[plasmid]

I'm curious about non-theist opinions on this matter, but theists are of course invited to participate and provide illumination as well. The almost universal development of religion in some form or other across many different cultures seems to indicate that there is a deep underlying drive to have some sort of religious experience which is embedded in many (if not to some degree all) humans. I doubt that it's purely due to primitive attempts to understand the universe before the development of science -- even with modern science and state endorsement of atheism, the Soviet Union still had plenty of believers. If religion as we know it were wiped from the face of the earth, it seems likely that it would simply resprout in some new form.

If this is the case (which is certainly open to argument) then would it not be in our best interest to fill this illogical but evident need with a religion that is as benign and perhaps even beneficial as possible? Most mainstream religions at least preach to love thy neighbor and straighten up and fly right and all that, whether or not it's actually put into practice. Christianity may stand to be improved regarding its opposition to stem cell research and discrimination against homosexuals to name a few issues. However, it was previously opposed to a non-geocentric solar system and abolition of slavery (in areas where it was profitable) and has since mended its ways, not without cost in the meantime, but the point is that it's adaptable.

Is it better to have such a mainstream religion fill the void of the masses who apparently can't do without it, or attempt to eliminate all but reason and leave open the chance for something much more uncontrolled and potentially malignant to take root in the open void (militant jihadists, or another Jonestown)? If something must fill the void but not any currently existing religion, would it be possible to design something better, bearing in mind that you have control only over the text of the holy doctrine but not people's interpretation and implementation of it, and that it must have enough of this intangible spiritualistic property that people crave in order to persist?

And the ultimate question: could you craft a doctrine to fill this need in such a way that its propagation would have an overall positive effect on humanity, and be so convinced in its potential that you would put forth whatever effort and resources were required to make it a reality? I have no intention of converting any nonbelievers into messiahs, I'm just curious what people think. Seeing as how we're on BrainDen, you can consider this a practical riddle.

Edited April 20, 2009 by plasmid

[plasmid]

Unreality has me confoozed, are we talking about free will versus determinism now? If it will impact this topic, then I'll go ahead and dive into it. Otherwise we'll start getting into discussions about whether the intelligence operatives who tortured prisoners can be held accountable for their acts if they were ordered to do so, and if not, at what point do you draw the line and say that this will was free enough to be responsible for its actions under the circumstances but that one wasn't. That would be a whole other can of worms that I'd rather not get into right now if we don't need to... or if it's on a different thread somewhere then maybe I will as time allows. But for now, back to topic.

Octopuppy's completely right about current religions, in that they are quite well adapted to persist in their current environment. And yes, I was judging them by very different criteria: not how well they persist, but how much good they do.

As for UU, it sounds like both octopuppy & I would ideally like to have more control over our followers. But so far, we seem to be stuck on the problem of how to make something that would be able to adapt, yet not either become utterly corrupt (if it has a single centralized governance) or undergo denominational selection that ends up selecting for attributes that aren't the ones we really want (basically what's already going on right now). Given those limitations, UU might be the best option out there if it has some favorable attributes that others don't.

Specifically, in a system where people build their own doctrine, it might be allowable and perhaps even encouraged to (gasp!) have experts come in and talk openly about the merits and limitations of things that although not strictly religious are nonetheless often considered in the domain of religion like {evolutionary theory, the practical consequences of outlawing vs allowing abortion, and the degree of sex education and access to contraceptives that kids should have} so people can make informed decisions on them. Seeksit, does such sort of discussion on those types of issues openly happen in UU, or is it more like your traditional church fare presented in such a way that people can appreciate it regardless of their own personal views? It was a little unclear just how much is set by the church and how much is set by each individual parishioner since you also mentioned things like some congregations being more Jesus-friendly than others. And do UU-ers get held accountable for the doctrine they build, or can they still believe whatever they want and expect to not have to defend it? If either of those answers are unfavorable then we might have to correct them with a takeover by Uberfaith or 0mnifaith corp. I may be going way out on a limb here since I have absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis, but I suspect that individual people making their own such decisions and being held accountable to justify their views would produce far better results than churches that are able to claim that they carry the word of God and expect to go more-or-less unquestioned.

Of course we reserve the right to change our minds and rewrite the future of humanity if we do come up with a better solution like a well-controlled authoritarian church. Which is a distinct possibility seeing as how octopuppy just pwned the x-or Randomcant puzzle.

[Guest]

octopuppy, I think there may be a slight flaw in your line of thinking regarding free will, choice and responsibility. You still seem to be thinking out-of-the-system from a "soulistic" point of view, in which case your conclusions are correct. But again that's from a "soulistic" point of view. If you think about it on the naturalistic side (the side you and I vouch as correct), in which NOTHING is out of the system, then you realize that your brain does indeed make choices and decisions. From a soulistic POV, you say "oh but that's your BRAIN... that's not YOU"... but (naturalistically speaking) your brain IS you.

That's not where I'm coming from, as far as I'm concerned your brain (+ rest of body) is you. All I'm saying is that the choices we make are entirely determined by the prior state of the universe and therefore in some sense inevitable (and quantum unpredictability doesn't change that, it either bungs in a bit of randomness just for fun, or creates multiple outcomes, all deterministic but in a wider sense, depending on how you look at it). In a physical model, what scope is there for choice and responsibility? Everything you do is determined by stuff that happened before you were born, so why blame you for it? But on a larger scale, there's very good reason to hold people responsible for their choices. Thinking that your actions are not just determined by physics, but chosen by some essential "you" which could have chosen either way, is a useful model, even if it is wrong. That's why I referred to this as a useful delusion. I don't want to get tied up on the free will issue, I only mentioned it to illustrate the fact that we can't get through life on truth alone, and sometimes a rough model of reality works better, even one that is blatantly incorrect. Hence my interest in this topic, I'd like to explore the idea that some form of religion might be excused on this basis.

As for UU, it sounds like both octopuppy & I would ideally like to have more control over our followers. But so far, we seem to be stuck on the problem of how to make something that would be able to adapt, yet not either become utterly corrupt (if it has a single centralized governance) or undergo denominational selection that ends up selecting for attributes that aren't the ones we really want (basically what's already going on right now). Given those limitations, UU might be the best option out there if it has some favorable attributes that others don't.

I was wavering on the centralisation issue (good news Unreality, we might not have to burn you as a heretic after all ). Central control gives you the chance to modify doctrine in line with unforseen developments, but we are trying to create a religion that makes the world a better place, and pwning the world to create a centralised power base is probably not the way. Sure, it'll all be fine and dandy while I'm überpope, but what happens when I hand over the pointy hat to the next guy? It's a slippery slide into inevitable nastiness. The other way gives us a harder problem. We have to sow a memetic seed that will adapt, but in the right way. So we have to be clear about what the right way to develop is, even if the developments themselves are unforseen. Despite being a tougher problem I feel that this is the way to go. We have to be able to release this little beastie and let it make its own way in the world.

As for UU, I like the idea but its potential is limited. In the end I don't think it amounts to much more than a woolly attempt to reconcile the views of everybody by means of tolerance, trying to find common ground, and adopting common-sense morality. It's a lovely philosophy, but it doesn't always work. Where people have different faith-based beliefs there will always be irreconcilable differences. Simply focusing away from those will not work for everybody. Also, UU seems to fail to address a lot of the problems with religions generally, such as devaluing truth and encouraging complacency.

[Guest]

Most accusations listed in the first comment are regarding the Roman Catholic Church, and i'm a Baptist. If gay marriage is approved, then next will come polygamy. Why do you think we are made so that we can only reproduce with the opposite gender? Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Didn't you hear about "Miss America?" I also think it more apt that theistic people should answer, as they have a better understanding of such things.

[plasmid]

Hey Bran, you could definitely help give us some insight. In some of our earlier posts we were trying to figure out what people are looking for in a religion, but we didn't really have a good grasp of the factors that motivate people toward faith. As for the gay marriage topic, I disagree. Indeed, marriage could stand to be a much more sacred institution, at least that much we can agree on. That's why Hollywood marriages between celebrities ought to be outlawed. Those pure media stunts are absolutely disgraceful. Vegas drive-thru chapels have also got to go. Mail order brides would be next to be cut, how could anyone deny that that's utterly contemptful? Gay marriage would be a relatively low priority on the outlaw list if sanctity were your chief concern. And yes, only a man and a woman are able to reproduce. But if reproduction were all there was to it, then I'd imagine that marriage to a sterile or postmenopausal woman would be equally offensive. I hadn't heard about Miss America, but if it would have any bearing then go ahead and tell the story.

As for UU, I like the idea but its potential is limited. In the end I don't think it amounts to much more than a woolly attempt to reconcile the views of everybody by means of tolerance, trying to find common ground, and adopting common-sense morality. It's a lovely philosophy, but it doesn't always work. Where people have different faith-based beliefs there will always be irreconcilable differences. Simply focusing away from those will not work for everybody. Also, UU seems to fail to address a lot of the problems with religions generally, such as devaluing truth and encouraging complacency.

Yeah, UU is still only the second best choice if we can't come up with a good way of ensuring that a more authoritarian church will develop in beneficial directions. Is your point that some people have such discordant beliefs that they would never coexist in a UU system? That's probably true with the various religions as they exist now, but if it's possible to convert people to an Uberfaith then it would seem like it should be even easier to adjust people's current beliefs enough to get them into a UU system. Or even better, convert everyone to Uberfaith and then allow it to evolve under UU rules. Then we would be rid of any vestigial undesirable attributes from the current religions. So getting people into a UU system shouldn't be any tougher than getting them into a first generation of Uberfaith.

While UU would be relatively "weak", my biggest gripe about religion is its meddling in social and even scientific issues. It's precisely this weakness that would hopefully render impossible any concerted effort to do anything too deleterious. That would be a small victory compared to the current situation. Having a more authoritarian Uberfaith go further and play a positive role in its followers' lives would be a noble goal, and I'd like to achieve it too if possible, but I still can't think of a good way of driving Uberfaith's development long-term. There's just too much to be gained (from a denomination's self-perpetuation perspective) by telling people that all they have to do is believe and pay a reasonable tithe to gain salvation, and then you have no benefit over a UU but run the increased risks associated with a more united church that has more capability to do harm.

So I'm still stuck 4 now.

Are we doing free will vs determinism on this thread too instead of a new one? If it'll impact the discussion then that would be reasonable and I'll weigh in.

[Guest]

Yeah, UU is still only the second best choice if we can't come up with a good way of ensuring that a more authoritarian church will develop in beneficial directions.

...and I don't like authoritarianism anyway. Much better that people don't put their trust in authority.

Is your point that some people have such discordant beliefs that they would never coexist in a UU system? That's probably true with the various religions as they exist now, but if it's possible to convert people to an Uberfaith then it would seem like it should be even easier to adjust people's current beliefs enough to get them into a UU system.

Easier, yes, and perhaps UU represents the direction that mainstream religions are most likely to take in the future. Trub with that is that UU accepts everybody's existing beliefs as long as they don't conflict with a few basic principles of tolerance. Promoting ignorance is one of the big problems with religion and you can't deal with that without overturning a lot of beliefs, which is why UU is not strong enough for the job, though definitely a step in the right direction, since it waters down the negative effects of religion a lot.

Or even better, convert everyone to Uberfaith and then allow it to evolve under UU rules. Then we would be rid of any vestigial undesirable attributes from the current religions. So getting people into a UU system shouldn't be any tougher than getting them into a first generation of Uberfaith.

It would be easy since we could design Uberfaith with that in mind. But if we can resolve all conflicts between the characteristics that attract people to a religion and the desirable attributes we would require from it, then we can do it in one step. The effect of UU is mainly to stop religion meddling too much in the practical affairs of people's lives, and I see no reason why Uberfaith should not be design to minimise meddling from the outset. I would expect that to make it more attractive to potential converts.

I still can't think of a good way of driving Uberfaith's development long-term. There's just too much to be gained (from a denomination's self-perpetuation perspective) by telling people that all they have to do is believe and pay a reasonable tithe to gain salvation, and then you have no benefit over a UU but run the increased risks associated with a more united church that has more capability to do harm.

I think you'd already started to lay the groundwork for that. You need certain core tenets that belong to a fixed document, like the bible, a new set of commandments that will do no harm. A tall order since we need to anticipate all possible harm that they may do, but let's get into it:

And upon visiting the city of Rome, Obama did come upon a place where the wicked and corrupt sought to govern all earth with a pretence of divine right. Upon seeing this, he angered and spake thus: "Know ye not that the gods decree that the pursuit of truth, and the betterment of all mankind is of paramount importance? All human endeavour is imperfect, including the endeavours of the church. In order that we may come to know their will better, the gods have explicitly stated that no one church may know the whole truth. Therefore we must allow denominations to proliferate and find their own methods of governance, as long as they hold true to the core document of our faith which shall be revealed when all this has been written down. Let no denomination persecute another, unless that other is doing something truly naughty according to the laws I shall give unto you". The people did not understand so he called for a volunteer. A woman stepped forward from the crowd and he bid her lie down in a long box. Seizing a nearby saw, he proceeded to saw her in two halves. The people were much concerned and there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, but Obama said "fear not, and observe". Putting the two halves of the box together he then made the woman whole again, and she was unharmed. And Obama said unto the throng "now see that even as this woman can come apart and yet remain one, so may the true church of various gods fracture and yet pursue a single endeavour". And he said unto the woman, "formerly thine name was Bonsheequa, but thou hast been remade and henceforth thou shalt be known as Mercedes who is called Debby" and sent her forth looking a bit confused.

Are we doing free will vs determinism on this thread too instead of a new one? If it'll impact the discussion then that would be reasonable and I'll weigh in.

Count me out of that. As far as I'm concerned it's not relevant, and it's been done.

[unreality]

Thinking that your actions are not just determined by physics, but chosen by some essential "you" which could have chosen either way, is a useful model, even if it is wrong.

yeah I was just saying that I think the "you" does exist, as a sort of organic computer, built upon deterministic/probabilitistic atoms, but also obviously order out of the chaos. The term "free will" is a bit misleading, I believe we are all part of the universe, but as I explained in another thread we're sort of built on the lower levels and have become a complex "you" that does make decisions in its own context, regardless of the base rules of physics. Anyway this is off topic, let's get back

I was wavering on the centralisation issue (good news Unreality, we might not have to burn you as a heretic after all ).

hehe, yes! And I won't have to incite a holy war

Central control gives you the chance to modify doctrine in line with unforseen developments, but we are trying to create a religion that makes the world a better place, and pwning the world to create a centralised power base is probably not the way. Sure, it'll all be fine and dandy while I'm überpope, but what happens when I hand over the pointy hat to the next guy? It's a slippery slide into inevitable nastiness. The other way gives us a harder problem. We have to sow a memetic seed that will adapt, but in the right way. So we have to be clear about what the right way to develop is, even if the developments themselves are unforseen. Despite being a tougher problem I feel that this is the way to go. We have to be able to release this little beastie and let it make its own way in the world.

I agree. For my Philosophy (there seems to be two separate ideas running parallel), I think the basic idea should be the same, and not multiple denominations, but rather multiple sects of government that are vying for control. The overall Philosophy is how I originally outlined & edited it, but only the factions of government "evolve" memetically... ie, each sect controls a bit of the government, and "survival" is determined by voting or subscription or something... idk

As for UU, I like the idea but its potential is limited. In the end I don't think it amounts to much more than a woolly attempt to reconcile the views of everybody by means of tolerance, trying to find common ground, and adopting common-sense morality. It's a lovely philosophy, but it doesn't always work. Where people have different faith-based beliefs there will always be irreconcilable differences. Simply focusing away from those will not work for everybody. Also, UU seems to fail to address a lot of the problems with religions generally, such as devaluing truth and encouraging complacency.

Yeah for sure - it's an interesting idea though

edit:

And upon visiting the city of Rome, Obama did come upon a place where the wicked and corrupt sought to govern all earth with a pretence of divine right. Upon seeing this, he angered and spake thus: "Know ye not that the gods decree that the pursuit of truth, and the betterment of all mankind is of paramount importance? All human endeavour is imperfect, including the endeavours of the church. In order that we may come to know their will better, the gods have explicitly stated that no one church may know the whole truth. Therefore we must allow denominations to proliferate and find their own methods of governance, as long as they hold true to the core document of our faith which shall be revealed when all this has been written down. Let no denomination persecute another, unless that other is doing something truly naughty according to the laws I shall give unto you". The people did not understand so he called for a volunteer. A woman stepped forward from the crowd and he bid her lie down in a long box. Seizing a nearby saw, he proceeded to saw her in two halves. The people were much concerned and there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, but Obama said "fear not, and observe". Putting the two halves of the box together he then made the woman whole again, and she was unharmed. And Obama said unto the throng "now see that even as this woman can come apart and yet remain one, so may the true church of various gods fracture and yet pursue a single endeavour". And he said unto the woman, "formerly thine name was Bonsheequa, but thou hast been remade and henceforth thou shalt be known as Mercedes who is called Debby" and sent her forth looking a bit confused.

hahahaha Nice. A firsthand account of the Great Memetic Obama Prophecy ;D

Edited April 28, 2009 by unreality

[plasmid]

LOLz! Well, I guess there's only one way to try to make Uberfaith evolve in the right directions.

And Obama and his followers did cross the lands on their pilgrimage. And on the day of St. Patrick, they entered into a county which was dry. There was much moaning and wailing, and Obama stood before his followers and instructed them: “It is heinous that we on this night are in a dry county. But weep not; instead go forth and bring me water, the purest that you can find, so it may be blessed for this night.” His followers went forth to do as he commanded. Many sought the nearby ocean and returned with brine, but a faithful few journeyed far to a freshwater stream and returned with water most pure. When they all had gathered before the dramaless one, he spoke a benediction, and behold! Those who had with them brine found that it had become Bud Light. On that most holy night they did party and they did get buzzed, albeit on swill, and did suffer under the hangover. But those faithful few who brought back water most pure, behold!, they were blessed with Sam Adams. And they enjoyed their drink, and were not the least bit groggy the following morning. And Barack spoke: “Listen, before thou art hammered. Just as with this booze, so too the life after this will rock for those who rock in this realm, and be mediocre for those who here art half-a**ed.” And the followers cried “Amen” and became wasted.

A follower approached him and asked: “When thou leave us, and we find ourselves among women chopped into many pieces, how shall we know which piece to choose?” And Obama revealed: “This night, you have seen your charge. Go forth, and accomplish great things. Those which drive you to do so, they are your friends. Those which tell you to relax, they will bring you nothing better than mediocrity. Those which tell you to understand the world, they will bring you great things. Those which mock the wise, they will not enjoy the fruits of those whose efforts they spurn. Those which despise their fellow man, by God above they will be despised, and so they will not get plasma screen TVs in the life to come but will get 16 inch sets, and they will have to watch the commercials.”

You're gonna have to get us started on some Socratic stories, unreality!

[Guest]

I wonder of Shakee could be recruited to write some ambiguous verse to be interpreted as needed in the future? Or are we trying to avoid that? It is no doubt useful as a tool to direct the masses, but it does smack of less desirable aspects of current religious dogma.

I think the best way to use the tool would be to "discover" the enigmatic foretelling of the Prophet of Pudding only after the events it foretells have come to pass. Just be sure to post date them and get them notarized for clarity. Sure it's a bit shady, but it is for the good of the cause and so justified.

Also, I would be happy to dress in burlap and wear a sandwich sign declaring the arrival of "Barak the Articulate, Messiah and generally swell guy.

I think using his last name would be a mistake. He should shed his political identity(Obama) and become just Barak. You know, like Madonna.

[Guest]

And Obama and his followers did cross the lands on their pilgrimage. And on the day of St. Patrick, they entered into a county which was dry. There was much moaning and wailing, and Obama stood before his followers and instructed them: "It is heinous that we on this night are in a dry county. But weep not; instead go forth and bring me water, the purest that you can find, so it may be blessed for this night." His followers went forth to do as he commanded. Many sought the nearby ocean and returned with brine, but a faithful few journeyed far to a freshwater stream and returned with water most pure. When they all had gathered before the dramaless one, he spoke a benediction, and behold! Those who had with them brine found that it had become Bud Light. On that most holy night they did party and they did get buzzed, albeit on swill, and did suffer under the hangover. But those faithful few who brought back water most pure, behold!, they were blessed with Sam Adams. And they enjoyed their drink, and were not the least bit groggy the following morning. And Barack spoke: "Listen, before thou art hammered. Just as with this booze, so too the life after this will rock for those who rock in this realm, and be mediocre for those who here art half-a**ed." And the followers cried "Amen" and became wasted.

Bud Light and Sam Adams... I'm so glad I dont live in America lolz. You got to hand it to the catholics on some level, no other religion has a patron saint of getting wasted. I guess that's why our Lord Obama in His wisdom chose to observe this pagan festival. We should also continue to celebrate Christmas (henceforth to be known as Xmas), when we worship Father Xmas (hereby granted his long overdue deification as the god of overconsumption) and of course Easter when we remember the miracle of our Lord being hatched from an egg.

I wonder of Shakee could be recruited to write some ambiguous verse to be interpreted as needed in the future? Or are we trying to avoid that?

No, we need some of that for the bits we can't make up our minds about.

I think using his last name would be a mistake. He should shed his political identity(Obama) and become just Barak. You know, like Madonna.

Or Lord Barak? Does that sound too much like a sci-fi villain?

[Guest]

Or Lord Barak? Does that sound too much like a sci-fi villain?

Yes, we'd hate to be accidentally associated with Scientology.

And you make a good point about the sacramental beverage choices. I may be an American, but my tastes run a little more stout than that.

[plasmid]

Grayven, you're the perfect one for the job! Back here in the spoiler I was just talking about how we could use a seasoned Shakee solver to find a credible interpretation of Revelations that we could easily fulfill to prove Uberfaith's legitimacy. It would be tough to bring about an apocalypse, but if we can claim that "the beast" is referring to internal combustion engines, then Barack's environmentalist push would mean that he is the prophesied one.

[unreality]

I like octopuppy's idea of absorption of pagan festivals as previously successful religions have done. I say we incorporate Oktoberfest as Octoberfest, patron holiday of Lord Oct. We could also invent a few good religious holidays to attract followers. For example, Free Pizza Day, as decreed by the Cobbler Pizzaro in 1127 BB (Before Barak)

Edited April 29, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

Grayven, you're the perfect one for the job! Back here in the spoiler I was just talking about how we could use a seasoned Shakee solver to find a credible interpretation of Revelations that we could easily fulfill to prove Uberfaith's legitimacy. It would be tough to bring about an apocalypse, but if we can claim that "the beast" is referring to internal combustion engines, then Barack's environmentalist push would mean that he is the prophesied one.

Oh, well thank you. I suppose I could work on it. I haven't had a good reason to read that book in ages. (Do I even have one?) This will be fun.

BTW, have we determined how we're defining good and evil? I propose the late George Carlin's (If we have something like saints, he gets my vote.) version of the Ten Commandments for starters. His was a comedic, but sound philosophy. If we follow his logic and make it sound less cynical, the heavy lifting is already done.

[unreality]

instead, how about we reveal the subjectiveness and ambiguity behind the childish concepts of good and evil

[plasmid]

It looks like the Uberfaith route is pretty much set. Now we really just need the help of some creative writers to give us a good story. Preferably ones with better taste in beer than me... if even you guys are mocking me then I'd have some real trouble winning converts. Alas, I've led such a deprived life.

But if we're going to be putting together the Third Testament, I propose that we ditch the time-worn medium of written word. That was fine back in the days when people had to rely on their imaginations, but we're far too advanced for that now. I say we make a blockbuster movie instead. Miracles? Are you kidding me? Who wants to hear about some guy driving demons out of lepers; we can have our messiah go out and kick the Terminator's butt if we want. Let's see if any of the other religions can top that! If we could get Chuck Norris to play in it, we'd have half the western world converted by opening night.

So: If there are any script writers out there with interests in world domination, please post your resumes. You would be doing the world a great favor.

I'm still having trouble coming up with good Philosophy stories. Better pipe up, unreality, or Uberfaith is gonna take off without ya.

[Guest]

instead, how about we reveal the subjectiveness and ambiguity behind the childish concepts of good and evil

good and evil is too strong of language. Change that to right and wrong. I think that you HAVE to have rules of acceptable conduct. A free for all "if it feels good, do it" philosophy is not only dangerous, but would be very unattractive to the average religious follower. For many mainstream church goers, a solid moral compass is part of the appeal. People want to be led, when it comes right down to it. Your target demographic IS the mob after all.

[Guest]

It looks like the Uberfaith route is pretty much set. Now we really just need the help of some creative writers to give us a good story. Preferably ones with better taste in beer than me... if even you guys are mocking me then I'd have some real trouble winning converts. Alas, I've led such a deprived life.

But if we're going to be putting together the Third Testament, I propose that we ditch the time-worn medium of written word. That was fine back in the days when people had to rely on their imaginations, but we're far too advanced for that now. I say we make a blockbuster movie instead. Miracles? Are you kidding me? Who wants to hear about some guy driving demons out of lepers; we can have our messiah go out and kick the Terminator's butt if we want. Let's see if any of the other religions can top that! If we could get Chuck Norris to play in it, we'd have half the western world converted by opening night.

So: If there are any script writers out there with interests in world domination, please post your resumes. You would be doing the world a great favor.

I'm still having trouble coming up with good Philosophy stories. Better pipe up, unreality, or Uberfaith is gonna take off without ya.

I was thinking along those lines yesterday while I was skimming Revelations. I think a fact finding reality show to chronicle the prophecies he fulfills as they happen. A little clever editing, Morgan Freeman narrating? March of the Penguins meets Myth Busters. It would be insanely popular. Actually, Chuck Norris would be a great host if Morgan Freeman won't do it. How did this thread get this far without including HIM yet??

[Guest]

You're right plasmid, who reads these days? But not a film, I just feel it would all go a bit Battlefield Earth. A reality TV documentary hosted by Morgan Freeman? Now that's got credibility! (though Grayven, what are you thinking suggesting we persuade Chuck Norris to host a show in which he acknowledges the existence of a higher power? Have you no sense of self-preservation?)

Anyways, I fear things might all get a bit facetious (valhalla forbid) if we do not clarify the nature of this religion, since that is sort of the point.

instead, how about we reveal the subjectiveness and ambiguity behind the childish concepts of good and evil

Absolutely (George Carlin didn't leave enough of the 10 commandments intact for us to build anything from that!) I think it worth telling the flock about how good and evil is all about creating sides, inventing an enemy to scare you. Instead we should focus on what is wise or unwise (or, socially desirable or undesirable). The beliefs we put forward may help to put that in a better context.

I've tried to summarize our conclusions so far, but found a lot of gray areas so I'd like lots more input and comments on this bit:

Comfort for the masses (in what form?).

Moral guidance (is this a good idea? more about that later...).

Giving people purpose and direction (needs more clarification).

Encouraging and enabling spirituality (as in simple living, meditation and self examination).

Encouraging uplifting behaviour like spontaneous acts of kindness.

Interference with free thought (that includes belief impinging on the thought processes of believers).

Beliefs which diminish personal drive or responsibility (caring interfering God, power of prayer, afterlife more important than beforelife).

Corruption.

Creating believers within important areas like politics, science, or the higher echelons of the church. We need safeguards to ensure that these remain religion-free.

Belief in a supernatural reward for personal get-up-and-go (a god within us).

Belief in a reward for living this life fully (necessary to counteract the negative effect of having an afterlife). I addressed this fairly jokingly before but I think a good approach would be to consider the afterlife as a "mirror" of this life (in some everlasting spiritual way). So someone who lives well in this life lives well in the afterlife. Someone who commits suicide in this life limits their development in the afterlife. A baby who dies young has an afterlife of simple angelic bliss. That idea has some intuitive appeal while being slightly confusing in a way which should hopefully pass for profundity in the religious mind.

Respect for non-belief could be bolstered by the idea that the gods treat us with indifference and respect those of us who are indifferent to them. Non-believers get all the afterlife benefits of believers. The only ones who burn in hell are believers in false religions.

Belief that you get what you deserve (karma or whatever) - clarification of why we should act morally, and a sense of natural justice to temper our anger when we are wronged.

Which brings me to morality itself. Should we find our own personal moral code or have one dictated to us?

Religion could help to promote general principles of morality, like respect for others, honesty, respect for nature, and so on, but it may be better to have these in flexible form and thus under denominational control. This lets it develop as humankind moves on, which history tells us is likely to be necessary. It also allows us to choose our morality to some extent (by choosing denomination) while still having it spelled out to us. This way the church provides encouragement to "be moral" without necessarily fixing the idea of what that means.

Heaven & hell - access to heaven granted for all converts.

Members of other religions go to hell. This gives them something to worry about and us reason to convert them.

People want to think there are answers to questions like "why are we here" and "what's it all about then?". Must pretend to have meaningful answers for these.

Our biggest advantage would be offering the religious experience, but with a dose of common sense. There's got to be a market for that.

Must have many denominations to reduce corruption and provide more scope for development. The core doctrine should encourage the spread of denominations, demand respect for other denominations, and allow free movement (with no ostracism at any level)

A central document with core principles in order to keep denominational variation within desired parameters

The Path to Enlightenment or some such means of ensuring that absence of belief is not only respected but actually promoted for those who do not need it.

It shouldn't be necessary with the other safeguards in place, but perhaps an explicit commandment not to get in the way of science, and to respect reason.

Here's an area I think we need to consider more seriously. Should a religion promote any supernatural beliefs? Personally I wouldn't be inclined to call it a religion if it didn't, but the example of UU shows that this isn't the only view. Sounding and looking like a religion goes a long way too (and having a logo with a candle in it definitely helps).

Any clear supernatural belief (excuse the oxymoron) will probably conflict with the pursuit of truth. Monotheism, however benign we try to make it, is intrinsically likely to interfere with good sense, since there is always scope for people to think they know what God wants. Also creation stories are a real problem area.

A principle such as the "spirit of humanity" could fulfill people's desire for something supernatural-sounding while being vague enough that it might be a concept with or without supernatural connotations, so that's not bad as a minimal belief system.

Even extending this to the idea of a "spirit of the universe" is a step I would hesitate to take. It may give us a false sense of purpose or destiny. It may encourage the idea that all things happen for a reason (part of a "grand plan"), which is a pretty insidious belief that erodes our reason and undermines our decision-making capabilities.

So where do we draw the line belief-wise? Polytheism is what I've been going with so far because it's flexible. If one god doesn't support the viewpoint that reason suggests, there's a fair chance another one will. Plus the myths that arise from polytheism tend to have a colourful and fun nature that can't really be taken too seriously. But maybe we should just fall back on the minimal spirit of humanity. Or something else? Discussion required!

If we can clarify all these areas I think we will have a proper blueprint for our religion. Then we can invite ADParker to attack it and see if it stands up.

[plasmid]

Glad you went back and summarized the big points of the thread, octopuppy. I'll leave this link to it up in my messages while we're sorting it out. That's be too much for me to bite off all at one time, but for now I'll start at the top.

Comfort for the masses has typically been done by saying that "Jesus loves you" "God has a master plan (although his ways are mysterious)" "You will get to live forever in heaven" "You can atone for sins by paying indulgences (or confessing, depending on your era)" and stories like Job. Since it sounds like one of the pillars of Uberfaith will be that there is an afterlife and the quality of the afterlife depends on how awesome you are in this life, our main way of bringing comfort can be by saying that you can always atone for past sins (at least partially) or do things to make your afterlife better if you've been dealt a bum hand in this one. "Jesus loves you" seems harmless enough for those who are desperate for something, but I have some misgivings both about introducing unnecessary supernatural stuff and about giving people gratification too easily. If it's included at all, it should not be the major focus. No confessions. No paying indulgences. No story of Job.

Moral guidance must go hand-in-hand with stories about an afterlife that reflects how moral you were in the current life. There just seems to be no way around that logic (even considering the fact that we are designing a religion). Much of this can be stipulated by the denominations I think, but some principles may be worth mentioning in codified doctrine for all of Uberfaith. Do not harm other people, do not steal their stuff, do not lie to them. Gain karma by helping people out, being generous, and being reliable. Karma can be won by finding a useful role to fill in society, be it anything from acting as a professional to raising a family. When it comes to stuff like running massive Ponzi schemes, or using polluting fuels instead of solar power, etc., etc., that can be stipulated by the denominations given the times they live in.

Purpose and direction. I think unreality can handle this one better than I can. I'm admittedly too science-centric to think that anything else could come close to it when it comes to advancing humanity.

Encouraging spirituality is one of those things I keep forgetting about, but it's a big part of why people keep creating religions after all. This seems like the thing that could best be specified by each of the denominations; when it comes to "filling the void" by offering a religious experience, that's exactly what memetic competition could do best. I don't care too much about how people do this. If power yoga floats their boat, so be it. For the current world we live in, maybe it should involve getting some exercise every once it a while. But this I think will change as the times change. The only thing that I would codify is: it's important for people to visit other denominations from time to time and objectively judge them. That should be expected of every uberpeon, and definitely not frowned upon by any denomination.

I think I've avoided most of the things that need to be avoided so far. One thing should be explicitly stated in doctrine, though. There are certain acts of corruption that should be intolerable by any respectable denomination and would spark holy war. One of which is failing to allow your followers to experience other denominations. Another would be harboring infidels without promptly converting or smiting them. They may be tolerated for a while when Uberfaith is just getting off the ground, but once you're in control there's no place for that sort of tolerance.

So, to start codifying some doctrine... (you guys feel free to edit of course)

- There is an afterlife. We don't explicitly say if it's another existence like this one, or if it's just a continuation of consciousness that happens after the body dies (denominations can squabble over that, and scientific advances may eventually rule out the second possibility). How much you enjoy the afterlife depends on how much good you do in this life. Believers in false gods will go to hell. Those who do nothing more than believe will get an afterlife of modest contentment. Those who spark a major advancement in humanity will walk on streets of gold. [importance level 1: This must be stated unambiguously many times and not contradicted.]

- There is some sort of God that personally cares about you and is happy to see when you're happy. Unfortunately, Godly duties prevent him from always acting to ensure your happiness. He does have a universe to run after all, and that's gotta take priority. Don't bother praying to him to ask him for stuff, that'll just piss him off. But he's cool to chit-chat with. And he still wuvs you. [importance level 5: Probably will not mention it in doctrine, just leave it open as a possibility for denominations to consider. May be stricken entirely without opposition from me.]

- Karma is not transferable from one person to another. You cannot buy indulgences. [importance level 3: May be overridden by denominations if you have a relative on their deathbed and you want to do something in their name to give them a better afterlife. But definitely never works with strangers on the street offering to sell karma.]

- Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Be a good student as a kid. Fulfill your potential as an adult. [importance level 2: Say it a few times and give a nice illustrative story. Do not contradict. Not much wiggle room for denominations to interpret. They can argue over the relative benefit brought by different professions if they wish.]

- Unreality shall stipulate the paths to personal fulfillment. [importance level depends on how good the stuff he comes up with is.]

- Set out from time to time (say every 5 years or so) and check out other denominations. [importance level 1: Denominations may not override this, for obvious reasons. It therefore must be stated unambiguously and repeatedly. Do not contradict. Allow holy war against any denominations that fail to comply.]

- Convert or smite all heretics who worship anything but Uberfaith. As for people who don't believe any religion at all, and who don't try to convert others towards heretical faiths, they should be tolerated and may be part of the ubercommunity and invited to attend the uberkeggers. Science is not an abhorrent heretical faith. Conversion may be attempted on unbelievers, but no more than once a year. [importance level 1.]

- Denominations must be wiped from the earth if they prove naughty with the following acts: Failure to allow followers to experience other denominations. Failure to eradicate heresy within itself. Persecuting nonbelievers. Outright bribery of its leadership. [importance level 2: War is a big step. You can try diplomacy and sanctions for a little while. But don't become an empty-sacked UN.]

Denominations must specify: 1) Examples of deeds that win you good and bad karma as the times dictate. 2) Whether or not there's a god, and what sort of beast it is. 3) How you achieve spiritual fulfillment.

[Guest]

Oh boy, sounds like you're trying to create the Beast from the Ground from the book of Revelations. I'm surprised how this little joke got so long.

[Guest]

I suppose you'll all throw me in hell for believing in a so-called "false" religion.

[plasmid]

I suppose you'll all throw me in hell for believing in a so-called "false" religion.

Oh, no no no. You're not destined for the firey bowels of hell. That would be ridiculous, for you are a wise and thoughtful soul. Once Uberfaith is established, someone with an incisive intellect such as yours will doubtless put it to the test, and you will soon find its bountiful richness refreshing. It inherently compels people to go out and accomplish great things, so all of the human accomplishments that you will find around you will be a testament to Uberfaith. But ultimately, the best way to make up your mind is to shed skepticism and see what the excitement in the ubercommunity is all about. Show up to an uberchurch. Develop a sound mind inside a sound body (for some denominations) or experience spirituality through appreciation of the arts which thereby connects you to the deep continuous consciousness of human society (for others) or become more in touch with those around you by meeting each Sunday to discuss in excruciating detail everything that happened to you over the previous week and how it made you feel (more for the women, but maybe you'll like it). If you do make a good faith effort to join the flock but you're put off by any aspect of the experience, well, you probably just didn't find the denomination that suits you right off the bat. In that case you should keep looking until you find the right one. We hope to have the Uber-Belief-O-Matic up and running to help you in your denominational selection, but in the meantime I'm sure the denominations will be happy to provide informative pamphlets that hit the high points. Someone as open minded and thoughtful and dedicated to finding the truth as yourself will surely find fulfillment in Uberfaith if you give it a chance.

[Guest]

I awoke this morning with an inspiration! I realized that we haven't addressed the funding of this endeavor. But alas, I may have a way...

BEHOLD THE UFC (UberFaithChampions!)

We "convert"(pruchase) the UFC. We change the format slightly and bring back a sort of "Might Makes Right" championing system. Each denomination will have it's selected Champion who may publicly defend any debated policy. The Core leaders would of course have a team of the elite best available.(Chuck Norris anyone? He doesn't have to abdicate supremacy to "The Barak", as Chuck Norris technically exists on a slightly higher plane of reality and would trump Uberfaith if he cared to. Luckily for us, Chuck Norris has no use for the leading of peoples and is content with smiting.)

With this system, you achieve two goals. First, you entertain the masses as the Romans did. (Who undertook this same project 2000 years ago and look at their success!) Secondly, you have a built-in "Holy War" system that allows for settling conflict without the loss of life or squandering of resources associated with traditional wars.

All major grudge matches would be Pay-Per-View of course, ensuring a stable revenue stream.

This system could also be used for non-Uberfaith religions who don't initially want to convert. They could be allowed to offer a Champion of their own to compete in the UFC. This would require a decidedly difficult test; a gauntlet of sorts. The challenger would have to win a series of contests which would require divine intervention to succeed. If their faith proves strong enough and their deity chooses to provide the supernatural boost needed, they may continue to exist. If, however, they lose, they must immediately reconsider conversion or face smiting.

Look what a good nights rest will do for you!.

[Guest]

BTW: I've begun some preliminary interpretation of Revelations to suit our needs. You were right! You couldn't get more ambiguous and/or inconsistent than the book of Revelations. I especially like how the first thing it says is that the end is near. This being written 2000 years ago and the entire niverse being 4-5k old according to Judeao/Christian creationism dogma? However, given the Uberfaith base of science/reason, the universe is old enough to make a couple millenia sound quite "near".

[unreality]

this post by octopuppy, these posts by plasmid and this post by grayven are all pretty awesome I feel like Uberfaith is starting to get off the ground ;D

- Unreality shall stipulate the paths to personal fulfillment. [importance level depends on how good the stuff he comes up with is.]

how about there is a List of Paths, and certain denominations can pick and choose the paths they want to vouch, but everyone in all denominations is open to all paths

(0) Path to Enlightenment (study of the Zero. No higher beliefs. A series of mental apprenticeships and tests to merge oneself with the universe and attain True Uberenlightenment)

(1) Path of Knowledge (learn new things and always question. Scientist by heart if not by profession. Gain new wisdom both practical and abstract, and apply it to the world)

(2) Path of Randomness (be spontaneous. Do random acts of kindness. Say "yes" to everything. Embrace the chaos in the universe)

(3) Path for Humanity (work on problems facing our species, and attempt to further its collective intelligence and well-being, in harmony with other species and the Earth itself. Social sciences, psychology, a humanistic perspective and a kind heart are involved... make your contribution to furthering Humanity's own path with whatever means you have)

(4) Path of the Uberkarma (balance, harmony and recipricocity are built into the universe - this is supported by physics. Antimatter+matter, action+reaction, negative+position, yin+yang... these build up from the particle level and retain their properties at macro-levels, thereby encouraging you to be good and good will come in return. The Path's scientific processes will investigate how it all works)

(5) Nature (the "green" path - save the environment, save the Earth. Respect other species, from humans to ants to trees to apes to fish to coral. Respect the Earth in its uberconscious-biomass-organism {such as Kepler and Gaian-philosophers believe} and help regulate its conditions to support amazing new life. Study evolution, biology, ecology, extrabiology, geology, meteorology, etc. Help the Earth and help your fellow residents on this pale blue dot)

(6) Pathius Essencius (study mathematics, and the core axioms at the basis of math, physics and science itself. Embrace the mathematical aspect of life and help uncover truths about chaos theory and fractals and other practical applications of complex math. Become involved with the philosophy behind mathematics. Are you a Platonic or a Subjectivist regarding math's appearance in natural phenomena? This path is pretty much for mathemiticians but anyone is welcome. This is a path that seems to be more of a "minor" path as opposed to the other paths, and should be taken along with another route to fulfilment)

(7) Path of the Mind (deals with deep philosophical concepts like the mind, psychology, dualism, holism, that kind of thing... has a sub-branching regarding computers, computer science, and artificial intelligence)

there could be more if deemed necessary