Is all religion bad? Why not try and make your own?

[andyandy]

split from http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63282

Ok, is all religion bad? I don't think so.....

so I've tried to give an example of a religion which could be followed without a suspension of critical thinking, and with positive benefits both for individual and society......

Feel free to ammend this template or to create your own......:)

How about a religion who's stance was agnostic on the scientific third person perspective (God as unknown, unknowable, incoherent) and yet, at the same time deist on the subjective first person perspective (God existing in the mind of those who believe in him)? Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective would lead to greater inner contentment, but that this faith itself should not be acted upon externally.

Faith leading to greater inner contentment - it's all really an appropriation of Buddhist ideas but with the subjective first person experience redefined in terms of deity......
But if one accepts a position of epistemological internalism* then belief or faith in a subjective first person deity is justified because it is validated within one's conciousness...
and if this personal deity is regarded as a vessel for internal contemplation through meditation and as a vessel for the dissemination of positive ideas through reflection, then one could regard faith as having led to an increased capacity for inner contentment.

part of the religion could also involve the ingestion of psilocybin - to enhance an individual's spiritual experience (similar to the rastafarian use of marahuana).

throw in some useful teachings - life is suffering/do unto others....etc
add a bit of charity work/work with needy/sick/infirm but without any pretext to "convert".....

would such a religion be so bad? No suspension of critical thinking required.....no predujice against others and no exclusivity (co-existance with other religions possible)

The individual benefits, society benefits, everyone's a winner :)

*"contemporary epistemology internalism about justification is the idea that everything necessary to provide justification for a belief is immediately available in consciousness."

[andyandy]

Data on psilocybin

Using unusually rigorous scientific conditions and measures, Johns Hopkins researchers have shown that the active agent in “sacred mushrooms” can induce mystical/spiritual experiences descriptively identical to spontaneous ones people have reported for centuries.

The resulting experiences apparently prompt positive changes in behavior and attitude that last several months, at least.

In the study, more than 60 percent of subjects described the effects of psilocybin in ways that met criteria for a “full mystical experience” as measured by established psychological scales. One third said the experience was the single most spiritually significant of their lifetimes; and more than two-thirds rated it among their five most meaningful and spiritually significant. Griffiths says subjects liken it to the importance of the birth of their first child or the death of a parent.

Two months later, 79 percent of subjects reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or life satisfaction compared with those given a placebo at the same test session. A majority said their mood, attitudes and behaviors had changed for the better. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxDZW6n69-0&
The Marsh Chapel Experiment results seem similar to those at Hopkins Medicine - if a little less controlled......

One might be tempted to speculate that some of the mystic visions told in the OT were brought about by hallucinogens....
Ezekiel's for example.....

[andyandy]

and evidence that hallucinogens have played a part in some forms of religious experience in the past.....

The Indo-Iranians were an ancient people who had their homeland somewhere in Central Asia. About 4,000 years ago they split into two distinct groups. One group, the Indo-Aryans, moved south to the Indus Valley; the other became the ancient Iranian peoples. Both preserved a vast body of religious oral literature which was only later written down. These scriptures are the Rig Veda and the Avesta, of the Indians and Iranians respectively. Both works describe rituals in which a plant with hallucinogenic properties was consumed.

Snip

In one of these private rooms were found three ceramic bowls. Analysis of samples found in these vessels by Professor Mayer-Melikyan revealed the traces of both cannabis and Ephedra. Clearly both these psychoactive substances had been used in conjunction in the making of hallucinogenic drinks. In the adjoining room of the same inner sanctum were found ten ceramic pot-stands which appear to have been used in conjunction with strainers designed to separate the juices from the twigs, stems and leaves of the plants. In another room at the other end of the shrine a basin containing remains of a considerable quantity of cannabis was discovered, as well as a number of pottery stands and strainers that have also been associated with making psychoactive beverages.

The excavators believe that, given the considerable size of the fortress, the shrine may well have been dispensing the entheogenic drink to worshippers from all over Margiana in the first half of the second millennium BC. The shrine at the later site of Togoluk 1 (probably dating from the mid-second millennium) seems also to have been used to make hallucinogenic drinks as a similar pottery strainer has been found there, although traces of psychoactive plants have not been detected. The shrine at a third settlement, Togoluk 21, dated to the late second millennium, contained vessels which revealed remains of Ephedra again, but this time in conjunction with the pollen of poppies. http://www.huxley.net/soma/index.html

[Timble]

Is all religion bad? Why not try and make your own?


L Ron Hubbard did make his own, and look where that all ended up.

I'm not sure it's actually possible to construct a religion it's as much inspiration and imagination as logically putting it together.

If you do build your religion, how do you proof it against your followers. After you've gone all you need is one literal-minded, authoritarian zealot (St Paul I'm pointing at you) to get hold of it and it'd turn nasty fairly quickly.

What I'm saying is that it's not religion as such that's bad, it's the way people use it.

[Apathia]

I could make my own religion. I have enough charisma and cleverness to do so.
But I also have a conscience.

The mushrooms? No thank you. I haven't observed the people who use mind altering substances exhibiting any more empathy and compassion, that are in my book, what genuine spirituality is about.

Those things just mess with your head.

[andyandy]

I could make my own religion. I have enough charisma and cleverness to do so.
But I also have a conscience.

The mushrooms? No thank you. I haven't observed the people who use mind altering substances exhibiting any more empathy and compassion, that are in my book, what genuine spirituality is about.

Those things just mess with your head.

hey, the mushrooms were just an optional extra :)

With your "conscience" are you suggesting that all forms of religion are inherently wrong? How about that suggested in the OP? - minus the psilocybin if you wish.....

[andyandy]

L Ron Hubbard did make his own, and look where that all ended up.

I'm not sure it's actually possible to construct a religion it's as much inspiration and imagination as logically putting it together.

If you do build your religion, how do you proof it against your followers. After you've gone all you need is one literal-minded, authoritarian zealot (St Paul I'm pointing at you) to get hold of it and it'd turn nasty fairly quickly.

What I'm saying is that it's not religion as such that's bad, it's the way people use it.

i agree to an extent - but by your logic, every system which seeks to have an influence upon an individual/society should be avoided simply because it is corruptable due to the very nature of humanity. Under such arguments, the education system, the capitalist system, even democratic system should all be avoided....

[Apathia]

With your "conscience" are you suggesting that all forms of religion are inherently wrong?

Nope. Just anything I might cobble together to get money flowing in my direction.

Also I have a difficulty with being an object of anyone's religious agenda. I don't want to be "saved," "enlightened," "transformed," whatever. I want to be able to sincerely be myself as opposed to trying to be what I'm supposed to be.
So I'm not keen on "saving" others.

[Timble]

i agree to an extent - but by your logic, every system which seeks to have an influence upon an individual/society should be avoided simply because it is corruptable due to the very nature of humanity. Under such arguments, the education system, the capitalist system, even democratic system should all be avoided....

But we need some sort of education system, economic system and government, so we have to make the best of them...well hard-line anarchists might not agree, but you can't please everyone

Does the world need another religion, we've plenty of current ones and probably even more dead ones..?

[Ausmerican]

Feel free to ammend this template or to create your own......:)

Ok, how about the Church of Batman. Simple tenants.
1: Continually work to improve yourself both physically and mentally.
2: Do the right thing for yourelf and others.
Cave and gadgets sold seperately.

[Dancing David]

I would say that most neo-pagan are do it yourself religion.

[Freethinker]

The concept comes pretty close in some ways to Taoism and Buddhism. The inner contentment thing is, IMO, both the best and worst part of religion. It is good because it allows the faithful to endure a stressful human existence without constant worry, but it can also become a crutch and an excuse for failure and inaction. In this way, religion is much like a drug.
Most definitions of religion are so vague and vary so much from one to another that it is hard to even determine what is and isn't a religion. According to many definitions, a bowling team who believes that eating pizza with anchovies at a particular restaurant before a match gives them good luck constitutes a religion.
The big thing is the difference between religion and organized religion. Although they may have a negative effect on an individual, personal superstitions and beliefs have little adverse effect on society. Organized religion is another story. Any organized religion will have differences of faith among its members. In your example, some members will be relatively agnostic, tending toward atheism, while others will be less agnostic, tending toward belief in a god. As is human nature, people will become polarized and you will soon have two "flavors" of your religion. "Reformed Andyandyism" and "Orthodox Andyandyism". 2000 years from now, the Orthodox Andyandyists will fly hijacked intergalactic starcruisers into the Reformed Andyandyist's tallest building on the moon.:(

[Wheezebucket]

Plus Batman doesn't believe in murder or the use of guns for any reason, ever, so there's a leg up on most other religions!

I'm ok with buying my own gadgets, but I do think the church should offer up complimentary capes and cowls. We should also meet in caves.

I'm in!

[RenaissanceBiker]

Creating a new religion, even with nobel intentions, is ultimately a very irresponsible thing to do. I understand you may find some inner peace and out of the goodness of your heart want to share it with others. Once it gets to be an institution, you risk losing control of it to others with less nobel intentions like personal enrichment, power over others, etc.

Extend the same idea to a militia. Would you start and arm a local militia for some nobel purpose?

[Dave1001]

I don't get why you're keeping the word "alone" in this part of your template, also I don't get why you're implying that faith would definitely lead to greater inner contentment.

"Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective would lead to greater inner contentment,"

[andyandy]

Creating a new religion, even with nobel intentions, is ultimately a very irresponsible thing to do. I understand you may find some inner peace and out of the goodness of your heart want to share it with others. Once it gets to be an institution, you risk losing control of it to others with less nobel intentions like personal enrichment, power over others, etc.

Extend the same idea to a militia. Would you start and arm a local militia for some nobel purpose?

i agree, that as others have pointed out, humans tend to abuse systems which have an ability to influence others....
It's interesting to note that largely speaking this has not happened in Buddhism - from which the OP example was appropriated, by redefining the subjective first person experience in terms of deity. This made me wonder as to whether the default position that all religions are bad is valid.....a religion with no centralised dogma, no mission to convert, existing purely as a subjective individual experience seems to sidestep some of the problems that have developed in the monothestic religions.
It would be an interesting anthropological experiment to start such a religion and to come back in 1000 years to see what had happened - and see if schisms and intergalatic star-cruisers crashes had indeed occurred as a result :)

[Freethinker]

.....a religion with no centralised dogma, no mission to convert, existing purely as a subjective individual experience seems

I don't want to derail this into the mess of defining what a religion is, but it seems to me that at least the subject needs to be included here. Normally, things as different as say Taoism and Islam wouldn't be classified as the same thing. Since the very definition of religion is so wide and vague, it's difficult to support or refute any general statement about it. When you add the word "organized" in front of religion, the meaning is expanded again, and often common usage assumes the addition of "organized".

[andyandy]

I don't want to derail this into the mess of defining what a religion is, but it seems to me that at least the subject needs to be included here. Normally, things as different as say Taoism and Islam wouldn't be classified as the same thing. Since the very definition of religion is so wide and vague, it's difficult to support or refute any general statement about it. When you add the word "organized" in front of religion, the meaning is expanded again, and often common usage assumes the addition of "organized".

Fair enough, it would depend on whether you regarded the example in the OP as qualifying as a religion....belief in god is not usually split between first person and third person and so it wouldn't perhaps qualify in the conventional sense. Equally, I suppose Buddhism was a poor example to give in the previous post because a lot of people wouldn't regard it as a religion.....

[Meffy]

*ahem* I'm already the humble First Prophet of Bentoism. I've made other religions, such as the Church of Christ, Optician; Vigodanism; the Witnesses to the Second Fall; and Post-Spinozan Saucepantheism.

[Freethinker]

Plus Batman doesn't believe in murder or the use of guns for any reason, ever, so there's a leg up on most other religions!

I'm ok with buying my own gadgets, but I do think the church should offer up complimentary capes and cowls. We should also meet in caves.

I'm in!

You've obviously never seen the 1940's serial "The Batman". Funny in so many ways, all of them unintentional. Batman used a revolver. To get a feel for it, here's a loose quote from the narration of an episode: "Little Tokyo. Once a bustling area, but since a wise government rounded up the slanty-eyed Japs...."

[Dave1001]

I don't get why you're keeping the word "alone" in this part of your template, also I don't get why you're implying that faith would definitely lead to greater inner contentment.

"Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective would lead to greater inner contentment,"

Yo AndyAndy. Over here, please.:)

[andyandy]

Yo AndyAndy. Over here, please.:)

did i not answer that in the OP?

if one accepts a position of epistemological internalism* then belief or faith in a subjective first person deity is justified because it is validated within one's conciousness...
and if this personal deity is regarded as a vessel for internal contemplation through meditation and as a vessel for the dissemination of positive ideas through reflection, then one could regard faith as having led to an increased capacity for inner contentment.

[CapelDodger]

i agree, that as others have pointed out, humans tend to abuse systems which have an ability to influence others....
Isn't that what we're planning here?

[Dave1001]

I don't get why you're keeping the word "alone" in this part of your template, also I don't get why you're implying that faith would definitely lead to greater inner contentment.

"Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective would lead to greater inner contentment,"

did i not answer that in the OP?

if one accepts a position of epistemological internalism* then belief or faith in a subjective first person deity is justified because it is validated within one's conciousness...
and if this personal deity is regarded as a vessel for internal contemplation through meditation and as a vessel for the dissemination of positive ideas through reflection, then one could regard faith as having led to an increased capacity for inner contentment.

Can someone else please explain to AndyAndy why his OP doesn't answer my concerns? I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[andyandy]

Isn't that what we're planning here?

As i've posted before, humans have a tendency to exploit any system which can influence individuals/society - but to use that as a sole justification to not have any such systems would mean abandoning the education system, the capitalist system and the democratic system amongst others.....

so the questions is....
is it possible to create a religion which can't be exploited to the same extent that we see the monothestic religions exploited?

what checks and balances would need to be in place?

[andyandy]

Can someone else please explain to AndyAndy why his OP doesn't answer my concerns? I don't know how to make it any clearer.

dave, you're entire attempt to "explain" has been posting the same sentence twice.....why should you rely on someone else to make your point "any clearer" if you can't yourself?

I don't get why you're keeping the word "alone" in this part of your template, also I don't get why you're implying that faith would definitely lead to greater inner contentment.

i've answered it twice

if one accepts a position of epistemological internalism then belief or faith in a subjective first person deity is justified because it is validated within one's conciousness...
and if this personal deity is regarded as a vessel for internal contemplation through meditation and as a vessel for the dissemination of positive ideas through reflection, then one could regard faith as having led to an increased capacity for inner contentment.

what part don't you understand?

[Dave1001]

dave, you're entire attempt to "explain" has been posting the same sentence twice.....why should you rely on someone else to make your point "any clearer" if you can't yourself?



i've answered it twice



what part don't you understand?

I understand your response. It just doesn't answer my concern. I may attempt a fresh explanation of it when I have the energy/inclination.

I'm not sure why there's such a communication difficulty, you're a bright guy, and though I'm not a perfect communicator, I think I presented my concern in a fairly clear and straightorward manner.

Assistance from 3rd parties is appreciated.:D

[Complexity]

Why not, AndyAndy? Because I strive to be an honorable man. I shouldn't have to explain to you why creating a religion is inconsistent with honor.

[andyandy]

I understand your response. It just doesn't answer my concern. I may attempt a fresh explanation of it when I have the energy/inclination.

I'm not sure why there's such a communication difficulty, you're a bright guy, and though I'm not a perfect communicator, I think I presented my concern in a fairly clear and straightorward manner.

Assistance from 3rd parties is appreciated.:D

Why all this appealing to third parties nonsense? if you have something to say they please say it.

"Alone" was merely used in the context of illustrating that the OP example was independent of the actual existance of "god" in the third person, and also to show that within the first person, if the position taken is that that which we believe in exists within the constructs of our own realities, then all that existance requires is faith. I would have thought this was all fairly self evident - and i'm not sure why you keep asking about this.

secondly, I can only assume that you take issue with the absolution of "would" in the sentence from OP

Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective would lead to greater inner contentment, but that this faith itself should not be acted upon externally.

This is obviously a quantative statement - which requires expanding upon, which i do in the following paragraph in an attempt to clarify this meaning.

I arrive at a more general definition at the end of this paragraph - "faith as having led to an increased capacity for inner contentment" "would lead to" from the former sentence therefore is best understood as "create an increased capacity for" as it is of course impossible to speak in absolute general terms about concepts such as "greater contentment." Again i would have hoped that this was self-evident - and the meaning clarified by the following paragraph.

But to be honest, i don't even know your position, because you seem unable to expand upon it. If you have a point to make, then you should be able to make it yourself.

[andyandy]

Why not, AndyAndy? Because I strive to be an honorable man. I shouldn't have to explain to you why creating a religion is inconsistent with honor.



You take a position that all religion in all its forms is detrimental on both an individual and societal level?

How about the example given in the OP?

[BPScooter]

Anybody remember the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh? Rajneespuram, in Oregon? His vow of silence? From what I remember, the faithful did just about *everything* for this man, he drove Rolls Royces, etc., they tried to buy out a backwoods town and make it into a wonderful spiritual center. It went downhill, and there was one particular lady who was blamed for taking over the Baghwan's mind, giving him drugs, cutting him off. Sort of John and Yoko-ish, maybe, but people got pissed off and it all went nowhere.

On the other hand, lots of utopian farming-type communities didn't go so well. Altogether I agree with those that refrain from founding religions. I would be more likely to try to influence a "community of belief" or a "shared consciousness" but a brand new religion is pretty heavy workload for the new prophet, I'm not sure I have what it takes.

[Dave1001]

I think the easiest way is for me to rewrite it myself. Then perhaps my concern will be obvious.

Your version:


Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective would lead to greater inner contentment, but that this faith itself should not be acted upon externally.

My version:

Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective may be one path to greater inner contentment, but that this faith itself should not be acted upon externally.

Sorry I didn't think to do it this way earlier. But other than that sentence, which I modified to my liking, I think you came up with something awesome here. Straussian transparency.

[andyandy]

I think the easiest way is for me to rewrite it myself. Then perhaps my concern will be obvious.

Your version:



My version:

Such a religion would teach that faith alone in such a god on the first person perspective may be one path to greater inner contentment, but that this faith itself should not be acted upon externally.

.

ok...well hopefully my last post should show that i agree with your version - i don't think "would lead to" was a good choice as it sounds a little absolute, even if it was meant in less definite terms....:)

[Complexity]

You take a position that all religion in all its forms is detrimental on both an individual and societal level?

How about the example given in the OP?
I didn't / won't read the details of your example in the OP.

I'm offended by the whole idea of creating a religion.

[andyandy]

I didn't / won't read the details of your example in the OP.

I'm offended by the whole idea of creating a religion.

lol

well......thanks for your contribution :D

[BPScooter]

Hey, Complexity, don't be too quick on the draw!

As far as I recall, the Original Post was talking about the attributes of a religion, qua religion, that wouldn't hurt too bad.

The original ideas were pretty good.

[Complexity]

If you create a religion, you are either promulgating something that you believe in, thereby inviting others to join you in superstitious delusion, or you are promulgating something that you don't believe in, thereby perpetrating a fraud.

Neither is honorable, regardless of the nature of the religion.

If you want to put forth a philosophy, do so.

Engaging in religion mongering is always wrong.

[andyandy]

If you create a religion, you are either promulgating something that you believe in, thereby inviting others to join you in superstitious delusion, or you are promulgating something that you don't believe in, thereby perpetrating a fraud.

Neither is honorable, regardless of the nature of the religion.

If you want to put forth a philosophy, do so.

Engaging in religion mongering is always wrong.

would you regard the OP example as "superstition" or philosophy?

[Complexity]

would you regard the OP example as "superstition" or philosophy?

You used the word 'religion' in the title of this thread.

I saw no point in wasting time on the OP.

I'm responding to the thread title.

[Dave1001]

You used the word 'religion' in the title of this thread.

I saw no point in wasting time on the OP.

I'm responding to the thread title.

It's amazing to me that this dialectic (religion vs. anti-religion) didn't always exist, since it's apparent that being anti-religion doesn't require a person to reach a critical thought capacity threshhold first. One would have thought like flipping a coin, a good number of people would have ended up reflexively, uncritically, anti-"religion", not just pro-religion, within every historical period of Western civilization.

[I less than three logic]

“Religion and philosophy, philosophy and religion - they're two words which are both... different. In spelling.” – Eddie Izzard :)

[andyandy]

You used the word 'religion' in the title of this thread.

I saw no point in wasting time on the OP.

I'm responding to the thread title.

so you only read the thread titles before posting?! Wow. :rolleyes:

[latent aaaack]

As an athiest I think self-made religions are a fantastic idea and that the God-feeling part of the brain should be fully available for recreational and motivational use. They should be as much individualized as are people themselves but that would ideally be their scope as well. Of course in an ideal world everyone would have enough time to think up their own religion too.

[Complexity]

so you only read the thread titles before posting?! Wow. :rolleyes:

I generally do not read any thread that you start. I found the title of the thread provocative and responded to it. I've no interest in your opinions.

[CapelDodger]

As i've posted before, humans have a tendency to exploit any system which can influence individuals/society - but to use that as a sole justification to not have any such systems would mean abandoning the education system, the capitalist system and the democratic system amongst others.....
If you define a system you presumably design it to achieve some (no doubt good) intentions. So you exploit the system by the very act of creating it - if it achieves your intentions.

so the questions is....
is it possible to create a religion which can't be exploited to the same extent that we see the monothestic religions exploited?
My question is : where's the fun or profit in that? :confused:

[andyandy]

I generally do not read any thread that you start. I found the title of the thread provocative and responded to it. I've no interest in your opinions.

well, you've done nothing to make me interested in your's.....

You seem to be as closed minded and dogmatic as the some of the monothestics you seem to want to rail against.....:rolleyes:

[andyandy]

If you define a system you presumably design it to achieve some (no doubt good) intentions. So you exploit the system by the very act of creating it - if it achieves your intentions.

well, in absolute terms, yes - but we'd have a rather anarchic society without any systems....we put up with, say the education system without too many qualms......


My question is : where's the fun or profit in that? :confused:

Just because L Ron Hubbard likes to make money from religion, it doesn't make it a pre-requisite .....:)

[bluess]

Andyandy - do you mean a religion which would then be promulgated, or just your own personal belief system?

[andyandy]

Andyandy - do you mean a religion which would then be promulgated, or just your own personal belief system?

i was wondering if a personal belief system could be promulgated - i don't see why not if you take the philosophical base of Buddhism as a model. Of course each individual's experience would be distinct - but inspired from the framework provided......

[Apathia]

As many of you know, there was a certain Englishman who set out to create a mythology for England. A foolish idea, one man creating a culture's myths. And yet his work has achieved a greater popularity than he expected.

One could do a small relgious spin off:

The Devotees of Tom Bombadil

Their prayer:

"Ho Tom Bombadil,
Tom Bombadillo!
By water, wood, and hill,
By reed and willow,
By fire, sun and moon
Harken now and hear us!
Come Tom Bombadil,
For our need is near us!"

(From Fellowship of the Ring)

If only Peter Jackson hadn't edited Him out!
Think of the profit to be made in Tom Bombadil action figures alone!

[snooziums]

Well, you can become an ordained "minister" of the Universal Life Church, and perform weddings and other religious ceremonies. And since they are not a "set" religion, you can do almost anything you want.

I am still waiting for the "Ford" religion. The opening prayer would be about the divinity in Ford Trucks, and prayers would include asking for good milage, not to get lost, and that one's Ford Truck does not "fall into the pits of breaking-down hell."

[CapelDodger]

well, in absolute terms, yes - but we'd have a rather anarchic society without any systems....we put up with, say the education system without too many qualms......
There are systems that are rationally designed, however imperfectly. Society will register the need for a system and come up with one.

If I read it right, your proposed religion is rationally designed to exploit human irrationality so as to make people play nice. Which, rationally, would be best all round. That would be a counsel of despair, recognition that people en masse cannot be reasoned into playing nice. Which is pretty much my opinion.

Just because L Ron Hubbard likes to make money from religion, it doesn't make it a pre-requisite .....:)
All the same, if you can do good and make some scratch at the same time ..? :)

[Dark Jaguar]

I worship the all seeing god of an alternate reality. That guy'll teach those false gods in our reality a thing or to once the Great Curtain is rended aside.

[BPScooter]

Ha ha, I'm sure you are remembering the Ford references in Huxley's Brave New World. "Year of our Ford," other phrases still come to mind for me. I drove a great old '81 Granada for a heck of a long time and must admit that that thing inspired many quasi-religious moments for me.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Regarding the OP, the road to Kwarfdengl is paved with good intentions.

You'll have to give me some time to make up a terrible place called Kwarfdengl to be filled with the shoes and unfortunate spirits of those who disagree with me. Trust me though, my intentions are good.

[Cheesejoff]

Cross religion with homeopathy: The less you pray, the more effective your prayer is!

[Freethinker]

Cross religion with homeopathy: The less you pray, the more effective your prayer is!

So that's why I get everything I want!:D

[Cheesejoff]

So that's why I get everything I want!:D

:p In fact, not only that, the less you believe the stronger you belief is. So saying you don't believe in God shows the utmost faith.

[Dave1001]

So saying you don't believe in God shows the utmost faith.

No. That's like a no dose being stronger the smallest possible dose.

[Cheesejoff]

No. That's like a no dose being stronger the smallest possible dose.

However, with homeopathy, this is indeed the case.