Basically, im looking for a new religion/life philosophy, and was wondering if anyone new any that were out of the norm. Im thinking along the lines of Daemonology or something. Can anyone help?

Step 1: Hit a library.

Read up as much as you can on various religions, and pick out a few that best fit your outlook on life. Religion has to be a personal thing. If it doesn't feel right to you, it probably never will. You can't force faith (I've come to learn). The internet will provide some good information as well. Most faiths these days have online communities like SP where people meet and converse all the time. That may be the best place to start.

Step 2: Hit the phone book.

Of the churches you chose that looked the best to you, look up the address and visit the church on the days they congregate (probably on a weekend). Call if necessary to make sure they allow walk-ins to attend their services. Most churches/temples/mosques have an open-door policy though, so you should be fine.

Step 3: Hit the streets.

Attend the prayer services of the various churches and see if they're right for you. Attend each service several times, as one visit will never do the trick. If your interest is piqued, stay after the service and speak with the clergyman. Tell him you're interested in learning more and they should be all to happy to fill you in on things.

--

Bottom line is, no one can tell you which faith is the best. There isn't a single church on earth who isn't 100% convinced that their faith is God's one true faith, and all others are misguided and lost. So you have to find out which one works best for you. You may truly be the only unbiased source you can depend on here.

Consider yourself lucky. Most people don't have the benefit of making an informed and enlighted decision about which faith to follow. Most people are engrained from birth. I think you'll find it'll be an interesting and enlightening journey (speaking from experience here), no matter which faith you choose.

I've got bad news for you, Vandred. There ain't nothing new under the sun. Even daemonology dates back to the third chapter of Genesis.

To be honest, it seems a li'l strange to me to go hunting for new philosophies when the real goal should be to find out what's TRUE. But that's just me. If you prefer fascinating fakes over dull truths, then cheer up - you have lots of choices.

Basically, all practical religions and philosophies in the modern era boil down to six basic types. (There are theoretical variations, but most are literally unlivable; Greek polytheism isn't much help nowadays.) In no particular order:

1) It's all about me!

The first commandment is, "To thine own self be true." The most important value is to be completely sincere to your own desires, ambitions, lusts, dreams, etc. If it feels right, it must be right. And heaven help the parent or government that should stand in the way of your right to be yourself.

Think Rousseau, Emerson, Rand...or "Kuzco" from The Emperor's New Groove.

2) It's all about my folks!

What matters is your particular group - your family, race, class, nation, culture, eye color, whatever. The exact grouping doesn't matter, just the fact that you look beyond yourself but stop somewhere short of humanity writ large.

Think Aristotle, Marx, Mussolini, or any random hyper-patriot.

3) It's all about humanity!

Human rights are the basis of our values. Why? Well...because humans are valuable, by dint of being humans. (If this sounds specieist, it is.) Our very humanity gives us value and purpose. As such, the highest goal of a human being is to be a productive, peaceful part of humanity writ large - and anything that harms another human or shakes the peace is bad.

Some philosophers stretch the limits by claiming that people become "progressively" more or less human depending on how closely they hew to (their) moral values or act rationally (babies start barely human but become more human as they mature; a ten-year-old is more human than an Alzheimers-stricken centenarian). That really falls under type #2, but such believers could claim to be humanitarians too.

Think the UN, liberal humanism, or Star Trek.

4) It's all about everything!

It's all about the great circle of life. Humans aren't any more special than animals, or rocks, or stars - we're all just atoms in the great glory that is nature. Since everything matters, we value diversity (we're all different!) and unity (we all work together!). True peace and wonder comes from recognizing our role in the universe, and doing what we can to restore the balance. (The specific definition of "balance" and means of "restoring" differ from group to group.)

If a faith calls itself "New Age", it's probably a variation of this very, very old idea.

5) It's all about nothing!

The meaning of life is: there is no meaning! This is really quite liberating. You can be free to be yourself since your self doesn't really matter, and there's no need to fear death since neither death nor life matters. Can't guarantee that you won't wake up depressed each morning, but hey, why live in denial? If the universe is meaningless, then have courage and face it like a man! (Not that courage has any value in a meaningless universe.)

This ranges between Buddhist contemplation of numb Nirvana to Nietzschean exaltation of numb nihilism. Some scientists claim that the universe has no meaning, but then they cheat by slipping in ideas about "Evolution causes this because..." (as if a meaningless process could have intentionality or purpose) or "Life endures because..." (as if life is qualitatively distinguishable from any other atomic structure).

6) It's all about God!

There's an infinite, eternal Creator that designed the universe and humans and is the personality behind beauty, morality, and meaning. Trouble is, several competitors claim that THEY know the truth and the other monotheists are wrong. Who's to say if the Bible or the Quran is right? The Bible claims it's true...but why trust it to vouch for itself? (Not that anyone objects when geometry, mathematics, or logic vouch for themselves, but that's a different issue. Somehow. I guess.)

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism fall neatly into this camp, though there's nothing very neat about their internal disputes. Daemonology falls under this category, too - there's not much use to dealing with demons if you don't acknowledge the existence of the divine, or spiritual warfare. You can say that it's indeed "all about God" and then turn around and fight against that very God. Know thy enemy, as they say.


M'self, I think the weight of evidence for the rational truth of Christianity is overpowering. No other philosophy or religion can better account for life as we know it, in all its beauty and ugliness. And what good is a philosophy if it doesn't mesh with the nature of the world and yourself? But hey, if you want something "out of the norm" and aren't particular about how compatible your new belief is with old reality, then there are plenty of opportunities. Take your pick!

You can practice my religion if you want. It is called Snookieism. Now some people may think that involves the worship of me (The Snook), but it doesn't. It is just named after me for I am the founder.

Here are the basis tenets.

1. There is a God and he (she if you please) is benevolent.

2. God has one rule and only one rule and that is the golden rule (Due unto others as you would have them do unto you).

3. God is too busy to worry about the day to day struggles of every living thing on the earth. We are here to fend for ourselves while we are in our mortal shell.

4. Upon death we are judged by God (or his appointed representative). I'm not sure what happens then as I haven't died, but I'm planning on being judged as good.

5. God appreciates a small prayer here and there, but he doesn't expect a steady stream. Once again see rule number 2.

6. People that do not follow Snookieism are not heretics. They do not deserve scorn, torture, or death.

7. Snookieism does not actively seek other worshippers. You are allowed to explain the religion, but you are not allowed to pressure or force anyone to follow it. Once again see rule number 2 and 6.

Over all it is a pretty simple religion and seems to work pretty well. I have a few converts and they seem to be pretty happy with it.

Hope it helps.

I have formed a new Snookieism splinter sect.

It is called Neo-Snookilism and is based on a more accurate and literal reinterpretation of the tenets of the Snookist faith.

Due to a difference in interpretation of at least one part of the Snookist literature, Neo-Snookilists are placed under Devine Command to employ third parties to seek out and persecute those misguided non-heratics who still practice the old faith of Snookieism.

I have had difficulty getting the lions through customs so, until further notice, all captured Snookieism practitioners will be fed by third parties to dangerous, highly agitated gerbils.

[Edit]

A Snookieism captive has managed to break free, killing all the gerbils in the process. He has since founded a fanatical Snookist organisation which has the following objectives:

1. Wipe all Neo-Snookilists of the face of the earth.
2. Thats it.

We have countered with the following edicts:

A tenth of all the property siezed from the followers of Snookieism is to be paid into the Neo-Snookilism Defence Fund. Any Snookieismists who convert to Neo-Snookilism may keep their property providing they pay a tenth of its value to the Neo-Snookilism Defence Fund as an act of good faith.


We have used the funds gathered so far to purchase some nuclear warheads and more gerbils.

[Edit]

A worldwide organisation, the Not-In-My-Backyard Coalition has been formed by all those nations wishing to rid the threat of Snookism from the planet. Snookism's Founder has protested that in its true form, Snookieism is a benign religious influence. He is being held indefinately by NIMBY for futher questioning.

His 'wrongful' detention has sparked the formation of the Snookalist Revisionist Front. As so-called True Followers of Snookieism, their protests are constrained by the Founder's edict that they do not scorn, torture or kill those who do not follow Snookieism. So to raise public awareness of their cause/religion they toture and kill people who do follow Snookieism instead, even setting themselves on fire as soon as someone produces a TV camera.

[Edit]

The Not-In-My-Backyard Coalition has launched a nuclear strike against the Neo-Snookilist homeland. As I await the impact of their Megaburn-litemup warheads, I can only reflect on the callous disregard that non-heratic non-Neo-Snookalists have for life. It only goes to prove that I was right to launch my nukes first. I'm just glad God is on my side.

[ May 27, 2004, 05:23: Message edited by: Bluin ]

Yeah...but what's your point? :confused:

Is this an oblique "Faith = Hate" statement?

Or where you just really tired? ;)

No. Faith does no equal Hate, it is just another tool that can be used to build Hate, in much the same way as a hammer can be used to build houses or to cave in skulls.

Faith = Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Racism = Belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others without logical proof or material evidence

Xenophobia = Fear or contempt of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples without logical proof or material evidence

It is a natural consequence of their ambiguity that all religions can be used as a spur to make people do culturally condoned evil.

Neo-Snookieism fell early. Given enough time it would have adopted a few more rules:

Neo-Snookieismist women can only marry Neo-Snookieismist men born as Neo-Snookieismists. The men can marry non-Snookieismist women as long as the women covert before marriage.

Neo-Snookieismists who convert to other religions will be killed as long as the Government of the country is controlled by Neo-Snookieismist extremists (otherwise the person is just excluded under threat of death).

Are these rules are evil? Hateful? Then you must apply these descriptions to the followers of todays religions also.

There is no point to my post above. It just appeals to my sense of the natural order of things, religion and mass murder go together.

Buddism may seem like an exception, but they got their ass kicked in Tibet, millions died. On the day the West invades China, that little bald guy with glasses is going to be given as the reason for war (take it on faith).

Faith = Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'Cept...logic and materiality itself rest on faith. You can't prove logic logically - that would be circular reasoning. So you have to take logic's rules on faith. Material evidence requires faith, too, because you have to trust that:

1) your senses are not deceptive (mistaking the material evidence)

2) your senses are fully comprehensive (missing an element of the material evidence)

3) the material evidence collected is comprehensive to the problem at hand (missing some material evidence)

4) your rationality is not deceptive (misunderstanding the material evidence)

5) your language is sufficient to correctly think about and describe the material evidence (rational thinking can be blocked by imprecise vocabulary)

6) the future will be exactly like the past (natural laws may actually be no more than strings of amazing coincidences)

To my mind, clearly #1 and 2 are false, #3, 4, and 5 are rarely met, and #6 requires a HUGE leap of faith since no one can certainly know the future.

Ironically enough, those regimes which followed logic and material evidence most faithfully - Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia - were the most murderous societies in history. Maybe instead of saying that "religion and mass murder go together" you should say "faith in the unreal and mass murder go together". Then we will be in perfect agreement.

I always thought faith started with a feeling inside you that someone or something is looking over you and that comforting feeling itself is faith. I don't see how you can research a whole bunch of religions and texts and then say "Well, this is what i believe in". Sure, you would have that belief in your head, but not where it counts, which is your heart. Faith is not just a certain way of thinking, but a certain way of feeling. It sounds like your researching a subject, not finding peace of mind. You can't go into faith with such an attitude, in my opinion. You'll end up like L. Ron Hubbard. Faith has no basis in science or anything worldly. I would hope it's beyond that for believers of their respective religion or deity.

@ Sauron the Wolf... I always thought faith started with a feeling inside you ...no, that is indegestion...try Rolaids. Faith, as much as anything in this World, is a decision we make. We determine that we have a shred of faith "the size of a mustard seed", but with the help of God...it inexplicably grows into something far greater than could, or should, have been predicted. Faith starts as our objective...and becomes a gift from God.

To try to define "Faith" in a void from God is a recipe for failure. Try to define an "internal combustion engine" apart from fossil fuels...utter gobblygook.

To sum it up...the only person who is qualified to discuss "Faith" in God...is one who holds that belief.

Oh yeah...I also put ditto marks after everything that the Magistrate said.

Maybe instead of saying that "religion and mass murder go together" you should say "faith in the unreal and mass murder go together". Then we will be in perfect agreement. Shall we make it "faith and mass murder go together", religious people can have homicidal streaks as well.

To try to define "Faith" in a void from God is a recipe for failure. Sauron wasn't talking about "Faith" (your version of faith). Sauron was talking about faith, which CAN be defined in godless world:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing This may be the definition of something , but it is certainly not the definition of "Faith".

Sounds more like you're speaking of a rationally weighed decision, or logical choice, or a sense of hope...I'll buy any of those...but Faith requires the aknowledment or the existence of a divine being greater than yourself. That is the only way that great Faith can be viewed as a gift...and not simply playing the odds.

Faith can't be properly defined in a void from God...when you try to, you end up with the generic, meaningless definition posted above

There is no real truth, your version of truth is different than that of a muslim or a positive atheist, saying that there is only one truth(of course yours) is saying that your truth is superior to my truth, or that of another christian.

Your version of the truth, as much as mine version, or anyone else is, is based on something indefineable, immeasurable, everywhere and nowhere, and wholly, ultimately arbitrary.

So my standard of faith, and sauron's faith is hardly lesser than your "Faith", only in your world.

You are right, "Faith" cannot be measured outside of God, because your "Faith" is God, but as I said, there is no true faith, at least.. I have faith in that.

@ Hacken Slash quote- "...no, that is indegestion...try Rolaids".

No, im pretty sure that's faith inside of me. Try "Not Sounding Too Pompous". I think that's made by Rolaids. Hey, Hacken, you're still my boy though. :)

Also it seems like a lot of people are trying awfully hard to sound "deep" and "insightful" and it's coming across pretty empty and full of fluff. Don't try so hard. Philosophy majors are rolling over in their graves. But in all fairness a lot of you made good points about the way faith is percieved by people all over.

[ June 01, 2004, 02:43: Message edited by: Sauron the Wolf ]

What a convenience it must be to forgo absolutes.

The whole idea of "no one is right, and there is nothing to base anything on" seems hollow to me.

There is no real truth, your version of truth is different than that of a muslim or a positive atheist, saying that there is only one truth(of course yours) is saying that your truth is superior to my truth, or that of another christian. What's the point in choosing one truth over all others then; if I don't believe that that truth is superior? Of course I believe that my "truth" is superior; else why would I believe it, if I thought there was something else out there that was "better"?

Your version of the truth, as much as mine version, or anyone else is, is based on something indefineable, immeasurable, everywhere and nowhere, and wholly, ultimately arbitrary. Exactly. *My* version of the truth is *arbitrary*. I don't mean to sound like a jackass; but it sounds to me like you're just repeating yourself.

there is no true faith, at least.. I have faith in that If you have faith that no faith is true, then you have to be open to the likelihood that your faith is false. In which case there is a true faith (I must be using some kind of fallacy with this statement [any ideas chev? :p ], but I stand by it)

@ Hacken Slash and Sauron - You're both right. Faith is as much a decision made with the head as it is a feeling felt in the heart. Faith based solely on a logical choice generally isn't entirely solid, and thus can be shifted to something else. On the other hand, faith felt solely in the heart is too blind and unquestioning; and one is susceptible to losing it after any serious emotional crisis. Faith based on the mind and the heart is solid, and the strengths of the one cancel out the weaknesses of the other (does that make sense to everyone? or is my current state of mind a little off right now?).

The whole idea of "no one is right, and there is nothing to base anything on" seems hollow to me. I agree completely. Call me a dick, but it seems to me that saying that "no one is right" is infinitely easier than devoting oneself to a faith and upholding it against all those who criticize and discriminate against you. Not to mention that the statement itself is self-defeating.

"God" is undefinable, so it would be arbitrary to base your moral and your way of thinking on what you believe to be "God".
When faith is arbitrary it doesnt matter in what you believe, as long as you believe.
You could believe that unicorns exist,in fact it would from the view of an outsider - one who does not share your faith - to be as wrong as any other faith - the outsider does not believe in.

What's the point in choosing one truth over all others then Only the point you give it.

If you have faith that no faith is true, then you have to be open to the likelihood that your faith is false. In which case there is a true faith (I must be using some kind of fallacy with this statement [any ideas chev? ], but I stand by it) I was talking about "true faith" or just Hacken Slash "Faith".

I agree completely. Call me a dick, but it seems to me that saying that "no one is right" is infinitely easier than devoting oneself to a faith and upholding it against all those who criticize and discriminate against you. Well call me a dick, but when you hold your faith high against anything else, you would be called overzealous, sometimes even ignorant.

Faith, as much as anything in this World, is a decision we make No person would believe in something they see as false, people believe only in a "true" thing, and you can't decide what you want to see, as much as a blind man can't chose to see, a faithful person can't chose to see something in a neutral light what he percieves to be flawed and just wrong.
Faith is not about chosing, neither is ignorance.

Some linkies:

http://altreligion.about.com/religion/altreligion/library/deities/bldeities.htm
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/religion.html

@Vandred: Doesn't atheism sound good after these fellows?

:lol:
I'd say that atheism is as much a "belief" system as any World Religion...but that would draw atheists into this thread to dispute it.

So I won't say it. :p

@The great Snook
There's this one problem about your religion... what about masochists? You know how they treat themselves ;)

No person would believe in something they see as false, people believe only in a "true" thing, and you can't decide what you want to see, as much as a blind man can't chose to see, a faithful person can't chose to see something in a neutral light what he percieves to be flawed and just wrong.
Faith is not about chosing, neither is ignorance. I belive faith is all about choosing. You choose a faith that is most suitable for you instead of sticking to something you do not like and is contrary to your beliefs. Also about people unable to decide what they see... I think it's just the opposite. People constantly see what they want to see and what they think they'll see. IMO anyway.

As I was rereading this thread I thought about this again:

'Cept...logic and materiality itself rest on faith. You can't prove logic logically - that would be circular reasoning. So you have to take logic's rules on faith. Material evidence requires faith, too, because you have to trust that: Logic doesnt need proving, it can't be proven, logic is the way we think, it even guides faith.

There are three logic rules, which are undeniable, you take them for granted, because you can't get around them, and because you can't get around them, you don't need faith:

1. The law of the Excluded Middle, a statement is either true or false.
2. The law of Contradiction, a statement cannot be simultaneously true and false.
3. A denial of a true statement is false, and the denial of a false statement is true.

There are three logic rules, which are undeniable, you take them for granted, because you can't get around them, and because you can't get around them, you don't need faith:Isn't "take them for granted" really synonymous with "take them on faith"?

1. The law of the Excluded Middle, a statement is either true or false.
2. The law of Contradiction, a statement cannot be simultaneously true and false.
3. A denial of a true statement is false, and the denial of a false statement is true.'Cept much of post-modernism and Nietzschean thought would challenge these three. Not even Descartes would have been bold enough to assume those three laws, since theoretically a mischevious god could design a universe where those three are only sometimes true. Nietzsche, for example, once theorized that maybe truth is feminine - a mushy, gossipy mess that mingles mutual contradictions. The only reason we pretend those three rules are true, Nietzsche postulated, was because our patriarchal, man-exalting society had elevated logic to a form of combat - one proposition defeats another, leaving no survivor in the path of brutal logic. Maybe we only take these three rules for granted because we're all subconscious sexists, slaves of the dead white males of ancient Greece.

My point is not to dilute anyone's faith in logic (else you risk going insane), but to point out that taking logic for granted (I mean, "on faith") is a leap unto itself - even if we hardly recognize how much of a leap it is.

But if logic needs faith, then why does faith need logic? Isn't that circular reasoning, after all isn't everything based on circular reasoning, I think therefor I am, I am therefor I think?

I mean, can a God exist and not exist at the same time? Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it anymore? Would we have faith in something that we consciously hold false?

But if logic needs faith, then why does faith need logic? Isn't that circular reasoning, after all isn't everything based on circular reasoning, I think therefore I am, I am therefore I think?It is circular reasoning. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - what matters is how broad your circle is, and how much of reality it encompasses. There's nothing - not even Descartes' dictum, "I think, therefore I am" - that can be absolutely, rock-hard, KNOWN without some element of faith. How, for instance, can you KNOW that you are truly thinking? That requires a definition of thought - and that definition is subsequent to, and dependent upon, the thinking process. And how can we know what it means to truly BE? Really, all Descartes does is call his perception process "thinking" and "being" and then naively assumes that his perceptions are foundationally accurate. That ain't necessarily so - look at those with mental illness, whose thoughts betray them; or rocks, which "are" without requiring thought.

So in the end, you have to take your own senses and mental state on faith. And we know that both our senses and thoughts deceive us. So it takes a huge leap of faith to trust in such a shaky foundation.

Yet, we make that leap of faith every moment of the day. And we have to - if we didn't, we'd go insane. So we trust that we really are, that we truly sense and think, and that the reality we perceive really is reality - and magically, once those presuppositions are accepted, suddenly life makes sense.

It's not that much more of a leap to assume that the world was created by a Person, has a purpose, contains beauty, is populated by conscious beings, and is contaminated by evil. (Especially since in our everyday life, people consciously and intentionally create things for both beauty and evil.) These all require faith, but the world doesn't make much sense without those assumptions. Or, rather, the leap of faith is longer when trying to explain the world using different assumptions.

These all require faith, but the world doesn't make much sense without those assumptions. Or, rather, the leap of faith is longer when trying to explain the world using different assumptions. Assuming that, takes a leap too :)

[ June 16, 2004, 16:35: Message edited by: Morgoth ]