

Show HN: A new religion - ca98am79
http://consciousness.io/

======
ubertaco
> The first principle of consciousness.io is No Judgement. This means strive
> to judge nothing as "bad" or "evil" \- not even your own judgements!

>The universe and every thought or thing in it is precisely perfect.

How do you define "perfect" if there's no such thing as "bad"? "Perfect" is,
in that sense, a pointless concept.

Looking further: would you define mass genocide as "bad"? What about on a
personal level; if someone tried to kill you, would you stop them? If so, why?
Their actions are, by this frame of thought, not to be considered "bad", so
there's no reason to stop them.

In fact, there's no reason _not_ to take any particular action; so then all
actions must be equally valid, as is inaction. So then there's no reason to
take any action.

After all, everything's already perfect, right?

~~~
ca98am79
Thanks for your questions, and taking the time to read and think about
consciousness.io - I really appreciate it!

Just because there is no "bad" I don't think "perfect" is a pointless concept
- but perhaps it is not the best word to use here. Maybe "holy" is better, or
something like this. Someone else mentioned that they don't like this word, so
I appreciate the feedback and may try to change it to something more
appropriate.

Yes, I expect the questions about "bad" things (e.g. mass genocide, etc) - how
can they be "perfect" when they appear so bad? And how do you know what to do
if everything is perfect? These are good questions and I'm sure my answer will
be unsatisfactory, but I hope it at least leads to some thought and
consideration about it.

One way I can attempt to answer is that I and other people I know have been
through "bad" things - things that I never would have wanted before they
happened. Even though it was difficult, it was an opportunity for a lot of
growth and insight. And in this way it wasn't "bad," and in fact they turned
out to be some of the best things that happened to me.

~~~
ubertaco
> And in this way it wasn't "bad," and in fact they turned out to be some of
> the best things that happened to me.

In what way? And what growth can be claimed for the people killed by the
Holocaust? Pardon my Godwin's law, but it's a pretty glaring example of the
train-sized hole in this "no such thing as bad" idea.

And on this:

>Maybe "holy" is better....

"Holy, adjective: dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose;
sacred." Definitionally, if something is dedicated for a religious purpose (or
consecrated), then it is separated from everything else.

If everything is "holy", then there is no "separated out"; i.e. nothing is
"unholy". So then there's no separation, meaning that there's no "holy-
ification".

It sounds like you're trying to start a conversation about religion based on
your assumptions about religion and before you're equipped to actually have
that conversation.

Speaking as a Christian, I've grown up _steeped_ in the notion of poking and
prodding my religious thought to understand it and to find answers wherever
there are holes. I can do so confidently because if Christianity is indeed the
truth I believe it to be, then it will hold up, and if it's not, it won't.
Plain and simple.

I'd recommend trying to examine this "new religion" you're trying to start
(which is really more of an epistemologically-void philosophical system) with
a similar level of scrutiny.

------
dchest
Show HN Guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

"Show HN is for something you've made that other people can play with. HN
users can try it out, give you feedback, and ask questions in the thread.
[...] For example, blog posts, _email signups_ , and fundraisers can't be
tried out, so they don't count as Show HNs."

~~~
ca98am79
I think religion hacking is something that can be cool, and there is a lot of
room for innovation with religion. It is my hope that some people will try
this out and give feedback, which I believe is in line with the guidelines

