This thread really has taken off in no time! Given that this forum is about poultry rearing, there must be a real need for non-religious people to exchange views and experiences.
Some posters used the term 'respect for others' and that for me sums up just about every creed worth noting. Sadly, it doesn't describe the reality of the way that some creeds are put into practice.
In addition to codes of behaviour, religions usually attempt to explain how the world was created. Science tells us a great deal about the development of life on earth and more is discovered all the time. However, there is still no evidence to show us how mineral particle flying through space first gained that spark of energy called 'life'. Therefore, any explanation can be no more than a belief. The same goes for eternal life.
As a child I was encouraged to follow the teachings of the Church Of England. I did so with enthusiasm and also joined a Christian group at school. Soon, though, I started to question a few things. Why did the vicar and others keep telling me so forcefully what I should believe and do? Why did no-one show an interest in my doubts, ideas and questions, expecting me to simply accept what I was told? The C of E had a strange beginning, of course, having been created by a king so that he could divorce his wife against the wishes of the Pope. That rather devalues its credibility for me.
I stopped going to church and began to consider other forms of organised religion. I had some interesting discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. They were even more forceful and limited in their freedom to think for themselves that Anglicans. I wasn't at all comfortable with what I saw and heard.
History shows us how religious organisations have been used to control, abuse, support wicked political regimes and generally keep the poor where they were. The British Empire grew through they combined efforts of the army, missionaries and trading companies. I couldn't reconcile the contrast between the preaching and the actuality of the churches. In more primitive times, the power of religion may have been a good and effective way to teach morals to the masses and enforce laws but is it necessary nowadays?
I was confused and walked away from religion all together. But I still felt that I had a strong moral code within me and I hurt when I broke it. Was this something created within me or part of the old church conditioning? I became interested in spiritualism and attended several spiritualist churches. People were very open and welcoming. The code of that movement was more often practiced daily by its members than I had encountered elsewhere and they didn't force it down the throats of others. I became aware of infighting behind the scenes, attempts to control the individual churches centrally and some rather suspect mediums who, I thought, were using the fears of some individuals to enhance their own powers. In other words, the spiritualist churches suffered the same weaknesses as other religious organisations. That's not to say that the failings of organisations cancel the value of their basic beliefs.
My views and beliefs change and develop as the years go by. I think that's healthy. Keeping to a rigid code means that we can't learn from our own experiences, develop our ideas or benefit from the different views of other people. That, I believe, is the reason why there is so much conflict between the various faiths, despite them having much in common. I shuddered a few years ago when two political leaders claimed that, as Christians, they were justified in attacking two Muslim countries. Boy, was there not already enough hatred without deliberately making it worse?
Some years ago I took a look at Buddhism, trying to do so quietly because it had become something of a fashion with New Age people and I was not wanting any kind of label on my back. Buddhism is, of course, a philosophy for life that doesn't claim the backing of a deity to give it credibility. I spent three days listening to the Dalai Lama. One of the things he said that struck me was the statement that embracing Buddhism didn't mean giving up one's religion because there would be no conflict. That, of course, depends on the teachings of one's religion! Once I came to live where I am now I had an opportunity to observe how Theravada Buddhism is practiced. It's mixed here with the Hinduism that preceded it and the animism that preceded that. No problem, according to the Dalai Lama. However, I see monks in some temples seeking ways to make money from people that are often very poor. Fortune telling and blessings are common and the sale of illegal substances and material are not unknown. However, many temples are fine and monks are willing to issue many blessings in the form of chants in return for a vegetarian breakfast.
All of that leaves me with the view that we should each pursue our own path of learning, accepting all the time that others are on a different path that is just as worthy as our own. If you believe in the spirit and its eternal development then you may also accept that some souls are less or more advanced than your own. We cannot know what follows death and so should not live a life based on assumptions about it. There is enough to deal with in this life and that is what we are probably supposed to focus on. Something that I am increasingly aware of is kharma. What we give out is reflected in what comes back. Help other without expecting a return but notice how something comes back to you from elsewhere - in this life, not a promised eternal life. Notice the bad things that often befall those who harm others - and wonder why. Always continue to wonder and to ask yourself and you will find that the world is even more amazing than any church will tell you.
