Agree. Will always happen as long as religions exist. Maybe we should just fight against that without using religion ourselves
Not so sure about that one, thoughā¦ maybe just keep all this āfaith-stuffā a private thing, and not an institutionā¦
It is death denial par excellence, I thinkā¦ but again, I think thereās more to it than just ācopying the brainā. I might be pretty alone with that thinking here, but I donāt think consciousness can be reduced to one single part of the body.
And to Altered Carbon - I loved S1. Totally. One of the best shows for a long time. Then, they changed the main actor (for logical reasons, so, technically Iām fine with it), and the show went down. Not saying itās just because of him, the story was suddenly getting worse as wellā¦
One of the few shows that managed to make me happy for more than 1 or 2 seasons is actually The Expanse, currentlyā¦
Imagine you see a boy punching a weaker kid just for funā¦
If you go there and punch him back, āto teach him not to punch othersā, all you can expect to achieve is that the kid will explode twice as hard once you are no longer there.
āFighting fire with fireā is seldom a good approach.
Sounds like a very good option.
I personally see my own take on faith and religion as a very modern and efficient. but as soon as I attempt to externalise it and indoctrinate others, then it wonāt be so āmodernā anymore.
As usualā¦ not alone at all.
Indeed!!
Although I do have mixed feelings about the last season!!
Feels like when you are playing a game. you finish a big bossā¦ and the story tells you āhurry! you need to go to this other map now to do something super amazing!āā¦
Then you remember that you had a lot of side quests still openā¦ so you pause the story to go finish all the side quests here before moving on to the new mapā¦
And the fourth Season was great, but would have been soooooo much better in a movie format! (I meanā¦ they barely had enough going on to fill 2 hours. all the rest were fillersā¦)
The statement is missing logical coherence.
My knowledge I use to āfightā has nothing to do where it comes from.
You need to understand fundamentalists more! And that is true to religion.
Half-knowing things and people causes fundamentalism to thrive! Study more!
I 100% stand for what I mentioned. Keeping our belief system to ourselves (it aināt gonna happen anyways, but wtever,) or letās say to our close environment, like family will lead to tribalism. And we donāt want that if we want to keep advancing in technology.
Because burning yourself / others doesnāt make fire guilty,
you just a silly pickle to handle it.
HOW to make religion like a library, an institution where you are free to explore and study?
It seems it can. At least technically speaking.
Especially if you accept the eyes to be the part of the brain. Then the brain within itself can be self aware. Also, please detail this thought: are you referring to gut bacteria ?
But you know what, I think it would make the topic more effective if we could agree on a definition of religion.
So I challenge all of you to define RELIGION in one coherent post.
The goal of the exercise is to understand what religion is, not to emphasise your opinion about it, so do not use the term: "I think".
Cite your sources. Avoid secondary sources, do your research. Keep it short: 100-200 words. Take your time. No deadline, you are free to join.
Go!
Not at all - this thread is about creating a āchurchā to avoid suppression by religious people. That was the point I was referencing.
Seriously? I do not think you can properly assess my knowledge about religious topics - if you think you do, I maybe got misunderstood, dunno, or we simply do not agree. This doesnāt necessarily mean that I have to āstudy moreā. And honestly, I donāt like your tone there.
Why though? Why is it necessary to share your beliefs with anyone but yourself? If you decide to believe in god, okay - but why do you have to tell someone else about that? Why do you need other people to agree to your religious beliefs?
I do not think this will lead to tribalism, because there are other, equally (or even better) connecting topics - religion is no longer necessary for ābinding people togetherā. It can do, obviously, but there are lots of other and better things to achieve that.
I think Eyeux already pointed that out - science is about learning and recognizing when youāre wrong and adapting your opinion according to that, while religion is about keeping up a predefined status quo, because of tradition and because of āthat is how it is written in the bibleā or wherever.
So, a religion that encourages free learning, with the room for mistakes, is a) superfluous, because we have science and b) a contradiction in itself.
Among other things, yes.
Why should I? There are lots of definitions available online, pick one you like.
But our opinion on religion is the main reason for this and all other discussionsā¦ so this might be the more important point.
Unlike you, sorry if I sound harsh here, I am not convinced that my opinion is the ultimate right one. I post here exactly that - what āI thinkā. Nothing more, nothing less, and itās open for discussion.
Yes.
There is a quote supposedly said by Lenin: āStudy, study and study.ā
There is a proverb saying that the good priest studies till death.
(That is generally translated to āWe live and learnā)
This shows that just like science; religion and religious leaders have to adopt to the world ever evolving. There is always a new question and in order to be able mentoring (morally) a community a pastor should keep his knowledge expanding.
From a christian perspective (as the proverb is mainly used by them):
Once all the possible knowledge is gained with having a physical body the soul is ready to merge into the infinite wisdom of God. (omniscience)
You might be right interpreting it as an approximation of God.
The necessity of constantly bettering the self is not exactly a modern invention.
Even the Epic of Gilgamesh is based on character development via an epical journey where the hero gains new knowledge by being constantly challenged.
In judaism ālearningā starts from a very young age. It is embedded in the culture so deeply that oneās knowledge is the direct indicator of the position they occupy in their religious hierarchy. In fact wealth is just a secondary consequence of knowledge.
Therefore it is fair to say: Knowledge is power.
In judaism formulating a question is a very serious thing:
The questions one asks shows the current limits of oneās knowledge.
The function of enquiring is to pass the gap between the known and yet unknown.
You show what you donāt know by phrasing your questions.
You are not hars, just incorrect.
I barely (! if) ever have my own opinion. Also I am comfortable to acknowledge not knowing enough. Read back my comments. I did that a few times.
I would argue that religion has a property that science lacks: It is capable and fully entitled to show the āidealā. Science can pave the path of learning but you need faith to mark the destination. You need to believe there is a better place to get you moving.
Iād also argue that a person needs an etalon, a pĢ¶eĢ¶rĢ¶fĢ¶eĢ¶cĢ¶tĢ¶ sample to compare to.
I acknowledge that forcing towards perfection causes anxiety and achieves the opposite of the desired effect.
The characters in ancient Greek and Roman mythology let people to associate their selves with a more human-like figure. The Marvel universe created similar heroes. Real (I mean surely exaturated, but quasi-real) personalities spiced up with super skills.
Transhumanism plays on a very-very similar accord.
...I don't reflect on the other points as emotions are not to be argued.
Okayā¦ think Iām too tired to really answer this stuff, but Iāll just pick some points hereā¦
Itās one thing to say that a human being has to keep on learning and studying for a lifetime, thatās such a general saying that everyone on earth will agree toā¦
Itās a different thing to claim that one of my statements ālacks logical coherenceā (though you still didnāt tell me why, and didnāt reference a bit to what I wrote) and tell me āstudy more!ā. Iām sure youāll see the difference.
Donāt care if itās your personal opinion or not, but you are making absolute statements quite often - in the above example, things like ākeeping our belief system to ourselves [ā¦] will lead to tribalismā. Not the least bit of explanation why this inevitably has to happen. Just your opinion (or whatever you call that), in an absolute statement. Thatās why I pretty often start my statements with things like āI thinkā¦ā or āmaybeā¦ā - simply because itās hypothetical and not possible to absolutely know something like that.
If thatās what religion is for, it has failed quite a lot, donāt you think? War in the name of god, original sin, child abuse, and the list goes on and on. And even in (more) peaceful religions, there are often dogmas that go against the very nature of the human being. I think the āidealā you speak of should be provided by philosophy, not religion. Itās equally able to provide such an ideal, but usually far less fanatic.
Funny enough, you mainly reflected on the two point where I was emotional - like, a bit pissed.
You did not reflect on why my original statement was āmissing logical coherenceā.
You did not reflect on why you think āprivacy of religionā will inevitably lead to tribalism.
You did not reflect on why maybe the personal opinion about religion is more important than one of the tons of available definitions.
Okay, source for that statement was McLuhan , Marshall . Understanding Media : The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Print.
How does fighting fundamentalists without religion more effective then knowing their point and their faithā¦ but letās examine your other interpretation:
Great. I would argue, based on reading Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, that you donāt understand your enemy (what you fight against enough) if you never (even briefly) just come to the conclusion that they might be right.
So if you have never thought about the MOB you havenāt thought about it enough.
So we fight religion with another church??
Unfold please
Read the bible, went to a catholic school - believe me, I know especially christianity well enough to say I āknowā my āenemyā. And I learned a lot about other religions as well, be it through personal study or because I met people who were members of those religions.
Yeah, that was the whole point of this thread? Creating the āchurch of transhumanismā, to gain equal rights like other ābiggerā religions. I boiled it down to that statementā¦
But still - itās an opinion, isnāt it? Nobody ever really tried out the concept of just keep faith and religion in private, because nobody really does it - so you canāt make more than an educated guess on what might happen if we finally get to that point. And it might have been true in the past, when religion was much more important for shaping an identity, but maybe this no longer applies to human beings in more āmodernā countries, where religion is becoming ever less important. I think it is no longer needed to unite people, so the loss of it will no longer lead to tribalisation or similar effects. That is my opinion, nothing more, just an educated guess from my point of view.
Yeah, but there are great alternatives to religion, and not so many working ones to democracy.
Sure it is one opinion. If we donāt believe in objective truth (thatās fair enough) perhaps this is the closest we can get to it. Maybe being translated to a few languages, still being often cited and thought about 60+ years is an opinion that matters at least.
I think itās quite the opposite.
Taking the premises that:
as humans, we have a tendency to surround social constructs with normalization and rigid definitions/rulesets
religious dogma implies normalisation and rigid rules and definitions
tribe is a group of individuals sharing a common set of social constructs and by derivation also definitions and rules
when 2 groups of people who share the same set of social constructs disagree on a fundamental aspect of such derived norms and rules, they split into 2 or more smaller groups, or tribes. (thatās how urban tribes come to existence, for example)
Then I would say that any attempt at sharing religion with a larger audience than a tiny group (most likely comprised of 1 individual) will eventually lead to further division and the creation of many more smaller groups.
And when those groups split, our natural social defensive behaviour will tend to crystallize those rules even further.
Thus leading to proper tribalism.
Agreed.
Exactly why I say that a religious approach would not be helpful.
Given that the only thing that the vast majority of religious institutions actually agree on is that:
āif you question our commandments you will suffer somehowā
ā¦then I honest donāt believe you can.
As a very religious person I can say that one individual, or maybe even a group of - formidable - people can in fact be religious and still be free to explore and study.
But a religious institution would never be able to truly grant you such freedom whilst still maintaining itās own creed.
We can look back in history for this one, if you want.
Look at cultures where religious institution was closer to youe ālibraryā concept. A very good example are the vkings.
Despite what many believe, the Viking culture was centuries ahead of itās time in those aspecs, such as having divorce, womanās rights, freedom to question religion, etcā¦
At the same time this behaviour made so that they were the hardest culture to be properly converted into christianityā¦ to the point that more than half of christian traditions had to be adapted to fit their customs in order to subvert them (where do you think that Xmas, Easter, etcā¦ as we know, come from?)
But it also made it so that with time passing their religion might still survive, but the religious institution was lost. Exactly for allowing such freedom.
Sorry, but I canāt take that one.
If we are to attempt to reduce consciousness to a single organ, we just canāt mash 2 organs into one just to fit our theories.
But this is an interesting point you 2 opened upā¦
The way I see it, and I believe most of modern science backs me up here, is that the brain can be compared pretty well to a big computer.
That said, letās play a bit with that concept!
If the brain is a computer, what is conscience? the computer in itself? the OS? a software running inside it? a software running somewhere remote but kicking in all the right buttons of this computer?
Orā¦ letās keep it less theoretical.
If conscience has to do with how we feel/perceive/are aware ofā¦ ourselvesā¦ Then if conscience would be contained in a single part of us, then removing another part should not affect our conscience.
As inā¦ if I remove your fridge from your house, would that affect your conscience? but what if I remove your left foot?
Arguably, even some individuals would feel their conscience affected if I took their wallet from them. (That was a non ficticious example. had a schizofrenic patient I dealt with while in uni which Iām thinking of for this example)
Honestlyā¦ if we achieve that here, I am sure youāll get a nobel prize of peace!
If you get 10 people and ask them:
then you will have at least 11 different definitions.
The more you try to define religion the harder it will be for a group of free-thinking individuals to agree on it.
Ironically, depend on which godā¦ yes, you do have to. because failing to convert others is a failure in the eyes of said god, which leads to the eternal damnation of your immortal soul.
(not joking, that thought is present in a shitload of religions.)
Pretty much!
That is only true from the point of view of a scientifically oriented individual.
I do agree with you there, and I do agree with that statement.
But if you ask someone else, they might tell you exactly the opposite.
I had a Rabbi friend who used to say something like: āScientists and political leaders should respect more the traditions instead of keep trying to āevolveā the worldā.
Another priest I used to chat at my uni time would not only also repeat that, but add that āattempting to make the world evolve through our science and actions is a futile exercise of our own pride. World should only be made to evolve by acts of godā.
I disagree with them, personally, but I cannot take your statement (which I agree with) as an universal truth.
I could even say that religious leaders who act like you are saying are far wiser! but someone else might think itās the exact opposite: they are just corrupted or deluded.
I think I do agree with the overarching theme of this pointā¦ but I must also note that for far too many religious people it has the exact opposite effect.
In places like where I grew up most people donāt do things aiming to reach heaven. They do things to avoid going to hell.
This posture makes most people reactive instead of proactive. which reaches the opposite of what you are arguing in favour.
Here I disagree completely.
It is perfectly possible for an individual to achieve enlightenment without having anyone he compares himself to.
Not only you have perfectly good examples of functional egotistical sociopaths who honestly believe there is no one better than themselves to compare to. And yet they grow and evolve so much that they make it possible to be functional and productive in our society despite being sociopaths!
My views on Transhumanism are way more focused on looking inside myself and pushing my own buttons to see what I can improve!
It is a journey much closer to my body-mod views than to my religious views.
Iād mainly throw philosophy into the field again. Using your brain to search for solutions, but without the need of any āhigher beingā or fanatics. Mostly, at least.
It is. But itās still fair to question if the facts are still up to date - and even if a book is well-spread and often cited, I donāt have to agree to it. I donāt agree to the bible, and I can show you some big-ass standard books about dog behaviour and training, well-spread, often-cited and - because science has evolved - just plain wrong from todayās point of view.
And though I didnāt read the book you cite, maybe you can explain to me what kind of scientific experiments the writer made to come to his conclusion? Because I still just donāt get what gap in modern societies religion can fill, that philosophy canāt fill in the same way. Like I said, minus the fanatics.
And @Eyeux (just because I am simply on my way to bed and canāt properly replyā¦) - Thanks a lot for explaining what I meant, especially considering the tribalism-topic, in much better words.
Iāll go even furtherā¦ I had to take out some of my piercings recently, especially one I am wearing for 20 years now, and I feltā¦ āless meā. I think consciousness extends to all of your body, and maybe even beyond, and taking something away is leaving a āwoundā or a feeling of loss. It might heal, of course (some things faster, some slower), but it is a loss.
āsomething mattersā is an incomplete statement, devoid of meaning.
āsomething matters to someoneā is a complete statement.
I wonāt quote names (not only to avoid offending people, but also because there are far too many which would fit the bill perfectly), but there is a certain book which was translated into a metric cuntload of languages, and is still being quoted, thought of and even taught about, over 1000 years after the author died(?)ā¦
Yet, for me, the opinions contained there matter as much as a bag of . (see? offend with emojis and everyone gets happy!)
Maybe the fact that so many people still follow that, matters to me
Maybe the fact that so many wars come out of that, in my opinion, matters to me.
But whatever is being said thereā¦ just doesnāt matter at all.
On the other hand, there was a sentence I heard for the first time this morning, spoken by someone who only speaks englishā¦ and holy fuck, that sentence was brilliant and matters worlds to me!!
Wellā¦ I was just explaining what I meantā¦
Yet, as usual, we end up on the exact same wavelength!!
soā¦ āyouāre welcome!ā?
Very good point!!
I also do feel way āless meā when I have short hair. Or when I canāt find one specific bracelet I have.
And way too many people do have a genuine crisis if they realise they are outside without their phones!!
Conscience is a tricky bugger to define!!
ps: Istill got to learn that black unicorn gif magic!!
I have to use the Kathy Newman method, because there is a lot to unfold.
ā¢You reflected on religion as power structure.
Not good approach we agree on it.
ā¢Converting people - sharing the ātruthā
Depends how true it is. You publish scientific papers as well. Dogmas are fishy, we agree on that point.
ā¢Rabbi friendā¦ loved the example!
Expending knowledge linearry vs horizontally. I kind of meant the many aspect theory, reflecting on that truth is like a singularity, we can approach it from many directions, but can not reach it. Yet again, we agree on that point as well.
Iād view philosophy as an element of religion, rather then substitute for it.
Thus I suggested defining religion.
There are shit books out there
You didnāt read the book I cited
Just because there are shit books out there that doesnāt make my book shit.
I would accept your disagreement if I knew you knew what you were disagreeing with.
Stay tuned I'll write my 200 words to complete my challenge. :nerd_face:
Good point!
Althoughā¦ We do not publish scientific papers as ātruthā. We publish them as āfindingsā.
I canāt compare āsharing the word of the lordā (or āsharing my opinion with everyone because I know the true truthā) with publishing a scientific paper.
but yeah. you reduced it very well to the essence of that point:
I do like that point!!
Although that just strengthens my views that attempting to share a common phylosofical interest (Transhumanism) as a belief system through a social construct (i.e. seriously attempting to create a Transhumanist Church) will either:
be a moot attempt (i.e. not getting even close to being a churchā¦ so whatās the point?)
be dependent on establishing ātruthsā to base itself upon. Hence becoming vulnerable to all the aforementioned issues.
I do agree that Philosophy is not a substitute for religion.
I disagree that they are directly connected either.
The way I seeā¦
Philosophy is a dessert.
Religion is an Entree.
You can have a meal (life) with one. or the other. or both!
Some would say that you need both to have a complete meal.
Some could say that deserts are a bad thing, unhealthy, etcā¦
Some could say that an Entree would spoil a good mealā¦
you can extend this metaphor in so many waysā¦
Definitely agree with you.
Was about to do another shout out to Pilgriās magical thread transmogrifying powersā¦
But still not sure where to slice the scalpelā¦
I meanā¦ there is a huge debate here which is quite interesting, complete on itself, and still somewhat connected to Transhumanism. so ti should have itās own space in the forum, imho.
But a chunk of it is still very connected to the original purpose of this threadā¦
So in the spirit of this thread, Iāll leave this one āto higher powersā <insert drumroll here, please>
I posted in the thread about how the Church and Transhumanism is designed to abuse religious tolerance laws. I quietly stepped out when it turned into a giant tl;dr theological and philosophical derail.
?
. (see? offend with emojis and everyone gets happy!) 
