This blog

I previously made a couple of false starts about my opinions on religion, in particular the Abrahamitic ones and Gnosticism, but I got struck in opinions that I could not seriously correlate back to any specific faith. I decided after a while that I know a lot of details, but have far less opinions, because I am me, and I am an incurable skeptic. Now I'm making a new try, by making small essays on religions, directed towards historical mysteries.

Respect towards faith

This site is by no means orthodox, and it is not an apology for anything, I have no respect at all for virulent attacks against "heresies", attacks that by their emotional affect exhibits a despiseable weakness of a mind that cannot control the feelings of the attackers. I respect all religionists if they can keep a calm and argumentative mind to some extent, and I also respect atheists the same way.

Disrespect towards dogmatism

I have little respect for the religions themselves though, I may philosophically be violent against theologies, I have little tolerance for literalism, bibliolatry (idolatry of books), and dogmatism. Religions can never be proven in terms of their own dogmata: such a "proof" is just a circular argumentation and therefore a fallacy. Fallacies are kind of "logical blasphemies", it is philosophically illegal to maintain fallacies.

The purpose of religions

Religions have a role to play in humankind. Their purpose is to make it easier for individuals to relate to the society, to the planet and to the universe. Religions codify some kind of ethics in myths, and these ethics has a purpose. Heretically I maintain that all religions are unethical insofar as they change the behaviors of individuals in a way that may disadvantage them as individuals from a naturalist standpoint. This kind of unethics can sometimes be a "good thing" for the society, if it improves the survival of the society.

Atheism

Atheism is a religion, since it exhibits all traits of religions. Science is not equal to atheism, even though most atheists maintain that science essentially "disproves" all religions (excluding atheism).

My private point of view

I myself must be considered some kind of philosophical Gnostic adherent of Jesus the major Christ, whether he existed or not. The Gnostic theology is to me more objectively correct than the non-Demiurgic Abrahamite religions. However: I will always be clear about what is my personal opinions versus what is observations, theories and reviews. I hate the kind of tendentious discourse which tries to sound objective but only transfers personal opinions masquerading as truth.

Scientific method

The "truths" of religions is a tricky matter. As mentioned above, no religion can be "proven" in terms of it's own dogmata. A religion can only be proven if it's adherents as a whole benefit from it. More about scientific methods here.