1. When you say you dislike religion or spirituality, do you dislike them all or do you dislike a few?
Just organized religion, most, if not all, of them. I say that because I don't really know all world religions, there is more than the Christiamism and Islamism. Spirituality is not a big issue.
2. Is your dislike correlated to experiences? You are allowed to share if you so are willing.
Yes, it is.
I came from a non-religious school to a religious school... And I got bullied in the religious school.
I did have my complains, I made directly complains, nobody cared.
Every week that school had a fight, most than half of them were girls fighting each other.
My own situation of being bullied was somewhat normal on that place.
They still all carried the morality and even somewhat made marketing with it.
I just realize that, in the end, they were just all seeking for heaven and 'salvation', while me and some other students were just suffering in front of them.
That experience made me go away from Christianity, slowly. The more I grew, more and more I became aware that people just want to go to heaven and that is it. They follow what they do not in their hearts, but to go to heaven, and some have quite of a pleasure into seeing others going to hell (or, rather, imagining it and pretending it is real).
3. Do you dislike true belief or do you merely dislike organized religion?
To be honest, as I said, true belief is a minority, I don't actually have spotted true belief much, even if people claim they do. I just know the organized religion. And, yes, I dislike it.
4. Do you distinguish religion and spirituality as two different things? i.e. can someone be religious but not very spiritual or spiritual but not very religious?
Hmmm... Sort of? Kind of yep.
Anyway, there is spiritualism as a religion. I read the brazillian intro to it (by force), I found the doctrine to be more reasonable than expected, even though not that much reasonable.
7. [just for the faithful] Observations?
Yup.
I think the major problem of religions is the, what I call in my own words, the "spread paradox".
If God is so-mighty powerful, then why e needs people to spread e own religion? I mean, why God would ever need the so-called 'mortals' to spread their 'word' when e is in a very good position to do it on h own, on a more efficient or even 'perfect' way? There are not ever truthfully reasons for that, just excuses. What is so called 'the truth' is a reality by definition. There is no spread of truth, because it is already spread by definition, just at best spread of information; Truth is a reality by definition; Truths that are not reality are just very good lies. And by reality, I mean in a concrete and abstract way.
There are more efficient ways to spread the truth than just putting it on a book that is going to miss points during a translation (like intuition - I even have my own hypothesis
here).
What I see out there - this is heavy but mostly accurate - is that religion is a great path to conquer others. What I mean is, those who dictates what is the truth and what is right and wrong got a lot of power, the same power that people gave up when they "tertiarized" to others to define what is right and wrong for them, without them having even a ever-truthful thinking or sentiments on their own about that. Then, suddenly, it is not what makes sense, nor what really feels right, that guides them; It is what the books and those who control the books interpretation says. Whatever values coming from, not mattering if they were present even in animals or in the stone age, are values from that religion; They belong to that religion, not 'humanity' or universality. It is the religion who brings them, they don't exist without that specific religion (even when they are historically earlier to that religion), when actually they do.
The ultimate goal of any religion is to spread as much as possible and conquer the whole world; Because most, if not every, one of them claims to have that right. And they will put people to fight for it. These are what 'religionary' wars are for - two religions clashing and deciding who is going to conquer who. They will bring promises (heaven), they will say that those who are not conquered by them (aka are not their followers) are not going to heaven even if they are good people; Heaven is for the faithful; Faith is actually what you gotta do to follow them when their words no longer have any real meaning to you, when they don't have a feeling, when they lack any sense, when they seem to be disconnected from the reality. When there is nothing left except the very idea that you must blindly follow it, rewards are promised yet not much of reward will ever be delivered on this 'plane' or before death. However, faith based on lies is dangerous; And those who control your faith controls you.
5. If you could ban religious belief, would you? Why or why not?
I would ban every religious belief that make claims that they must conquer the world (including indirectly); Every religion who send its non-followers to hell by its own doctrine; Every religion that justifies making the life of others a living hell until they finally spread everywhere.
6. Do you think a belief in a higher power is damaging? Why or why not?
No.
The idea of God belongs to humanity, even if lots of religions try to steal that concept for them. Yup, I really feel and think that lots of religions are 'stealing' God, at least as a concept, for them. God is with them, you can only talk to God if you are with them; They dictate what Gods say, God can only speak through them. And that is really dangerous, reasons were already explained.
Just a simple belief in God, in a more natural and authentic way, and I speak of no 'organized religion', is not dangerous at all. It is very respectable, even when logic challenges some aspects of it.
8. Do you think people can rationally discuss theological matters?
Yes and no.
When people have a book to defend, they will just defend the book. The same for institutions.
When they go beyond the book and beyond the the institution, them I think the matter can be 'rationally' discussed.
9. Do you see religious (for religious people, consider this for non-religious people) as inferior to you?
Yes and no.
I love to reciprocate the superiority feelings of others; But I can't mostly explicit do that, because those who do that have enough followers to attack me cowardly, but I do it at least mentally.
What I mean is... I see those religious people that see themselves as others inferior to them as inferior and scum.
I see those religious people who see others as equal as an equal.
10. Are you yourself religious/spiritual/non-religious/etc? (you're welcome to be as specific as you'd like.)
Not religious, I am agnostic (not atheist).
I am at least 'seduced' to the idea of an afterlife, I think an afterlife is more likely than a non-after life, however I have no specific set that tells me with precision what afterlife is.
I have hopes for afterlifes, lots of hopes. To be in a place with no evil, to be at peace. But these are more hopes, slightly expectations, than certainties.