Flawlessism, a new religion (within the past year)

Echogem222 said:
Flawlessism is more of a philosophy than a religion, but it's still a religion.

Flawlessism is restricted to 18+, not because it's required, but because that's just a part of the way Flawlessism is taught. It's possible that someone under that age could end up believing in it, but believers are encouraged not to teach it to people under that age.

For those of you that just want to dive headfirst into learning about Flawlessism rather than reading this short summary, you can do so on Reddit, where there's a Subreddit called: r/GoodAndEvilReligion (It's restricted to 18+ because of the reason I just explained above). As for why people under that age are discouraged from believing in Flawlessism is because it's also taught that to have faith in a positive way, educated critical thinking is needed, and personal experiences are discouraged. People who are under 18 generally have less experience and knowledge than people above 18, which makes their critical thinking skills lacking due to having less knowledge (This is just in general though, it's not meant to be a perfect way of doing things for everyone in every possible situation, it's just meant to try and prevent indoctrination as much as possible).

The core belief of Flawlessism is that a Flawless good exists, which is a good so perfect, it cannot be understood as evil (undesirable), in any way. This is just a belief though, something to have faith in exists without knowing. Now, you might be wondering what educated critical thinking has to do with such a belief that requires faith in such a way, and the answer to that has to do with how faith in Flawlessism occurs. In order to even have faith in the Flawless good, it must be understood how such a thing is even possible. And the explanation of how Flawlessism is possible is where educated critical thinking is needed to develop such an explanation in a reasonable to believe in way. Philosophy is used to explain the Flawless good, and you might think that you can't get an entire religion (which has reasonability for people to believe in) just by doing that, but that's where you'd be wrong, because that is what has been done, and the results speak for themselves.

Flawlessism is not a belief which is set in stone, only the core faith that a Flawless good exists is set in stone (unless such a thing is disproven as being possible, then the entire religion would have to be discarded because it wouldn't be something people could believe in anymore). Many times, errors have been made which have been found out and fixed, this can be done in a reasonable way because Flawlessism is founded with Philosophy, not a claimed Divine source (like a claimed prophet or something). But it's also because Flawlessism can change like that is why educated critical thinking is so strongly encouraged, so people can understand why the error that was fixed was an error or be able to debate that it's not an error if they understand that being the case. There is no individual leader in Flawlessism, everyone is taught to be their own leader. As for the founder of Flawlessism, that would be myself, and no one else (which isn't something that can change because it's just history at this point).

I'm making this post thread so people can at least have a general idea of what Flawlessism is since "I" (as a believer in Flawlessism) am taking part in this online community.
Click to expand...
This concept of Flawlessism is flawed simply because its foundation is based on 'Flawless Good' which is an impossibility, therefore Flawlessism is an impossibility. One man's Good will always be another Man's Evil because Good & Evil are purely subjective experiences. This touches on another flaw of Flawlessism; "personal experiences are discouraged", the entirety of mankind's existence is brought about by our ability to assign meaning to objective reality through our personal, unique, subjective reality.

My final, and perhaps most important critique, is that our flaws are what make each of us unique and these flaws can also drive us to conquer our limitations in wonderfully creative and personal ways thus adding to the amazing subjective architecture of Mankind.
 
Echogem222 said:
I'm saying that there are times when we don't choose,
Click to expand...
Ok. We don't choose to be born
Echogem222 said:
times when we can't choose
Click to expand...
Not too sure. In a way we choose everything, by our past actions? But ok, I get that earthquake victims didn't have the vote to choose
Echogem222 said:
we reject such experiences nonetheless
Click to expand...
How can we reject what we cannot choose?
Echogem222 said:
it's impossible for us to accept such experiences (since we don't experience them).
Click to expand...
Nothing is not a lack or anemptiness, it is not even 'not there'
 
Last edited:
Why not just Platonic Philosophy?

I mean, what you present here as 'Flawless good' is a Platonic ideal ... so why rebrand it?
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
This concept of Flawlessism is flawed simply because its foundation is based on 'Flawless Good' which is an impossibility ...
Click to expand...
Well, there is the Form of the Good in Plato's Republic – it's not impossible.

'Amir Alzzalam said:
One man's Good will always be another Man's Evil ...
Click to expand...
Is that not an absolute statement – is it always necessarily so?

(I can see that a particular 'good' might suit A but be detrimental to B, but then it would be said that it is not intrinsically good-as-such.)

'Amir Alzzalam said:
My final, and perhaps most important critique, is that our flaws are what make each of us unique and these flaws can also drive us to conquer our limitations in wonderfully creative and personal ways thus adding to the amazing subjective architecture of Mankind.
Click to expand...
That presupposes difference as a 'flaw', which I'm not sure is necessarily so ...

And is not what you describe someone seeking their own good? And is that always detrimental to another?
 
So, like the perfect 'horse' archetype, from which all horses derive but never perfectly?
 
Thomas said:
Well, there is the Form of the Good in Plato's Republic – it's not impossible.


Is that not an absolute statement – is it always necessarily so?

(I can see that a particular 'good' might suit A but be detrimental to B, but then it would be said that it is not intrinsically good-as-such.)
Click to expand...
I can't think of a situation where it isn't applicable
Thomas said:
That presupposes difference as a 'flaw', which I'm not sure is necessarily so ...


And is not what you describe someone seeking their own good? And is that always detrimental to another?
Click to expand...
I said our 'flaws' are part of what makes us unique. Where am I describing "someone seeking their own good"? Why is seeking something good/beneficial an issue? I don't think every good situation necessarily becomes detrimental to another.
 
Echogem222 said:
What are you even talking about?? No, you cannot add 1 to infinity. You can subtract 1 from infinity and still get infinity though.
Click to expand...
No... you would have infinity minus one.

Alternately one would have to be added from "nowhere" in order to retain infinity, so nothing was actually subtracted in order to stay at infinity.

I have this argument with mathematicians that want to add to infinity. If infinity already has all possible, there is nothing more to add...hence there is nothing available to add to balance the detraction of infinity minus one. So infinity minus one is *almost but not quite* infinity. But it is NOT still infinity.
 
Where does the one come from to add back to infinity? Does it magically appear out of nowhere?

Infinity is a mathematic philosophy, if there is nothing to add because all is already encompassed, one is removed from all and set aside, there is no more to add back to complete infinity unless the one set aside is added back, so it was never subtracted to begin with.

I am not misunderstanding, infinity is either "all," or it is not infinity.

The question arises if more can be created out of nothing, if so then infinity increases constantly. Otherwise infinity is a stable constant and any mathematical equations should reflect that.
 
Last edited:
Infinity plus one is actually just infinity, infinity is larger than any (finite) number. Infinity plus any positive or negative finite number is still infinity.

∞ - 1 = ∞
∞ + 1 = ∞
 
Echogem222 said:
??? If you are ABLE to subtract 1 from infinity, then that 1 that you subtracted would not be able to be added back to infinity. Have you like ever played a single video game when you have infinite health added as a cheat? Did you ever notice that when you lost health, you would always regain the amount you lost? That was because you had infinite health, so no matter how much you lost, it didn't matter.
Click to expand...
I don't play video games, I am an old pinball wizard. Far more skill involved.

Just because a game grants imaginary infinity does not mean in any sense of reality that is how or what the term infinity means.

Just because I win at Monopoly does not mean I am qualified to be a well healed real estate broker. If you are getting your information from a video game, I think that alone is sufficient to give pause. Frankly, I would be better off taking my lessons in life from Captain Kangaroo or Mr. Rogers. This is not meant as a sleight, this is simply stating a rudimentary fact.

Energy and Matter are related. Neither one "disappears," they only change form. This isn't my opinion, this is laboratory proven more than a century ago. Technically it is impossible to subtract from infinity, because whatever is being measured is already included, and has nowhere else to go. It is impossible to, for example, remove a planet from the infinite planets...where would you put it? Well, you could destroy it with a Battlestar...that would not remove what the planet is composed of, that would only reassign the matter that composed the planet into other matter and / or other energy.

If you kill one ant from the infinite number of ants, the matter would go back to the earth and become plant food, and ants continue laying eggs creating new ants, continuously adding to the infinite number of ants. In that sense, *if* infinity is being added to from nothing, then subtracting one from the number would not be relevant because the infinite number would continue to expand.

Mass–energy equivalence states that all objects having mass, or massive objects, have a corresponding intrinsic energy, even when they are stationary. In the rest frame of an object, where by definition it is motionless and so has no momentum, the mass and energy are equal or they differ only by a constant factor, the speed of light squared (c2).[1][2] In Newtonian mechanics, a motionless body has no kinetic energy, and it may or may not have other amounts of internal stored energy, like chemical energy or thermal energy, in addition to any potential energy it may have from its position in a field of force. These energies tend to be much smaller than the mass of the object multiplied by c2, which is on the order of 1017 joules for a mass of one kilogram. Due to this principle, the mass of the atoms that come out of a nuclear reaction is less than the mass of the atoms that go in, and the difference in mass shows up as heat and light with the same equivalent energy as the difference. In analyzing these explosions, Einstein's formula can be used with E as the energy released (removed), and m as the change in mass.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Echogem222 said:
I never learned about Platonic Philosophy when I invented Flawlessism ...
Click to expand...
That's a pretty bold statement from someone supposing a new methodology – and clearly you cannot know whether there are similarities or not..

What philosophy would you say has been influential or informative in developing your own?
 
Echogem222 said:
I edited my comment, I suggest re-reading it.
Click to expand...
OK...show me a negative number in the natural world of reality. Any one will do. Link to it, post an image, whatever method you wish to show me a negative number.

I can show positive 3 apples, I don't know of any way to *show* negative 3 apples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top