The Religion of Reason

[docui]

Thanks guys for all the replies. Especially Mestemia for helping me understand the Pascals Wager issue. Let me clear it up for everyone. The reasoning I posted that was similar to it isn't affiliated with the religion. It was really my original personal reasons for believing in God before I explained him. Check out my Blog and you'll see that the reason for God's inclusion in the religion isn't because it's from it, but from the reasoning I wrote that explains God and how he exists. This is in many ways actually the opposite of Pascals Wager. It's not because we believe that it's better for us to believe in God but because God's existence can now be understood with reason. I probably shouldn't have posted that, I only did because I didn't want to leak my whole blog post before I had it ready. It's my fault guys I'm sorry.

I may be just being a cynical old fart, but isn't the phrase "Religion of Reason" a tiny bit of an oxymoron?

Great question. To a lot of people it is, and with older religions it can be. But that is what one of the purposes of TROR. It's about tearing down walls and old ways of thinking that pitted reason vs religion. We believe that older religions worked for their time and their regions, but to have a true modern international religion we should have one constructed for our current modern mindset. A religion that doesn't fight science and reason but works with it. For years this has been a problem with older religions, but hopefully not anymore. It's a religion for the scientist and logical thinkers as well as the normal everyday believer, to bring the human race together and not divide them.

1) I have found that when we feel the sweet presence and peace of God, "he" is often working on something entirely different than what we think or pray for. You may have mistaken the gift of reason for something entirely different.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I don't think I was given this amazing gift of reason that nobody else has. I believe God gave me an answer, not me, and that with more and more people working on this we can interpret and bring together the tiny messages that God gives us. In fact if anything, the only tiny message God has given me was to connect these tiny messages he gave others. I don't see myself as anything better or different from you, I just had a message that allowed me to connect others.

2) I have also found that God speaks in tiny words. When God speaks to me, it's only a word or a sentence.

Exactly right. Only through, combining these tiny messages can we find our true purpose and final complete message.

3) Most importantly, it takes a lot of practice to realize what is for you and what is for other people. In other words - you're speaking too much, and that's revealing much.

I understand. But as you can see above to bring the religion to maturity I must tell what I have and find what others have as well. The whole base of it is to have more working on it and bring the messages that God gave them to complete the picture.

Thanks again everyone. I can't wait to hear again from you all.
Take Care

 

[Autodidact]

Because reason dictates that belief in a God is smarter than not. If you believe in a God and there is no God nothing happens, you just die. But if there is a God you go to heaven.
Lastly if you don't believe in a God and there is no God nothing happens, you just die. But if there is a God it is damnation for you to hell.
Broken down simply, believing in God has a 50% chance of a positive outcome, and not believing has 0%. Now there are more complicated things but this is the simple reasoning.

Surely even the most elementary reason can show you the flaws in this argument.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of entities for which there is no evidence.

In general, believing in things because it would benefit you to do so, is not a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Autodidact]

Because we were created for something, if we weren't important to God or the universe we wouldn't be here.

This is an unsupported assumption. Not a good way to start your reasoning. It is entirely possible, even likely, that our existence is merely a result of natural processes that do not care whether we exist or not.

Why would an all knowing God create us out of boredom, because if it wasn't for something what else could it be.

Her ways are not for us to know.

Now since we are important to God it would make since for God to try to reach us.

NOt necessarily. Assuming there is a God who made us--an entirely unfounded assumption, she may have made us as an experiment, in which the circumstances of our lives, including ignorance of her existence, is one of the conditions of the experiement.

We're more important then most realize, in fact if we didn't exist God or the universe might not.

On what do you base this ridiculous assumption? Did you know that compared to the universe, our entire planet is smaller than a sub-atomic particle? But if a single species on the skin of that particle did not exist the entire universe, trillions and trillions times the size, would not exist?

And so since God's current existence relies on us he would reach us to inspire our purpose as much as he can.

You claim to know God's purpose? How do you know God is not malevolent, and his purpose is not to torture us like boys with flies?

I wish I could explain a little bit more then this for you, I've already worked it out. It's only that this will be covered in my next post, "The Meaning of Life".

Oh you are so cute.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes while that is a little part of the reasoning, it has actually very little to do with the religion itself. First of all "Pascal's Wager" asserts that God cannot be explained through reason, when the very essence of the religion is all about explaining God through reason.

So you're contradicting yourself already? See any thing about that which does not conform with reason?

And that's the heart of the religion. If you read my posts like I asked and especially my "Theory of Everything" post you can see that the main reason that the belief of God is in the belief system is because I've explained God through reason.

Sorry but no, you haven't.

TROR teaches that reason is the one truth of the universe and that both it and even God can be explained through reason. Pretty much the opposite of "Pascal's Wager".

Here's a hint. When you've argued something and the opposite of something, you have failed.

The only reason I mentioned this little piece of the reasoning was because I didn't want to leak out the main point of my post before I posted it. Also I actually knew little of "Pascal's Wager" until you mentioned it, I honestly looked it up for the first time after you mentioned it, the reasoning I posted was something I came up with. I find it interesting actually to find something that is similar from a long time ago in history. The same kind of feeling I got when I put together the concept of destructive and constructive vibrations and months later found the same concept already inside Napoleon Hill's book "Think and Grow Rich". I think it shows that perhaps I'm close to the right path when I find that these very similar ideas can come up from me and these people decades before me without influence from each other. After all part of TROR is finding these messages from God that are trying to teach us our purpose.

You find it helpful that someone before you was wrong in the exact way you were?

 

[Autodidact]

It seems to me that if you wanted to start a religion based on reason, your first step would be to try to use reason to determine whether there is any such thing as God. Good luck with that.

 

[kidkunjer]

It strikes me that perhaps you should avoid the word 'reason'.
if you described your points as 'articles of faith' then they wouldn't attract the negative attention. In fact i'd go as far as to say that they would come across as comparatively very 'logical' articles of faith, rather than the very flawed articles of reason they are coming across as now.

Using the word 'reason' automatically draws a higher standard of judgement against your ideas.

The truth is, that your ideas are not logical. They are logic-ish, in that they sort of resemble logic a bit if you squint. And that's already head and shoulders above most dogma.

what i mean to say is, play to your strengths