flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > start a new religion, possible?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
sleepsleep wrote:
why people always like to argue about the "name" instead of the "meaning"

if the meaning of "islam, hinduism, judaism, christian" is "abcdefg"
and i create a new religion with different name but same meaning,
then why should i be condemned?

- Different religion have very different message and many all details. Basically no two of them can be true at the same time.
- Religions are built upon specific details about God, whose main features are usually shared within society and all religions. If you dismiss those details, no religions remains.
- Idea of god changes even within religions, as society changes. gods of same religions we have now were nasty bastards thousand(s) years ago.


You SleepSleep seem to be representation of the same religion merging process we have seen many times in history. Same thing that some Israelites did to polytheistic tribal gods to create Judaism, or what later Greeks/Romans did to pagan gods worship and Judaism to create Christianity, etc. You take "god meme" in current state of development (currently deism), and try to conflate details coming from existing religions around it. That way people adopt somewhat new idea dressed in a old clothes.

As for original topic, this is EXACTLY the way to succeed in creating new religions. As long as you don't take people their details, you can serve them around any core. Israelite tribes didn't mind worshipping god merged with gods of other tribes, as long as they could still call him El / Yah / whatever name they used, and treat him same. Greeks didn't give a fuck about Apollon renamed to Jesus Christ and Isis to Mary, little changed for them in practice. That is why Scientology, popular western Buddhism, and other successfully expanding religions claim that "you can be of any religion", even though it is not really true.
Post 12 Aug 2008, 13:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
f0dder wrote:
Shahada wrote:
GOD is nearer to you than your jugular vein, if you can't see GOD, you are blind. You are like those who have mental retard and can't understand things because they don't have the mental capacity. Pray GOD will show His mercy on you. Nothing can be without GOD, all things have their being from GOD. GOD is the Sustainer, the Mercyfull.
GOD was discovered (or rather, refined) by Albert Hofmann, and costs about $20/pop in Denmark.
Nah, Rick Strassman discovered GOD and no purchase required.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 12 Aug 2008, 15:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
is there any side effects (in terms of body health) after consume the DMT?
Post 12 Aug 2008, 16:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
Most mainstream religions with a punishment for not believing are just FUD machines.

Comforting stories to help cope with your fear of death don't play well with rational thought.
Post 12 Aug 2008, 23:31
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
sleepsleep wrote:
is there any side effects (in terms of body health) after consume the DMT?
Assuming it isn't smoked - in general, no. Really, it's the MAOI's taken with DMT that can potentially be a problem.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 13 Aug 2008, 00:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Shahada



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 77
Shahada
Post 13 Aug 2008, 12:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
k, bitRAKE, i will try to get it somewhere from the doctors Razz maybe...
btw, i just joined the nexus DMT forum, some of the first experience there truly inspiring ....

to shahada:
is not a believer of truth a muslim?
truth is what islam all about. if a person seek for truth, reality through the advance of technology, sciences, biology, more and more learning, isn't it more better, harder than just blindly follow.

God(focus on meaning) mentioned, don't follow blindly the tradition, what we could see nowadays is, this reflects on the so called "muslim" current days. (btw, i am not saying you are one of it, it just, this so called "muslim" are many, too many nowadays) they took islam as tradition.

God(focus on meaning) gives us aqal (intellect) to comprehend, learn and etc. God (focus on meaning) mentioned, those who learn and know is higher several degree than those who aren't.

btw, based on what you have posted, and replied,
do you sincerely think people would like more about your religion?
or they will just dislike it even more further?
Post 13 Aug 2008, 16:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Shahada, seeking to find someone to guide towards the one true religion (i.e. his religion) offered a link to an Islamic web site, above.

Allahumma salli ala sayyedna Muhammad
O Allah, have Mercy on our Prophet Muhammad

wa ala as-haabie sayyedna Muhammad
and on the companions of our Prophet Muhammad

wa ala azwajie sayyedna Muhammad
and on the wives of our Prophet Muhammad

couple of points, may both be language, cultural phenomena:
1. Why would anyone pray to "GOD", asking for "mercy" on Mu'd? At least in English, don't know about other languages, but in English, one does not ask for "mercy", unless the person has been WICKED.
So, Jesus, for example, may have asked his "father", i.e. GOD, for "mercy" on the two criminals, adjacent to him, dying also on the crosses. In other words, at least in English, the concept of asking some supernatural power to intervene on behalf of a BAD person, is to ask for "mercy".
2. The prayer above, rather well summarizes what I had written previously about this guy, Mu'd, having many wives, and concubines ("companions"). Could it be that his profligate sexual behaviour, together with his well known theft of the contents of many camel caravans, led the villagers to pray for "mercy" at his deathbed, knowing that a person of his moral turpitude would be unlikely to gain admission to the promised land, based upon his terrorist exploits on planet earth?
Post 13 Aug 2008, 21:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:
...some of the first experience there truly inspiring
DISAGREE.

What was "truly inspiring", TO YOU, was NOT their experiences with a mind altering substance, but rather,
THEIR WRITTEN ACCOUNT of their supposed experience with a mind alterning substance.
What is the difference?
Aren't these the same?
Isn't this just some words?
Isn't this simply tom's fussiness about English?

NO.

In religion, one relies upon someone else's account of
some activity,
or some event,
or some person's accomplishments,
i.e. RUMORS & GOSSIP.

In science, one relies upon ONE'S OWN observations of the same activity, or event, or another's accomplishments,
i.e. EVIDENCE based opinion.

So, for example, Siddhartha, aka Gautama, is revered by Buddhists, though, according to the wikipedia article on his life, the collection of teachings attributed to Gautama was not elaborated, in writing, until several centuries after his death, about ~400bce.

In my opinion, a person who experiments with mind altering chemicals, "to find enlightenment", is simply too lazy to translate Dao De Jing! That's hard work. Taking a drug is easy. Anyone can do it!
Post 13 Aug 2008, 22:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

In my opinion, a person who experiments with mind altering chemicals, "to find enlightenment", is simply too lazy to translate Dao De Jing! That's hard work. Taking a drug is easy. Anyone can do it!

drug... but that chemical/drug is released during sleeping by our body....? just they automate increase it into our brain. to dwelve into hyperspace.

if dao de jing could bring awareness and to enlightement, and if DMT could do that as well, why not?
it wouldn't be bad by letting (prepared) human knowing what is the real reality out there.
Post 14 Aug 2008, 09:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
In religion, one relies upon someone else's account of
some activity,
or some event,
or some person's accomplishments,
i.e. RUMORS & GOSSIP.
In science, one relies upon something else's account.

We call that something else machines or devices Razz
or our OWN eyes, rather than people that might have had more opportunities. Why is that better? Well, let's say that not everyone has the same "perfect" vision -- some are blind, some are cross-eyed (no stereoscopic vision), etc... should they not rely on people that see normally?

This isn't about religion I'm talking about. It's about sayings science is a religion Razz

tom tobias wrote:
In science, one relies upon ONE'S OWN observations of the same activity, or event, or another's accomplishments,
i.e. EVIDENCE based opinion.
Did you walk on the Moon? Shocked
Did you see an atom, or did some of your devices "tell" you that? How do you know they are not wrong? hmm...
Post 14 Aug 2008, 11:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shahada



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 77
Shahada
I couldn't agree more. And facts are one thing and their interpretation which the scientific theories are, totally another thing. The interpretation of facts depends on many factors which are outside the facts themselves. Let's don't forget GODless theoreticians of science sustained that you couldn't be sure when your theories are true, you could be sure only they are false, because you found better theory Laughing
The discreet people who searched for science have allways revered GOD, the Creator and Mover of all things, and looked unto people of insight for guidance.
Fear GOD and He will give you knowledge
Post 14 Aug 2008, 15:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Science also requires observations to be reproducible, or abundant in occurance to strengthen the validity of statements. Some people feel this gives a false sense of devaluation to unique events/observations. Yet, it is important to remember that science has a functional side - "How can this information be used?"

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 14 Aug 2008, 15:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
"start a new religion":
What is the advantage when compared with joining one of the many existing religions?
How does one define "new"?

Scientific method:
observation
repetition
induction
deduction
testing

FIRST HAND verification, by any person, of ANY scientific claim is possible. Galileo may have been the first to notice that moons orbit Jupiter (an observation supporting Aristarchus' discovery of heliocentrism, contradicting Plato and Aristotle, and, more importantly, contradicting the Biblical notion of geocentrism, a repudiation which led to Galileo's arrest by the Catholics--though his findings also threatened as well, all other Christians, plus the Jews, and Muslims, for all three religions document faith in geocentrism,) but anyone, today, can purchase a small telescope, and observe the same moons which Galileo observed through his own telescope, an instrument which he himself constructed.

Religion:
by definition, faith based (no need to build telescopes, or any other apparatus):

i.e. knowledge about life MUST be transmitted as Second Hand data, information can only be passed on from one generation to the next, WITHOUT the ability to procure verifiable primary observations.

IMPOSSIBLE to achieve FIRST HAND verification. Nonsensical, superstitious religious practices include
***belief that one can convert WINE into blood***
***circumambulating and kissing the kabaa in Mecca****
***touching the "wailing wall"***
***chanting mantras with 108 mala beads***
(1*(1^1)*(2^2)*(3^3)), and 54 phonemes in Sanskrit, male (54) and female (54), and 12 astrological figures multiplied by the nine planets = 108.

Simple examples:
1. (religion) SACRIFICE of animals/humans "to please God". No evidence, NONE, ZERO, that this barbaric activity leads to superior crops, stronger children, or curing of disease, versus (Science) TESTING of variables, objectively, to learn how to cure illness, and raise agricultural productivity.

2. (religion) PRAYER as mechanism to achieve desired goal, versus (science) study, investigate, test, i.e. PERFORM HARD WORK.

It is a lot easier to TALK, and convey GOSSIP, rumors, opinions and utter nonsense, than it is to explore the mysteries of nature, systematically.

Drugs as a means to unlock one's "inner consciousness":
sleepsleep wrote:
but that chemical/drug is released during sleeping by our body....? just they automate increase it into our brain. to dwelve into hyperspace.

I suspect that your understanding of pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics is subject to revision upon further review:
In my opinion, you err in imagining some kind of novel burst of creativity accompanying ingestion of mind altering substances.
To me, the idea of taking drugs to achieve some kind of inner peace, or to discover the true path, or the true meaning of this or that, is all NONSENSE.
One gains new understanding through HARD WORK, associated, especially, with study of a foreign language. Again, taking drugs is effortless. Translating Dao De Jing is very difficult.
This was my own, feeble attempt, to provide a translation of the first sentence of Dao De Jing, made just a year ago, today: (n.b. this is not TRUE PinYin, because there are neither accents, nor arabic numerals to denote the accents)

dao ke dao, fei chang dao;
ming ke ming, fei chang ming.

My translation is NOT literal, but rather, interpretive:
tom wrote:

A systematic approach to analyzing truth is arduous.
Post 15 Aug 2008, 11:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
Scientific method:
observation
repetition
induction
deduction
testing

FIRST HAND verification, by any person, of ANY scientific claim is possible.
The problem is that you're making a very clear distinction between "a person" and something else (a thing, a device, a machine, whatever), when in a "mechanistic" viewpoint of the world, there's no clear distinction. Yes, a person can lie, a person can have hallucinations, or dream, etc... but a machine can also NOT FUNCTION as you expect.

I have a question. What about axioms or postulates in science? You never seem to mention that it requires any like that Razz

few examples: logic of induction, logic of contradiction, assuming a "mechanistic" world viewpoint, or even assuming that what you built (based on previous knowledge) works CORRECT. Not to mention, for example, that we assume Newton's Third Laws or the law of conservation of energy. Yes, these have not been "broken" (or at least so has the authorities observed), but that's like saying "guilty until proved innocent".


Of course I am NOT saying science is worse than religion!!! I have no problem with it, because I have no problem with "beliefs". What I'm saying is that, using these kinds of arguments against religion is also against science, in a way. Razz

tom tobias wrote:
by definition, faith based (no need to build telescopes, or any other apparatus)
Isn't the apparatus a "second hand" data as well? Of course, a "Second hand" built with YOUR knowledge, and ASSUMING it works correctly.


science is just a DIFFERENT form than religion -- relies not on people's "hallucinations", but on what they make and what they THINK it should WORK.
Post 15 Aug 2008, 12:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shahada



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 77
Shahada
The_Grey_Beast, I like very much your answers, I'll hope you'll turn your face unto GOD, you seem thougthfull.
Post 15 Aug 2008, 12:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
hi tom, try check this.
http://www.wayist.org/eb/index.htm
Post 15 Aug 2008, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Thank you for the link, sleepsleep, very interesting, indeed. Seems that they have taken some of the Christian apocrypha ("heretical" teachings) to combine with Dao De Jing and Bhagadvagita.
Nice.
The_Grey_Beast", aka TGB, wrote:

The problem is that you're making a very clear distinction between "a person" and something else (a thing, a device, a machine, whatever), when in a "mechanistic" viewpoint of the world, there's no clear distinction.
Yes, I make that distinction between animate and inanimate life. Robots, telescopes, radios, and computers are not alive. I disagree that there is no distinction between people and machines. Go to any hospital, and you will understand what I seek to explain here.
TGB wrote:

What I'm saying is that, using these kinds of arguments against religion is also against science, in a way.
I am sorry, I disagree, completely.
Allow me to return to Galileo. His observation of moons orbiting Jupiter was revolutionary, because it was the first demonstration of a tenet, heliocentrism, first explained by Aristarchus. The religious minds of that era PERSECUTED Galileo, for expressing THE TRUTH. Yes, Shahada, THE TRUTH.
Not religious crap.
Now, how do we know that those moons actually revolve around Jupiter? How do we know that Galileo didn't just make it all up?
TGB wrote:
Isn't the apparatus a "second hand" data as well?
Certainly not.
Is real mode the same as protected mode?
Is EAX the same as ESP?
One can always write, whatever one wants, gibberish, nonsense, falsehoods, and then state, "oh, they are really all the same"
"Second Hand Data" MEANS, information received by the supplicant from the master, NOT FROM THE SOURCE OF DATA itself.
In the case of ALL religions, there is NO PRIMARY Source of data. Everything is second hand (at best.)
Like the distinction between ESP and EAX, you can go out yourself, today, and TEST Galileo's observations. Buy a telescope, and take a look at Jupiter. You will see several of the largest moons. You do not need to depend upon tom, or anyone else, to confirm Galileo's discovery.

Smile

_________________
I don't know if there are men on the moon, but if there are they must be using the earth as their lunatic asylum.--George Bernard Shaw
Post 15 Aug 2008, 18:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
Yes, I make that distinction between animate and inanimate life. Robots, telescopes, radios, and computers are not alive. I disagree that there is no distinction between people and machines. Go to any hospital, and you will understand what I seek to explain here.
I hope one day we'll make some machines that can "lie" (self-thinking) so there won't be a distinction anymore Razz

tom tobias wrote:
Like the distinction between ESP and EAX, you can go out yourself, today, and TEST Galileo's observations. Buy a telescope, and take a look at Jupiter. You will see several of the largest moons. You do not need to depend upon tom, or anyone else, to confirm Galileo's discovery. Smile
But I need to rely on the guys who built the telescope, that they made it correct.

Or if I build it myself, i have to rely on MY knowledge about how a telescope should be built. Frankly, I have limited such knowledge. Even if I do have knowledge, how do I know it's true and applies "outside the laboratory"? :hmm:

I assume? My entire "observations" depend on that assumption! Wink
Post 15 Aug 2008, 18:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
One must always make assumptions for everything. It is simply a matter of far does one go until one decides to reject certain "facts" that are presented to ones senses.

Simple devices like telescopes, although having many implicit assumptions as to how they really work, are so incredibly unlikely to "play tricks" with you that I consider it not worth the cost of throwing out potentially good data based only the the idea that anything with an assumption (no matter how small) should not be trusted. [okay, sorry, bad sentence structure there, but I hope you get my point]
Post 15 Aug 2008, 19:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.