Joining the Richard Nikoley Ranks : I am Fed up with Christianity

Schooling Experience

I was “raised” Catholic. I went through formal communion, confirmation, and evening schooling at a few points. I hardly remember any of it. While I didn’t despise going through these steps per say, I absolutely hated having to sit through any and all of them.

It wasn’t the doing, it was just being present that irritated me.

I got nearly perfect grades in elementary and middle school growing up, which was the time period I also attended religions/catholic schooling during the afternoons. In regular, government mandated schooling, I knew I was much smarter than the other students.

I knew this because 9 out of 10 times, I would finish the tests first, get a 100% score, and all the while, absolutely refuse to pay attention to anything that was said in class. (I have also never studied for an exam in my entire life — I wouldn’t even know how).

In middle school, I even began selling answers to quizzes for additional lunch money, which I would use to buy large chocolate chip cookies. I refused to do other people’s homework though. That would require actual work, which I was not interested in.

I was far more interested in checking out the girls in class, and never doing schoolwork when I was away from school – a concept that also greatly irritated me.

I bring all this up about government schooling because while I did not enjoy it (with the exception of the girls, and my few friends), I absolutely detested sitting through Christian religious schooling.

Looking back on that time, I viewed my religious teachers as mild, primitive evils. They were not just boring like the (super-majority of) government teachers, they were mind numbing. They seemed to babble on forever about nothing at all — and the “books” of course, seemed to have nothing in them but blank pages.

And while communication was rare, the teachers were mean, internally hideous creatures.

At least that’s how I remember them.

And much to my dismay, there were never any girls to gawk at during religious school. The few that were there were never very attractive, and certainly did not wear anything revealing (relatively speaking, I realize we were all kids at the time).

This lead me to being bored to tears, all the while an irritating voice in the background drooled on about shit that didn’t make any sense.

Tolerance

Up to this point on TDL, I have very rarely discussed religion (of any kind). This is because my interest in it is generally non-existent. And I don’t say that as a figure of speech : I mean it.

None, zip, zero, zilch.

I suppose that as such, I have been tolerant through complete and absolute dismissal up to this point. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy. It is not suited for human beings to practice.

With the exception of the day-to-day … events …. what else is there to discuss? Discussing religion to me is like an adult conversation about Santa Claus. What the fuck are we even talking about? The boogey man or something?

I would sooner have a discussion about a death match between Greek gods and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

While my tolerance for individual human beings who have been hood-winked by Christian Mythology will (likely) remain, my tolerance for the religion itself has recently evaporated into thin air.

It has evaporated for what I believe are uncommon reasons. No, not the murder, rape, torture, genocide, war, child molestation, baby killing, witch hunting, and such other violently irrational nonsense these people have been responsible for through the ages (and are still to this day) – it is the finer elements of the primitive Christian philosophy.

The things most people hear, but do not understand the true meaning of.

What really sent me over the edge was seeing how these people deal with death. This surfaced their true colors.

The 2 Elements

What drove me up the wall more than anything else were two elements present at two funerals I recently attended. The first was the utterly ridiculous comment of “this sinful earth” – and how this nonexistent place heaven is so much fucking better.

This comment irked me hard because I love this earth and value my life on it so much. This world is fucking glorious. As bad as things are in some respects, this is especially true right now. To hear people discuss how much they hate this earth … is simply repulsive. Little could be more insulting to a human being with high self-esteem, and a love of this earth.

A love of reality, of existence, of life.

The truth is, Christianity (and many other religions for that matter) is not merely a dismissal or distortion of reality, it is a primitive, fundamental hatred of the world in which we live.

The second element I witnessed that was particularly disturbing was the intentional wearing of white clothes. These were worn as I was told for the explicit purpose of celebrating the death(s).

Celebration for departure from this sinful earth, into the glorious domain of a non-existent place called “heaven”.

This is so fucked up I wanted to vomit.

Death is a very tragic, permanent event. Dead people do not come back — they no longer fucking exist. They are completely and forever incapable of ever enjoying anything again.

To see people celebrate this, to even the tiniest degree, is madness.

Richard Nikoley

I bring up Richard Nikoley in the title and now content of this post because to me, he has always been the #1 blogger in this realm, who doesn’t actually run a blog devoted to his hatred of religion (not even remotely).

It is simply a consistent theme on Free the Animal, and he does great work in this regard. He seems especially disgusted with original sin – the notion that human beings are guilty by virtue of being born, which paradoxically, is the eradication of the (legitimate) concept of guilt.

Who needs to think about guilt in daily life if you are forever, indefinitely, and endlessly guilty? In fact original sin dictates that not only are you a guilty POS, you are forever the guilt slave of a non-existent entity called God, that loves you, but will not hesitate to torture you in hell for all eternity.

While it is unlikely I will being blogging consistently on religion, I will defer my would-be blogs on it to Richard’s blogs on the same or similar topics.

In Closing

In closing I will end with a simple quote. Other than it’s general relation to the subject of Christianity, there is no particular significance of this quote.

I am posting it merely to demonstrate that it is only one of millions of quotes that reveal the evil of Christianity; the evil that is not so easy to observe as the physical death, destruction, and carnage it has left in its wake.

     Later in the Middle Ages, a second view of woman emerged and coexisted with the first. On the one hand, woman was symbolized by Eve, the sexual temptress, the cause of man’s spiritual downfall. On the other hand, she existed in the image of Mary, the Virgin Mother, the symbol of purity who transforms and lifts man’s soul upward. The whore and the virgin — or the whore and the mother — have dominated the concept of woman in Western culture ever since.

To state the dichotomy in modern terms : there is the woman one desires and the woman one admires; there is the woman one sleeps with and the woman one marries.

In its attitude toward woman, too, Christianity exhibited profound antagonism to a love relationship that integrates desire and admiration, physical and spiritual values, and which is based on the essential equality of the partners. On the deepest level Christianity has always been a fierce opponent of romantic love.

The pursuit of one’s values, the exercise of one’s judgement in the conduct of one’s life, and the enjoyment of sexual pleasure, all are acts of self-assertion entailed in the choice and experience of a romantic relationship. All were condemned by Christianity.

Nathaniel BrandenThe Psychology of Romantic Love {13}

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

, , , , ,

49 Responses to Joining the Richard Nikoley Ranks : I am Fed up with Christianity

  1. SC January 25, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    Ok, I’ll take the bait. It’s about tolerance for others beliefs. Even, if you disagree, there is no reason not to be respectful.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 25, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

      That is only true when a person is not aggressive in their “beliefs”, which is to say, aggressively ignorant. Many Christians are this way. They are highly interested in controlling other people’s lives, in preaching to people with no interest in hearing them preach, and so on.

      This is why many Christians are upset about the lack of “god” in government mandated school (at the moment, and generally). Rather than advocate to end compulsory schooling (where their children are forced to attend 5 days a week), they instead advocate inserting Christian religious beliefs into a compulsory institution, where children from a large variety of backgrounds are forced to attend. It’s ridiculous to the 10th degree.

      There are certainly exceptions – Tom Woods and Ron Paul being popular figures to the contrary. But even so, the number of Christians in the US with these sort of beliefs are well into the tens of millions …

  2. mike January 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

    send this post your buddy keith norris who walks with god everyday. It hard to believe that Ron Paul, the genius that he is, has an imiganary friend in this sky

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 28, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

      Hey Mike (and @all)

      Like I hinted at in the post, individual human beings who are under the impression that a bearded creature lives in the sky (or, wherever), doesn’t particularly bother me. I have multiple relationships with people who believe this. It is the religion itself that I am disgusted with. The individuals who follow them are often times capable of great accomplishments, and great ideas, in spite of a very large delusion that permeates their entire life (Ron Paul is a great example, but there are many, many more).

      The same is true of atheists who adore and admire large, violent governments, that violate its citizens unalienable rights. They detest one contradiction (religion), yet, embrace another (unjust, violent governments).

      The errors made by individuals do not bother me as much as the fundamental error of the idea itself. In most cases, it is proper to hold the idea as the enemy, not the persons (who come and go).

      • Daniel Ziv February 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

        hey man i agree with what you are saying about goverments being unjust An idea that i came to undestanding on my own without reading anything and then found out other people share my views. (i came to it through trying to understand why the goverment thinks its bussness wether or not people smoke weed, i feel like every one should make their own desicions and so forth). my question is though what do u suggest, what other way of governing do u suggest, because lets say anarchy is worse then what we have right now in democracy( rapist, theieves and murderes will thrive under anarchy, atleast more then they do today). do u suggest a reformed way of democracy a one based upon the idea of live and let live( as long as u dont harm other people doing so)?

        • Anthony Dream Johnson February 4, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

          Hey Daniel

          The politico-legal philosophy I am developing is Declarationism. The basic premise is that human beings have unalienable rights, and as such, those rights are by definition, undelegateable. This means what a government should do, and can only do, are one in the same – protect unalienable rights (in a non-contradictory manner, so no violating to protect).

          By my judgement, this is the only correct politico-legal philosophy for a human being to adopt. All others are either incomplete, or incorrect.

          Re democracy, it is only useful for optional entities, and actions. It cannot be legally used to violate another person’s rights, not 1, not a 100, etc.

          – Anthony

  3. Orthodox Hindu Atheist January 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    The problem with Christianity is the same problem with Islam and Judaism. These 3 Abrahamic faiths arose out of harsh desert regions where the people were concerned with mere survival and thus did not have time to develop a rich intellectual culture. These are “belief systems” rather than philosophical systems such as the ones that arose in South Asia like the 6 Philosophical Schools of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.

    The South Asian systems actually deal with the mind and meta-physics.

  4. MC January 26, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    I honestly gave religion a shot. I tried looking into it, but could never get very far because questions would arise, and they pretty much go unanswered or some answer that makes no sense. So one of the best ways for someone to become an atheist is to probably just go ahead and read the bible.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

      “So one of the best ways for someone to become an atheist is to probably just go ahead and read the bible.”

      Hahaha. This is great.

  5. Vikram Patel January 29, 2013 at 1:53 am #

    SC January 25, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    “Ok, I’ll take the bait. It’s about tolerance for others beliefs. Even, if you disagree, there is no reason not to be respectful.”

    That’s a two way street, my friend. Christians certainly do not “tolerate the beliefs” of others. On the contrary they send missionaries to all corners of the globe to convert others to their own very foreign beliefs.

    If Christians want “tolerance” and “respect” then they need to show tolerance and respect to Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Wiccans, idol worshippers and atheists. And not just to individuals of the above, but to those very belief systems.

    Can the do it?

    • SC January 29, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

      Plenty of eastern religion/thought promoters in the U.S. and around the world. If a particular religion/school of thought resonates with you then one is free to explore further. If a Hindu converts to Christianity or vise versa then that is his/her choice. Freedom baby, don’t you love it.

      • Orthodox Hindu Atheist January 30, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

        Yes but the way eastern wisdom traditions share their knowledge base is vastly different from the Missionary Industrial Complex of Christianity.

  6. Orthodox Hindu Atheist January 29, 2013 at 1:56 am #

    SC January 25, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    “Ok, I’ll take the bait. It’s about tolerance for others beliefs. Even, if you disagree, there is no reason not to be respectful.”

    Tolerance and respect are two way streets, my friend.

    Christians want tolerance and respect but then they send “missionaries” to far flung corners of the globe precisely because they do not respect the religions/beliefs/cultures of others but instead want to convert them to theirs.

    • SC January 30, 2013 at 9:38 pm #

      Per Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University. He examined the historical evidence from the major Hindu eras, the Vedic, classical, medieval, and modern periods, Ultimately concluding that Hinduism is a missionary religion.

      • Orthodox Hindu Atheist February 1, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

        “Hinduism is a missionary religion.”

        How so? First off, Hinduism is not a religion. The Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, not a single “Hindu” text contains the word Hindu or Hinduism. Hindu was a name given by foreigners to the people living around and East of the Sindhu, later called the Indus River.

        Those people were extremely diverse, containing literally hundreds of languages, cultures, traditions, cuisines, architecture, medical systems, philosophies, religions and belief systems. All of it was categorized by foreigners as “Hinduism”.

        So exactly what part of this broad, diversified umbrella of “Hinduism” is a “missionary religion?”

        Is it Kashmir Shaivism?
        Bengali Vaishnavism?
        Or perhaps Bengali Shaktism?

        Is it the Charvaka School of atheistic philosophy? How about non-theistic Sankhya? Or perhaps its theistic Sankhya that proselytizes globally?

        Not sure?

        OK, about Dwaita-Vedanta?
        Adwaita-Vedanta?
        Vashishta-Dwaita-Vedanta perhaps?

        • SC February 9, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

          Yeah, I agree it’s a mixed bag. Read the book, I think the author could explain best.

          • Aiston February 9, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

            SC, Hinduism is not a religion. Like OHA explains above, it is simply an umbrella term for the wide variety of cultural expression indigenous to South Asia. That being said, the knowledge base found in Hindu culture is open source. It is available outside of South Asia for anyone interested in any part of it. Why shouldn’t it be? Indeed Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedanta and South Asian meditation systems are global and ever increasing now.

            This is very different from the missionary agenda of Christianity and Islam, both of which have been intertwined and an intrinsic part of imperialism from the on start.

            Christianity and Islam are also both exclusionary, whereas the wisdom traditions of South Asia are not.

            • Aiston February 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

              “Christianity and Islam are also both exclusionary, whereas the wisdom traditions of South Asia are not.”

              To clarify, both Islam and Christianity take an exclusivistic approach to the question of god. They say, “yes, god exists for sure and only our way of approaching ‘him’ is correct, all other ways are ‘false doctrines’ “. Hence why in various parts of the world Christian missionaries are seen as a destablizing factor for families and societies. They tell their prey that they must renounce not only the “false gods” and “false doctrines” that their family has raised them with, but also renounce all cultural festivities and observances that have traces of “pagan practices” in them, such as Diwali, Pongal, etc.

              Now contrast this with a Vedanta teacher who teaches Vedanta simply as one amongst many possible models of perceiving consciousness/phenomena and who does not seek to thwart the participation of her students in the local, indigenous culture.

              Even the Dalai Lama has told people not to reject their own cultures and traditions “to become Buddhist over night” but to first explore their own traditions deeply and see if there is something to be gained therein.

            • MC February 10, 2013 at 2:11 am #

              If Hinduism is not a religion, then what is the worship of Vishnu and his God and Goddess incarnates? Just “culture?” It seems like a religion to me, when I go to a temple and pray to Shiva, Hanuman, Ganesh, etc…

              “Christianity and Islam are also both exclusionary, whereas the wisdom traditions of South Asia are not.”

              Unless I eat beef or eat meat on tuesdays, or other relgious actions they expect you to follow. Unless you mean they aren’t exclusionary of other religions, in which case yes. If you have dozens of Gods and Goddesses, what’s one more?

              • Aiston February 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm #

                “If Hinduism is not a religion, then what is the worship of Vishnu and his God and Goddess incarnates? Just “culture?” It seems like a religion to me, when I go to a temple and pray to Shiva, Hanuman, Ganesh, etc…”

                Hinduism is an umbrella term for all of the varying religions and traditions indigenous to South Asia. You mention worshipping Vishnu. That is the Vaishnava religion. Quite different from Shavism, another religion which falls under the Hindu umbrella.

                “Christianity and Islam are also both exclusionary, whereas the wisdom traditions of South Asia are not.”

                “Unless you mean they aren’t exclusionary of other religions, in which case yes. If you have dozens of Gods and Goddesses, what’s one more?”

                Hindu religions do not profess to be the “only way” to transcendence. That is why they do not wage war in the name of any of their devatas and also why none of them have built up an extensive MIC, Missionary Industrial Complex, though their knowledge base is freely available globally now for those who are interested.

              • Aiston February 13, 2013 at 6:09 pm #

                “If you have dozens of Gods and Goddesses, what’s one more?”

                And this is a wrong assumption about Hinduism which leads me to believe that you DO NOT go to Hindu temples as you claim, ” It seems like a religion to me, when I go to a temple and pray to Shiva, Hanuman, Ganesh, etc…”

                I am a converted Shakta. Our practice and philosophy is very specific and we do not add “one more”, particularly not from under developed Middle Eastern desert religions. Those religions run contrary to our system and while I respect the right of any individual to choose whatever religion or metaphysical philosophy they desire, I do not share in their convictions or deem all practices and religions to be equal, what to speak of “the same as”.

                They are very different.

                • MC February 14, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

                  “And this is a wrong assumption about Hinduism which leads me to believe that you DO NOT go to Hindu temples as you claim”

                  My parents are from India, and I try not to go to temples, but I’ve been to them, so whatever helps you sleep at night.

                  “I am a converted Shakta. Our practice and philosophy is very specific and we do not add “one more”, particularly not from under developed Middle Eastern desert religions.”

                  You’re either exclusionary of other religions or you’re not. Which was my point. Stop flip-flopping.

                  • Aiston February 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

                    “You’re either exclusionary of other religions or you’re not. ”

                    I am not. That means while I have a specific spiritual practice, I do not claim it as the one and only exclusive path to truth or transcendence.

                    THAT is the difference between Hindu traditions and Islam and Christianity.

                    • MC February 15, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

                      The Christians belief that the bible is the word of God, naturally means that they would follow it as the one and only way, otherwise it would mean they don’t believe the words of their God who is supposed to be the only god.

                      You have to be exclusionary, or you can’t believe the bible. Which I think is better then vague “it’s all good” mysticism.

                    • Aiston February 15, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

                      “You have to be exclusionary, or you can’t believe the bible. Which I think is better then vague “it’s all good” mysticism.”

                      MC, who said anything about vague “its all good mysticism”?

                      Does Sankhya Vada teach “its all good”? Does Vashishtadwaita Vedanta Vada teach that? Which specific Hindu philosophical school teaches that? Or perhaps Jainism teaches it?

                      What the South Asian traditions have in common is the concept of freedom of choice. They understand that thought systems (philosophies) and belief systems (religions) arise out particular environmental and cultural arenas and reflect the values and needs of the people within those specific environments and cultures.

                      Even the most backward and primitive tantra walla in South Asia understands this very basic concept and hence does not see the point in laboring to force others to her point of view, what to speak of justifying wars in the name of it.

                      She understands that when it comes to the metaphysical, nothing can be conclusively proven so that it is futile to argue about some supposed “truth” that possibly does not exist. S

                      She does not seek to establish a metaphysical belief as an objective fact.

                      This nuance, this depth of understanding is completely lost on Islam and Christianity.

                      This is because that area of the world during the times that those two religions were established, had no developed civilization, no philosophical or intellectual culture. Thus the systems that arose therein are devoid of philosophical depth.

                    • SC February 16, 2013 at 12:08 am #

                      You sound very immature in your chosen spiritual practice. Your being exactly like the Christian fundamentalists that your profess to find so objectionable.

                    • Aiston February 17, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

                      “You sound very immature in your chosen spiritual practice. Your being exactly like the Christian fundamentalists that your profess to find so objectionable.”

                      How so?

                      By stating that the specific area of the world at the time when Judaism, Christianity and Islam were created was not developed as an advanced civilization? That’s history.

                      “Christian fundamentalists that your profess to find so objectionable”

                      Where did I ever mention Christian fundamentalists at all?

                      I am talking about the religion of Christianity in general.

  7. you're really dumb February 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    this is probably one of the stupidest posts i’ve ever read

  8. Carlos R February 9, 2013 at 11:36 am #

    Everyone deals with death in their own unique way. Some people deny an afterlife, and others affirm an afterlife. The reality is no one knows for sure: some have faith, others don’t. In other words you are just as clueless as they are.

    I would add some further comments but if your intention is just to bash Christianity for the sake of bashing it then there really is no point. Although a serious engagement with the issues you brought up would be fruitful.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 9, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

      Thanks for posting a bunch of nonsense. You obviously don’t have the slightest clue what the word “reason” means, or “faith” for that matter. Saying I am just as clueless as a typical christian is insulting, and vulgar.

      It’s funny that you mention reality. The reality is, right in front of you.

      And dealing with death in your own unique way is a crafty excuse for celebrating death, something that is objectively asinine.

      • Carlos R February 11, 2013 at 8:21 am #

        Let me reiterate, no one knows definitively what happens after death. Not the christian, and not you. Even to say: at death nothing happens because you are just carcass still posits something about ‘after death’. Furthermore, it reveals a view of the human being as just a material being– materialism. In other words, once the material is dead, the human being is dead. Now is that the truth: Is a human being just a material being? That’s something to ponder.

        Lastly, at a funeral, the christian is not celebrating death, that would be objectively asinine, they are celebrating life! The life of the person that just died. The human being is not reduced just to his final event, his death, rather his death punctuates his life. Like a book, the final page gives the book life. Without a final page, you don’t have a book. Moreover, the whole book cannot be reduced just to the final page. The whole book starts from page 1 and ends at the final page. Think of a funeral as reading the whole book of the person that just died.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson February 12, 2013 at 2:05 am #

          Let’s get one thing straight : since neither of us has any evidence of what happens upon death, your solution, the Christian solution, is to *make stuff up*.

          Do you know how retarded that sounds, just by reading it? That’s like finishing a book with a cliff hanger and no sequel, and because you don’t like the ending, just writing your own fan-fiction, then selling it as something official.

          Actually, that’s a lot less offensive.

          Furthermore, stating that non-existence does not exist, does not assert the existence of anything. You are grasping at straws here …

          Finally, I am not anti-conceptual. You are setting up a straw man argument here. I never said human beings were piles of walking flesh. You did, and tried to shove it in my mouth. Get a clue.

          • Carlos R February 13, 2013 at 10:28 am #

            First of all, making stuff up is retarded. Second of all, Christianity is not something made up. Ask your hero Ron Paul if his faith is based on something “made up”, or fan-fiction. Let me refresh those memories of your catholic youth a bit.

            1. Christians believe in God: A living, true, real, not “made up” God.
            2. This God has communicated himself to man throughout human history

            Briefly put, man is not alone in the universe. Since the beginning God has communicated Himself to man. The stories of the Bible are a communication of Him. Hence, for the Christian, he is not making stuff up, rather he is listening to the voice of the living God.

            Well this is branching into christian theology, which I am sure is not your cup of tea, yet I will leave you with someone who is: Dr. Kevin Vost. Vost is a trained psychologist, former disciple of Rand, and body building enthusiast. He was heavily influenced by Rand, and Mentzer’s philosophy of his day. He can relate to you better than I can. Here’s an interview.

            http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.be/2012/08/my-interview-with-dr-kevin-vost-from.html

            To add to it: He was even raised catholic like you. This is godsend!

            • Anthony Dream Johnson February 13, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

              Are you even drinking your own kool-aid?

              A belief in god is a belief in the super-natural. This is the “belief” in two realities, not one. The second being completely impossible to prove, to observe, to measure. This is the textbook definition of “made up”.

              God has communicated himself to man throughout history? What sort of drugs are you on? Because writing the “word of god” is what people do when they are heavily under the influence of some mind-altering substance.

              What you are spewing is so delusional and contradictory it’s hardly even funny.

              • Carlos R February 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

                Where do you ground the laws of logic, and the moral law?

                They clearly cannot be grounded in “empirical” reality, yet they clearly have a reality.

                • Anthony Dream Johnson February 14, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

                  Haha, the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt.

                  Clearly your argument is self-evidently wrong. I mean, you know, obviously. Clearly. CLEARLY.

                  Clearly you don’t have the slightest clue as to what you are going on about.

  9. SC February 9, 2013 at 6:23 pm #

    This is not a blog for reasoned debate/discussion. The tone set by the ADJ is just not conducive to that. Reminds me of Jim Rome. Just a bunch or ranting and put downs.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

      Ya, let’s have a reasoned debate about faith.

      Let’s tolerate complete illogical nonsense, and always strive to never hurt anyone’s ultra-sensitive feelings.

      Anyone have a trash bag? I feel like throwing up.

      • SC February 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

        Like I said…. Rack him!

        • Aiston February 14, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

          There is room for a reasoned analysis about how and why various metaphysical systems such as philosophies, meditation techniques and even organized religions developed throughout various histories in various environments across the globe.

          These systems developed to meet the non-physical needs of humans and reflect the physical environments and cultures that they developed in.

          Their efficacies in eradicating human suffering can also be scientifically tested and compared with one another.

          The problem with Islam and Christianity is that they are irrational belief systems that preclude any sort of rational analysis, either from inside or outside of their systems.

          They demand from themselves and others a “belief” in things that can neither be tested nor proven nor falsified.

          A personal belief in such is not the problem in and of itself, its the irrational claim that others must believe in such else face suffering that IS the problem. This intolerance is endemic to those two religions, indeed that intolerance is a core intrinsic part of those religions.

          Hence those religions are anti freedom.

  10. MC February 16, 2013 at 1:22 am #

    “Even the most backward and primitive tantra walla in South Asia understands this very basic concept and hence does not see the point in laboring to force others to her point of view, what to speak of justifying wars in the name of it.”

    I guess if you actually believe they fought wars to spread religion, which I don’t believe they ever did. Religion was just the excuse of whatever tyrant was in charge. Just like America is spreading “freedom” and “democracy” over in the middle east.

    The most primitive Hindu religions involved human sacrifice at one point, so I wouldn’t look to them for advice.

    “This is because that area of the world during the times that those two religions were established, had no developed civilization, no philosophical or intellectual culture. Thus the systems that arose therein are devoid of philosophical depth.”

    The depth is pretty similar, just the stories are different.

    • Aiston February 17, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

      “The most primitive Hindu religions involved human sacrifice at one point, so I wouldn’t look to them for advice.”

      I don’t.

      “The depth is pretty similar, just the stories are different.”

      There is no ontology or philosophy in either Christianity or Islam. Within the South Asian traditions however you have extensive philosophy very early on.
      Basically from an early stage the culture fomented a plethora of existential thinkers who developed theories around environmental phenomena, around the workings of the mind upon extensive observation, and the interface of the two. There is no equivalent in either Islam or Christianity. From these the major schools of Hindu philosophy emerged and we have surviving sampradayas to this day.

      Islam and Christianity are faith based *religions* whereas the Hindu schools are not religions but rather practice and observation based theories.

      Islam and Christianity are collectivist globalized agendas, two competing New World Orders.

      • MC February 17, 2013 at 9:29 pm #

        I think you’re ignoring the Hindu religion and trying to make it out to be more then it is. Monkey Gods lifting and moving mountains, multi-headed demons, a kid getting decapitated and replacing his head with an elephant head.

        It’s the same shit. Ancient people making up stories to explain why the world is the way it is. You can think that they were better thinkers, but it’s nothing special. Giving it a better title doesn’t make it any less stupid.

        • SC February 18, 2013 at 10:36 am #

          There are deep insights in all religions, also a lot of hogwash. Best to take the pearls and disregard the rest. Focus on spirituality not religion and one will be better served imo. In other words, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

          • Anthony Dream Johnson February 18, 2013 at 12:37 pm #

            I have no doubt some good things have been said in religions throughout history, but it may be more important to consider that the cons heavily outweigh the pros, and all “pros” can be better achieved in proper philosophy.

            Getting ideas right by accident or blind chance is no way to think.

        • Aiston February 18, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

          MC, you’re completely missing my point. Have you ever studied Torah? The main theme is MONOTHEISM. One World Religion. They opposed the local deities and wanted to establish ONE sky god as not only superior to the others, but as the ONLY god. Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism.

          Hindu thought on the other hand recognizes the foremost freedom – freedom of one’s own mind to think (or believe) in any manner the individual deems fit.

          The problem lies with monotheism itself. It is anti-freedom and anti-diversity.

          ‘Monkey Gods lifting and moving mountains, multi-headed demons, a kid getting decapitated and replacing his head with an elephant head.”

          These stories illustrate abstract concepts of ethics and philosophy.

          Nobody is required to “believe” in them lest suffer in hell. They are not taken literally as “the absolute truth” and “the only way” despite not providing any scientific evidence whatsoever, like the stories out of the Bible.

          And one of the most beautiful things about them is they reflect the free flow of diversity of thought and freedom in South Asia.

          The Abrahamic “faiths” and the many and varied traditions of South Asia are worlds apart in their approach to answering the question:
          What is the meaning of life?

  11. Brother Jed June 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    Richard Nikoley would hardly seem to be a good exemplar of atheistic Paleo. After all, what does it profit a man to gain a paunch and lose his soul?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Another person given up to a reprobate mind. | Witness of the fall - January 24, 2013

    […] http://www.thedreamlounge.net/fed-up-with-christianity/ […]

Make your mark