master Niklaus]

That is wonderful that a new religion is trying to be created, but it sounds like you guys are trying to create a society instead of a system of beliefs. You must have a spine of thought to sprout the ribs of rules from.

I believe most religions have started with a key idea, God, or Good, and defining, and separating it from Bad. Once Good has been shown, then it must be proven to the people why it is good, and why bad is bad. Blind faith wont work anymore in todays society for a new religion. The religion should be open to all ideas; when being shown to the people in a discussion, a defensive stance should never be taken. Only offensive, and when your belief cant explain something that another can, stop examine why it cant and why theirs can and combine them until a new idea fits.

As for the belief, one should always worry about oneself before others. Not worrying about societal placement, but looking within and finding the inner-self before ever worrying about the community. Then the connection with the inner-self develops into a connection of all inner-selves, a society. Where we can understand that good and bad are just relative to the inner-self, and that their can never be a set of universal morals with so many different cultures. Culture is the clothing the inner-self wears. Instead of religion being a mesh that its followers just grab on to, it will be a net that is rooted between and connecting all the inner-selves.

Skipped over quite a bit, but you must first have a cause before you can create its effects. Dont make any rules until you know why those rules need to be. If there is no explainable and agreeable reason then their is no need for the rule.

[Jay]

... why would anyone have invented the "god", rather than just presume a phenomenon as atheists today do? How could the concept of "DEITY" be invented at all?
As far as I can tell, people felt the need to understand what was beyond their understanding (and use that new knowledge somehow, let's say, to make it rain more often as an example). Then people didn't know the physics behind rain, they didn't know what makes it rain. So they 'invented' a higher being and said that the being was responsible for rain (maybe for rain only in a polyteistic version, or for rain and everything else they couldn't understand in the monotheistic version). In my opinion, it would be understadable to give the being certain powers, like, let's say, make it rain whenever the being felt like it. I think they might have tried different things to get the being to make it rain often and sometimes, it would rain and they might have interpreted that as they have had to do something that pleased the said being. With enough time, someone would 'figure out' what's required of the people to do that makes it rain more. I'm not sure what phenomenon are you talking about (or if you had anything in particular in mind) but as far as I can tell, atheists today prefer to look for answers in other places than religion.
If you allow me to use my 'raining example' for a little longer and, for the sake of the argument, assume that we don't know what makes it rain today, atheists would try to explain rain in means that don't include any supernatural/higher being elements.

I believe that young adults of the age of 15-18 (the age when one attends high school here) could hardly be described as "the developing minds of trusting, impressionable children". Again, I'm not sure if you were responding to my original post about discussing mythology (I seem to have monopolized your posts ;)). In another thread dealing with religion being imposed on young children, that point might be used as a contra argument to yours. I wouldn't like to discuss this in this thread as it would lead the discussion off topic. :)

I don't believe genes have aspirations. If I use the chronicly known example of dark skin of the people originating in Africa, genetically, it didn't have anything in common with a certain gene aspiring to be dominant. If the people's skin had more skin colouring, it would be better resistant to the sun's UV rays. I belive that now you might possibly suggest that if such a thing was needed, a deity would cause the gene responsible for skin colouring to get dominant. If you did so, I'd have no way of proving you wrong, nor would I have any way of proving my opinion correct. Or at least if there's any, I'm not aware of it. But then this bit would feel better in 'Evolution or Creation' thread. ;)

I suppose that the way a school or an education system choses to treat religion or religion education, is to a certain extend possible to influence. You mentioned your country. From what I understood, you're saying that there was negative attitude to religion? Here, in most schools we don't have religion education as a subject. At least not as far as I know. In Slovakia, where some of my family live, they do have RE in elementary school, the local priest is teaching it. I don't know what else to say to the problem of religion and education system. I was raised a Christian, I believed in all the stuff a Christian is supposed to believe, but now I don't. Nothing happened to make me to stop believing, I just did. I believe that I keep talking off topic a lot ;)