So those 2 are not about religion.
Ok, then it comfortably fits the definition of
and
1 Like
You got me there 
Okay, I really shouldâve said âI donât participate in any discussion about religion if itâs not to bash it or poke fun at itâ.
3 Likes
Was that about religion as infrastructure or preaching as advertising the faith?
I meant that not including religion as institution into a society will preserve or induce tribalism. We mainly hear about news that are soaked in blood, but here are examples about religion bringing peace.
See Europe around 1000AC with the spread of christianity and Africa about the same time, where Islam brings unity. I analyse it from a consequential perspective this time.
A belief system should be (and often is) a great umbrella to stand under.
The religion rapidly spread in both regions.
And not necessarily because they loved the booksâŠ
People simply wanted to belong to the winners.
Thatâs why often fundamentalists abusing power in the name of the Prophet and God.
Shit can get corrupted: when every vote matters, cater-for-all attitude.
According to Lama Ole Nydahl: Multi-culty only works if there is a common goal.
People need something common to feel connection, whatever it is, to be in peace:
Jan-Erik Olasson said, after attempting a bank robbery and keeping 4 people as hostage:
âThey made us go on living together day after day, like goats, in that filth. There was nothing to do but get to know each otherâ
I draw parallel between Islam and Christianity (Faith: you can give it up!) and the precedent that sourced to the term later been referred to as Stockholm Syndrom, because they describe a situation with little chance to escape.
Preaching?
Atilla feels second hand shame when seeing people on the street with mic and leaflets.
Also he prefers the jewish method: Treat your faith as treasure, and remember the 4th Commandment.
Also, from now on I will do the âconâ side for a while. I want to know why is a church a silly idea.
âŠIâm doing âconâ:
But I think: The thought is the ingredient
Philosophy is the cooking method.
Religion is how you eat, when, and who do you share your meal.
A phony religion would be just a kitchen with all the facilities.
Whit the rule to cook safely.
@Atilla I like how you manage to dodge pretty much every single question I ask you.
So seriously, this conversation makes totally no sense for me. Could talk to the wall as well 
4 Likes
Neither. Or both. Was about the âKeeping our belief system to ourselves will lead to tribalismâ statement. so⊠not sure what you meant with âreligion as infrastructureâ, and âpreachingâ is often more than just âadvertisingâ.
That might be a misleading argument.
You are also talking about a time where people were being tortured violently to convert.
So perhaps âPeople simply wanted to be aliveâ might be a better statement, since in so many cases the only options were âconvert or dieâ (often under torture).
Iâm sorry, but not sure if I understood your pointâŠ
The issue I see with that approach is that:
If Philosophy is âthe cooking methodâ, then what about people who discard philosophy and ethics in favour of tradition and moral?
The implied conclusion is that they would no longer be able to cook. Therefore having only raw, subpar meals?
That sounds quite judgemental.
I do believe philosophy is essential for human growth, but canât state that whomever would not approach life through philosophy leads an inferior life.
And similarly, if âReligion is how you eatâ, then would that mean that people without a religion do not eat?
And that would be dangerous.
Because once you have an agreed upon kitchen, then said kitchen is subject to rules, inspections and scrutiny.
People can no longer do things as they please, because now they must follow the facilities about how to engage with such facilities. If not because âthe priest said soâ, then most likely because the same institutions that recognise said phony church will now put a lot more pressure into regulating it.
Not to mention attention drawn from other ârestaurantsâ that will recognise your kitchen as empty and will become a thorn in your assâŠ
1 Like
This may just be my personal opinion, but biohacking is not about philosophy, leave that to the self-described transhumanists. Conversations like this is why I canât frequent their channels. Grinding is about what you do, not what you think or say.
Agreed. The original purpose of the idea of the âchurch of transhumanismâ was not at all to create a philosophy. It was to repurpose existing governmental structures that protect religious freedoms to protect our right to bodily autonomy. Full stop. The only reason to create a founding ethos for a âchurchâ like this would be to cross the Tâs and dot the iâs in order to follow the letter of the law.
I think I would be perfectly fine with a âchurch for bodily autonomyâ. Might even better sum up what a chaotic mixed up bunch of people we are 
I think you nailed it pretty well there! 
Was about to write something along these exact lines!
I agree with both points @Satur9 raised.
But then, if the objective had nothing to do with philosophy, And "Transhumanists will deal with the philosophical bits, while we do the grindingâŠ
- using church as a defining word and not expecting philosophyâŠ
- âof Transhumanismâ, and not expecting Transhumanists to voice their opinionsâŠ
are both points that murder that non-philosophical intent!
As I said on the very beginning:
I would support making a phony âChurch of Blorghâ. I would be concerned about a âChurch of Transhumanism/Biohacking/Grinding/WhateverââŠ
Mostly for the same points you raised ^^
1 Like
My point as the original raising was exactly as satur9 stated. I donât care for religion or church the ame was to create a place to put ideas on how to actually go about protecting ourselves under the law be it by âabusingâ government systems or not.
Transhumanisum was ment to incompase all the bodymoding you can handle. Church of grinder i suppose was more what I was going for but unfortunately shares its name with a gay hook up app.
As satur9 also state di want nothing to do with (as I see it) philosophical debates nor the telomere measuring, self injecting hormom notification , crazy dieting madness that some people would class as biohacking.
Can we, or should we do anything from the UK to get the ball rolling?
Or does it have to start from the US?
UK has no need for that.
This whole thing was only about bypassing laws in US to allow people to gain access to installing microchips even on US states where itâs not currently allowed.
1 Like
Corrected.
[quote=âEyeux, post:254, topic:9362â]US states where itâs not currently allowed.
[/quote]
Can you specify what states were talking about?
I have done a decent bit of digging and all I find are headlines and laws about forced employer chips
I see nothing about voluntary stuff
Think that is one for the Americans. 
but this is a good quote on the matter:
1 Like
Again, I havenât found any of said legislation, only states prohibiting mandatory implantation of employees when I dig into the legal verbiage
1 Like
Then I personally see even less reason. 
1 Like
These are just the ones I have handy. Itâs criminally difficult to find obscure state laws. You only hear about them when thereâs public pushback. I donât know how they expect us to follow the laws if they donât tell us what they are.
waitâŠ
Neither of those are any issue for us.
Even the Nevada bill⊠it only forbids companies from creating programs where people can âvolunteerâ to get an implant.
That is worded so no company can microchip itâs employees.
But absolutely nothing there prevents an individual from implanting a chip because he wants.
Youâre reading the letter of the law and interpreting it in the most sensible way, which is a big mistake.
- The law in Nevada went through several revisions, becoming less ham-handed along the way. Without public oversight fickle legislators will do whatever is easiest, which in most cases is a blanket ban on body mods.
- The exact wording states that a person cannot âparticipate in a programâŠto voluntarily elect to undergo the implantation of a microchip or other permanent identification marker of any kind or natureâ. This is pretty broad, and could easily be applied to piercing studios by bad actors.
- regardless of the final letter of the law, the ambiguity will lead piercing studios (which are a business) to make a risk assessment and many could decide not to allow RFID implants of any kind. Thatâs why you see so many people on the forums living in the US and unable to find a studio willing to help them. ânovelâ implants like RFID mean legal ambiguity that businesses canât accept.
1 Like