Worship options - Nature/Abstract God/Mankind ?

[bloom]

If you were going to start from scratch - which would it make the most sense to worship - and/or to build a religion around?


Feel free to elaborate.

[Silent3]

1. Where's the "nothing" option?

I wouldn't build any religions at all.

[bloom]

5. Sorry - this poll is just for people who want to choose one

for theoretical or any other reason. Not choosing is to not vote. (I'm afraid it would be too easy to just vote nothing if that were an option).

[Speck Tater]

2. None of the above.

Any rational religion has nothing to do with "worship." Only a petty god would demand to be worshipped. My religion would be about self-realization and self-actualization, not worship.

[manic expression]

31. A respectable religion

however, wouldn't the individual be the "deity" in this religion? Just asking.

[bloom]

37. delete

[johnnypneumatic]

3. I heard of a church beneath the ground where republicans worship

an unexploded nuclear missile

[PublicWrath]

6. Now that you mention it ........they did look like repubs..... n/t

[Proud_Democratt]

29. Like Molech worshippers?

[Stanchetalarooni]

4. Sentient beings.

One to one.

[htuttle]

7. Our Biosphere

It's a level of organic organization one step larger than us. Does it matter whether it's "sentient" or not? It's our "larger body".

It's also as real as the nose on your dog's face. You can point to it (all around you), you can measure it, and it's well-being is crucial to the existence of everyone you have ever known.

If you feel the need to worship, I can't think of anything more worthy than our own biosphere.

[Peanutcat]

8. The only option that makes sense--

Me.

[WhollyHeretic]

9. I don't feel the need or see the reason to worship anything

:shrug:

[bloom]

12. I'm not really thinking of worship

like making an alter and sacrificing or something. I think most people naturally "worship" at least one of these things anyway in some way or another.

It could take the form of what spend your time on. What you value. Etc.


Though come to think of it - there are things that I would "sacrifice" for nature's sake. Like I have stopped eating meat in large part because of the environmental burden of raising animals for human consumption. I recycle and conserve and such.

Other people spend an inordinate amount of time on knowing all about celebrities. Or it might be science and scientists that one thinks the most highly of.

An "abstract God" seems like one of the last things that people would naturally spend their time and energy on. Unless they were raised that way. Although if you think of the Bible (and other such religious texts) like poetry and God as representing art - philosophy? - it might make sense. (That actually seems awfully close to worshiping people/humankind, however).

[Goblinmonger]

10. I vote none of the above

I think it is disingenuous to not include that option. I believe many people would choose that if we were able to start from scratch. Why is that a bad thing?

Kind of odd for an atheist to not include that option in their poll.

[WhollyHeretic]

11. I thought that was a little...curious

[undergroundpanther]

13. Hate gods

No options for the creator being a monster there.

Atheism is one thing, Malthiests..well people don't like people who actually hate the creator of this fucked up world like
I do.

[htuttle]

15. The creator of this F*cked up world is us

We could have just stayed in the trees, you know. It was our choice, and still is.

[undergroundpanther]

17. Staying in the trees sucked

That's why we built civilization.

Nature sucks so we sought to protect ourselves,as evolution demands, Survival of the fittest just sucks,being sick and no way to ease it sucks,being a fur-less human freezing to death sucks.

This world sucks whether you live in the trees or in a city it sucks and we did not make it suck.
Did you make a tornado,a drought a predator to eat your kids?

Did you make a brain with the mammalian instinct to form bonds? Did you make human babies be born so vulnerable and dependant upon parents for such a long time. In the wilds it would be better if humans laid eggs and let their kids hatch as babies able to feed themselves and get around like snakes.?
How come evolution is so damn sick? Why do we have to be aware that we are going to die and never knoiw when or why or what happens so we spend our lives fearing it?
Did you make nature be so damn sick? Did you make humanity so fucked up? Did you make yourself?
I didn't think so.

[bloom]

20. I get a lot of peace

from nature. Of course it helps if you look for the good things.

I know that it can be a pain in the neck - worrying about bugs and diseases and predators and such. But since humans are biggest destroyers - I don't feel like humans as a group really have much to complain about.

For some reason the fact that there are things like tornadoes, and earthquakes, and such doesn't bother me - I find it fascinating. I think that if people in general were not as arrogant as we are - we would adapt to these things better - instead of trying to pretend that we are separate from the world.

[Proud_Democratt]

28. None of the above...I worship nothing, but Rationalism would

be my pick of attributes.

[bloom]

34. It sounds to me like...

The writer of this about Rationalism would have been comfortable saying that he would choose "Nature" - (if *had* to choose one of the above).


"My principle objection to humanism is the implication by its promoters that freethinkers do - or should - "believe in Man". I dissent from this on two grounds. It is reminiscent of "I believe in God", and I contend that the freethought or rationalist movement should not be promoting an ersatz religious mode of thinking but offering a radical departure from it by saying that the whole concept of "believing in" (in the dogmatic religious sense) is erroneous. Belief, for a freethinker, should be tentative, and open to amendment and reasoned argument. Atheists rightly regard "Jesus saves" as a flatulent slogan; "Man is the measure of all things" is immodest, unscientific bunkum, and it is high time someone said so....

I want the world to be a place fit for my grandchildren, where they will have space to move, freedom and time to think, wilderness to admire; a world where people can live in harmony with plants and animals. I do not want them to be forced to elbow their way through an overcrowded, stressed, war-riddled civilisation that has degraded the face of the earth into either ugly cities or vast, intensively farmed monocultures. It would only be a matter of time before such a society destroyed itself.

If we want the first sort of civilisation in the future, rather than the second, we may have to forgo a few fancy gadgets or devise more sensible alternatives; we will need to control our human numbers, put world poverty and land misuse before national privilege, nuclear war-toys and space research (without blunting our scientific curiosity), and change the emphasis of our throw-away, consumer society. Above all, we will need a more sensitive, perceptive view of the role of the human race on this planet, one which will understand the right of other animals to breathe free in the air we at present pollute, one which will appreciate the value - practical and aesthetic - of plants, trees and wilderness."

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/humanist.htm

[Random_Australian]

14. Sort of Nature. Actually, that which built nature, the order inherit in

randomness. It governs my morals as an atheist anyway, so why shouldn't I write a few gospels that basically say "be nice to each other" in really elaborate and convincing ways?

If I had the time, that is.

[undergroundpanther]

18. Randomness sucks

for beings that need some homeostasis to survive.

[Random_Australian]

35. Wrong randomness! (Sort of) I was talking about.... oooh never mind,

but the order inherit in randomness keeps us fine, whereas the randomness itself, for instance, guided evolution. And then the order inherit in randomness put limits and guides on evolution, so it went this way. Ugh! I wrote that so badly! oh well, meh.

[NMMNG]

16. None of the above

I'm no longer the worshipping type.

[Strong Atheist]

19. Where is the "none" option, for those of us who are atheists? nt.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

21. Where's the "Other" option?

'Cause "celebrities" don't belong with "humankind."

:evilgrin:

[bloom]

24. It is written

as celebrities and/OR Humankind. So if you wanted to vote for humankind - you could just make a note of it.

[ozone_man]

22. nature is all there is.

I think we started that way, worshipping nature that is. But I also think we have to return at some level. Not to worship nature as a god or gods as the pagans or pantheists did/do, but to respect it as if it were a god. Nature is all there is. I think nature and life have evolved by evolution and random chance. We just happen to be on a planet that is well suited for life, and we have evolved to sense the fractal beauty of nature. We no longer have to believe in gods, but we can be environmental citizens of the planet, ecologists, for our survival depends on it. There is nothing else to enjoy or experience beyond life itself, so let's get over the god worship and afterlife beliefs of our ignorant past and leave the Earth in good shape for future generations. It's sad to see the present generation coming of age who can already see that the Earth is doomed, that they will have the unpleasant experience of seeing the decay of the biosphere in their lifetime, but this is what my kids already see in their future. Hopefully the damage is reversible, but some effects are very long term such as global warming, loss of ecosystems, mass distinctions.

[bloom]

23. Well said.

It's interesting to me how lopsided this poll is. I thought maybe more people would rather worship people.

I think we people as whole get awfully full of ourselves and our accomplishments and it is catching up to us - our ignoring of our home - the earth and everything that lives with us. Without a home we are nothing.

[greyl]

25. If you didn't have celebrity mixed up with humankind

you may have gotten results closer to what you expected.

edit: btw, why separate humankind from nature?

[bloom]

26. The thing of it is - a lot of people DO "worship" celebrities

Be they sports stars, media stars, or other famous people. Gandhi, MLK, Bush* :eyes: for instance. So it seemed reasonable to just put them together. Some people might just revere people in general. I figured I would make it all one category. Seems similar to me, anyway.


I think people do separate mankind from nature generally. Most religions seem to be based on people being separate from nature - the "Garden of Eden" type of myth, for instance. I think if people "worshiped" (whatever that meant to them) nature - there would be less of a sense of being separate from nature. Seems like something to think about, anyway.

[greyl]

27. Ah, so you didn't mean "humanity at large",

you meant individuals?

Also, it makes sense that the Garden of Eden myth was written by people who identified with nature about another group of people who did not. The founders of our culture were that other group, and we've since taken the story to be our own. (which explains why it makes little sense to most people)

[bloom]

30. I figured

i would lump both categories all together - the worship of "celebrities" and the worship of "humanity at large" - Celebrities and/or Humankind.

Sorry it has been confusing to you.

Somehow I doubt that you would have voted for either - or would you - if it were separated out?

[toddaa]

32. Define worship

What does this word mean?

[bloom]

33. It's really whatever you want it to mean.... some examples ->

It might be concentrating positive energy toward whatever. Or making the thing a priority in your life. Or it could be creating rituals to focus energy and action toward a thing.


If one were to say, that some people worship sports heroes, for instance, there are already in set rituals where the hero performs whatever it is they do and everyone applauds and gets quite excited. A lot of money is spent. And time and energy toward knowing all that one might know about the hero in question. That seems like a form of worship.


If someone were to design a religion - they could design it any way that they wanted to. Of course they might be the only one doing it. Part of the appeal of group religions (or group hero worship) is that a bunch of people get all exited all together.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Wow - no votes for 'abstract god' at all?

Are the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. all boycotting the thread, because they don't like the concept of starting a religion from scratch? Or do they all feel that their religion isn't the one that 'makes sense' - just the one that feels 'true' to them?

[bloom]

38. "because they don't like the concept"

That must be it. :shrug: