Page 10 |
BetterHuman.org Weblog |
Welcome to the BetterHuman.org Weblog. Please read this very important excerpt from my book, Meme, as it also applies to the contents of this weblog. If you'd like to be notified of weblog updates, or wish to contact us directly with compliments, criticisms, or especially corrections, please visit our Contact Us page, where you'll also see a list of frequently-asked questions. If you are looking for specific keywords in this weblog, be sure to use your browser's 'find' function. Also, I'll apologize in advance if some weblog entries seem abrupt, but in the interest of conciseness I've often been forced to remove large portions of submitter's emails, and this will occasionally make my response appear inordinately potent.
© BetterHuman.org.
No part of this writing may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written
permission of BetterHuman.org. All submitted emails become the sole property of BetterHuman.org. All submitter names are altered in order to protect identities.
Topics on this page:
#137 - The dangers of loose interpretation - Jan 22, 2006, 10:49 AM
#138 - Are facts 'factiods'? - Jan 22, 2006, 10:57 AM
#139 - Is BetterHuman.org primarily Humanism? - Jan 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
#140 - The demons in Sean Sinjin's head - Jan 22, 2006, 11:38 AM
#141 - Does BetterHuman.org blame religion for everything? - Jan 29, 2006, 11:28 AM
#142 - Beyond reach - Jan 29, 2006, 12:44 PM
#143 - One person at a time - Jan 29, 2006, 12:49 PM
#144 - Uniting with atheists - Jan 29, 2006, 01:01 PM
#145 - A sin, or not a sin - Jan 29, 2006, 01:11 PM
#146 - Is religion still justified, even if exposed as fraud? - Jan 29, 2006, 01:29 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#136 - Prophecies fulfilled?...or hearsay... - January 22, 2006, 10:23 AM |
Mr. Wheatstart wrote back:
> I thought I might submit some comments based on recent web log entries.
Always welcome.
> I know you think that this is all there is and you have every right to believe that if you want. But I tell you that every knee will bend and will call him Lord it is just a matter of when.
Sounds ominous, and very intimidating (which is a ubiquitous 'fear' manipulation tactic employed by all religions). This statement also implies servitude of the masses as some false portrayal of love (it's actually their fear of hell, their need for ego placation from something greater than themselves, and their greed for immortality, that puts them on their knees)? I fail to see how this is desirable.
> I of course will be coming from a biblical Christian worldview. I guess I would start with your perception that all acts for religious people boil down to selfish/greedy/ego driven motivation of pleasing God. This is an interesting concept. This seems to be the same motivation (selfishness/greed/ego) of an atheist or anyone for that matter. In the case of an atheist it would be to please oneself and not God.
I couldn't agree with you more, and I don't think we here at BetterHuman.org are in any way attempting to disguise our self-fulfillment purpose, in fact, by looking at our tenets, you will see that it's quite obvious we are all about self-fulfillment, self-esteem, and self-purpose. Very self-motivated. However, this doesn't necessarily preclude the essence of altruism because altruism itself is also a very selfish act, just with the added plus of directly benefiting someone else.
We definitely recognize the value of the self and promote that ideal. This, of course, is not to be confused with the careless pursuit of ego or greed, as these are very opposing forces to BetterHuman.org's definition of self-worth. To demonstrate our motivations: we promote many channels of education, such as attending school, traveling, self-study, social interaction, etc. We also promote techniques of self-affirmation and inner-strength building. As well, we promote social harmony through communion, proactive education of others (which includes exposing religions as fantasy), and endorse a lifestyle composed of many diverse and challenging activities.
The difference between us, and the religious, is that our motivation is 'obviously' to benefit ourselves as human beings, whereas religious people deny that their motivations are entirely selfish. The reality is though, religious people are actually manipulating their god by pretending to love it, and perform insane rituals to demonstrate this false projection of love, all in the ulterior effort to obtain their precious immortality. I can prove this to you: would you still love your god if no matter how 'good' you were, he still condemned you to hell? Of course not, because your 'love' for your god is your 'currency' with which you are purchasing immortality. You wouldn't pay for something if you didn't think you were going to get it now, would you?
> I guess my initial reaction to that perception is "so what". If a religious person is garnering some heavenly reward or an atheist is receiving an ego stroke if the act is good then it is a good thing.
Sure, the end product may be a good thing, but I believe it is important to look at the motivations behind all 'good' things because it is the nature of the more evil of humankind to manipulate people with their desire to be 'good'. For example, take someone that performs acts of 'good' based upon receiving ethereal brownie-points. This ultimately contorts a pure act of 'goodness' into generating some benefit to the power structure of the church, no matter how insignificant it may seem. However, if this religious person at any point decides that their god has turned their back on them, then their entire motivation to perform 'any' conceivably 'good' action has now vanished, leaving behind an empty purposeless shell of a person.
This is the problem that I'm trying to address. I want people to understand that these acts of 'goodness' can be rewarding in-and-of themselves, without the need for an ethereal brownie-point to drive the motivation to perform it. Religiously-defined 'good' has bastardized 'real' good for its own purposes, and this is evil, and 'good' needs to be purified 'of' religion in order for it to become real once again. The fact that some superficial good can surface from religion, does not vindicate religion.
> Now, from a Christian point of view the obedience to God's commands results in the gaining of crowns granted in heaven (metaphorically speaking). But then these crowns are cast before the creator for his glorification. End result something was received but it was not kept but offered selflessly (No reward promised or received).
The 'real' reward here was never the metaphorical 'crown' credits in the first place, the reward religious people chase is a pat-on-the-back from your god; there is nothing more valuable in the universe than being acknowledged as worthy by your almighty creator. Surely you must see how obvious that is. What good is gold (or any other conceivable asset) going to do you in heaven anyway? They're not much of a sacrifice if they're worthless to you.
> I will take a stab at some biblical prophecies that were fulfilled.
> In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy that reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah. This was written sometime between 750-686 BC.
> Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
First off, the 'messiah' in the ethereal form never appeared, no more than the 'real' Santa Claus appears each Christmas. The entire 'legend' of Jesus Christ was an elaborate ruse by the churches to give the impression that ancient prophecies were coming true, thereby enticing more membership to their churches. In order to fulfill the above prophecy, someone 'had' to be chosen to play this role, and more likely than not, the poor unknowing human being named Jesus Christ was randomly selected to do just that. However, he was no more the 'messiah' than he was an Easter Bunny, for the mythical version of Jesus never existed in reality. If the human being Jesus hadn't been born at the right place at the right time, well, you might just be worshipping his neighbor's kid these days instead.
In terms of probabilities, this prophecy is no more magical than predicting that in 50 years from now, there's going to be someone that was born in 2010 in Sydney, Australia, and has a moustache. I guarantee if we look for a person at that time with these attributes, we will find someone that fits that role perfectly; it doesn't make him a 'messiah', however, nor does it make my prediction in any way a 'prophecy'.
> For Christians, the prophecy is very powerful in a very simple way. It eliminates all other cities and towns throughout the world as a place in which the Messiah could be born. It narrows the possibilities to one tiny village just south of Jerusalem. And throughout the span of the past 27 centuries, from the days of the prophet Micah up through the present time, Bethlehem is credited as being the birthplace for only one person who is widely known throughout the world. And that person is Jesus Christ.
Again, they chose a random human being from Bethlehem that happened to be born in the right time at the right place, to fill this role. No matter what, 'someone' would have been chosen as the puppet that purportedly fulfills the prophecies of the old testament, with all the cover-ups, falsified documents, and stories necessary in order to add artificial substance to this messiah story. It was a very elaborate and deliberate deception in order to 'trick' people into believing their messiah had come as prophesized, thusly granting your religion unfathomable power; and that is 'exactly' why they created such an elaborate ruse. How do I know all this?...for the same reasons that you know there's no Tooth Fairy.
> The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke list Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Matthew 2:1-6 describes the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Micah's prophecy.
My friend, this is a repeat of the same prophecy by another person. Are you trying to count this twice?
> In Zechariah 9:9, there is a prophecy that speaks of a future king presenting himself to Jerusalem while riding on a humble donkey. This was written between 520 and 518 BC.
> Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Not very impressive even if true given that donkeys were a common mode of transport in the day.
> The name "Jesus," means "salvation" in Hebrew.
From what my research reveals, Jesus' original birth name was Hoshea, but it was later changed by Moses to Yeshua (meaning, or eventually meaning, salvation) which is the short form of the Aramaic form of the common name 'Yehoshua' (Joshua in English). The name, 'Jesus', was the English version of the Greek form of Yeshua.
Whether any of this is accurate or not is difficult to tell because of the wide range of interpretations I've come across, which more or less demonstrates the perplexing labyrinth of contradicting information in religious history. Ultimately, I think it's safe to say that either he wasn't born with the name 'Jesus' (in any language), or that he was born with that name and it was later redefined to mean 'salvation'. No coincidence here.
> In Zechariah 11:12-13, the prophet spoke of a person being paid 30 pieces of silver to betray someone. This foreshadowed something that happened to Jesus about 500 years later. This was written between 520 and 518 BC.
> Zechariah 11:12-13 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.
> As explained in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas told the Romans when and where they could arrest Jesus without being surrounded by a large crowd of Jesus' followers. But, as explained in Matthew 27:5-7, Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.
I need evidence of this transaction. Where are the witnesses? Your Bible is not providing 'evidence' simply because it makes a prophecy on one page, and then says it's fulfilled on another. It is extremely likely that someone with an 'agenda' would have written the fictional fulfillment of this prophecy in this manner.
Now of course this must be frustrating to you and other religious people when I callously shoot down any credibility whatsoever for your beloved prophecies, and I'll often resort to calls for evidence, of which you can only present the Bible as such, but I think you'll begin to understand that the Bible alone cannot be used to purport 'facts'. If you want something to stick as 'fact', find real records of 30 silver piece transactions, rather than just hearsay written into the Bible. Of course, there'll never be concrete evidence to support a 2000 year old transaction of this nature, so this entire scenario will forever remain reduced to just biblical hearsay, and requires 'faith' to have any merit. This is 'not' fulfillment of a prophecy by any definition.
> In the book of Isaiah it is widely accepted that the 'servant' the main subject of chapter 50, 53, and others is Jesus of Nazareth for many reasons not the least of which is the servant is described as sinless. Jesus is the only one to which the bible ascribes this attribute.
The mythological entity of Jesus Christ may very well have been, by 'definition', sinless, just like Santa Claus, by definition, can fly his sled around with reindeers. You can ascribe any conceivable quality you wish to any mythological creature because that is the nature of fantasy, no reality boundaries.
> In Isaiah 53:5, the prophet described a servant as being punished for the sins of others, and others would be healed by the wounds of this person. This was written sometime between 701-681 BC.
> Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Again, either the real human being Jesus Christ was chosen to fulfill this prophecy, or it never happened and the 'myth' of Jesus Christ was created to fulfill this prophecy. Anybody can write stories. If it did happen, I feel sorry for that poor guy that was chosen to fulfill the prophecy with.
> As explained in the Gospel - the four New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - Jesus was crucified for our sins, even though He was sinless. Christians believe that this ultimate sacrifice redeemed us all from sin in the same way that lambs were once sacrificed as a symbolic way of cleansing people from sin. All of us can be accepted into the Kingdom of God, as though we were sinless, if we accept Jesus as our Savior. Christians believe that we are healed through the wounds that Jesus suffered.
This concept of 'pardoning' sins has always intrigued me as a most interesting means by which to entice followers to join a religion, or to remain faithful. It essentially 'solves' people's guilt and anxiety-related pains by allowing them to believe they are no longer forced to bear the consequences for whatever bad actions they may have performed (which all of us do); burying your head in the sand if you will. I volunteer that this is a very poor method of dealing with wrongdoings as it teaches people 'not' to take responsibility for their actions, and it also encourages further negative actions since the perpetrators can easily dismiss the consequences knowing that they can be 'forgiven' by merely asking for it from their mythological entity that guarantees forgiveness no matter what the offence. The reality is, it would be much 'healthier' mentally and morally if people would learn how to 'correct' their wrongdoings, and learn to prevent themselves from committing future wrongdoings, instead of this desperate attempt to just 'make it go away'. You'll quite often hear stories of criminals, rapists, drug-addicts, or other guilt-laden people, 'finding' Jesus, if for no other reason than to artificially remove themselves from their guilt.
> In Isaiah 53:7, the prophet said that the servant (Jesus) would be afflicted and accused, but like a lamb being led to slaughter, he would remain silent. This was written sometime between 701-681 BC.
> Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
Great story, but still hearsay, and ultimately not very prophetic as many people go to their executions silently.
> In Isaiah 53:9, the prophet wrote about a sinless servant (Jesus) being put to death with the wicked and buried with the rich. This was written sometime between 701-681 BC.
> Isaiah 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Even if it was implying the 'messiah' (which isn't clear, despite your 'Jesus' insert), it would be quite an easy task for the 'followers' of the messiah to bury him where they choose (with the rich), even if they couldn't prevent his death alongside criminals; and they would do this of course because the prophecy told them to do so.
A lot of these 'prophecies' are not prophetic at all when you look at it from the point of view that people 'wanted' these prophecies to come true, and so they 'made' them come true. It's not like these prophecies were hidden away somewhere, just waiting to come true so they could pop out of the woodwork proclaiming, 'See, I told you so'. No, they were public knowledge, and anybody that reads a prophecy, can make it come true, or forge the details to 'make' it true.
> The New Testament says that Jesus was resurrected three days later and ascended into Heaven.
He was not resurrected, and more than anything this proves the credibility of the Bible is seriously flawed, given that people 'cannot' come back to life, no matter how much you love them, or wish it could be so.
> In Isaiah 50:6, the prophet writes about a servant of God who endures abuse at the hands of people which beat him. This was written sometime between 701-681 BC.
> Isaiah 50:6 I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
This, is a prophecy? There are potentially thousands of people throughout history that this scenario could apply to.
> People are sometimes curious, when they read Matthew 27:46 or Mark 15:34, why Jesus, while dying on the cross, said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about 1,000 years before Jesus was crucified.
This phrase, and other similar versions have been in use for a very long time, and are still in use today, so the fact that Jesus may have used it doesn't mean much. If Jesus truly did use this phrase in his final hours, then it seems unlikely that he knew he was the son of your god, for his question makes no sense whatsoever given that he should be relatively secure in what the future holds for him. It's unreasonable to believe that the supernatural version of Jesus would ever 'wonder' about his fate.
> In Psalm 22:7, it speaks of a man surrounded by others who scorn and despise him. This is what happened to Jesus in Matthew 27:39 and Mark 15:29.
Repeat.
> In Psalm 22:7, it speaks of a man being mocked, which is similar in the descriptions of Jesus' crucifixion given in Matthew 27:31, Mark 15:20 and Luke 22:63; 23:36.
Repeat.
> In Psalm 22:8, it says, "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
> In Matthew 27:43, Jesus' enemies taunted him by saying, "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him."
Self-fulfilling prophecy, my friend. Give me a prophecy that the people whom eventually fulfilled it couldn't have had prior knowledge about it.
> In Psalm 22:16, it speaks of a man who was numbered with the transgressors, meaning an innocent man being regarded as being one of a group of criminals. Jesus too was numbered with the transgressors when he was crucified next to two criminals, as described in Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:32 and John 19:18.
Repeat.
Why does repetition of the specific prophecies into different forms, or by different people that knew about these prior prophecies, in any way whatsoever, add one iota of credibility to said prophecies? They didn't each independently come up with their own version of the prophecy, they simply repeated it, which 'doesn't' make it twice as credible. Repetition with paraphrasing is nothing more than an ulterior smoke screen utilized to give a false sense of significance.
> In Psalm 22:16, it speaks of a man whose hands and feet are either pierced, or mauled, or disfigured, depending on which is truly the best English translation of the original verse. In John 19:23,34,37 - Jesus' hands and feet were pierced with nails during the crucifixion process.
A very common form of execution in those days.
> In Psalm 22:17, it speaks of a man who would be surrounded by others who stared and gloated at him. This too was the situation for Jesus during the crucifixion, according to Matthew 27:36 and Luke 23:35.
Repeat
> In Psalm 22:18, onlookers gamble for pieces of clothing that belonged to the person being persecuted.
> As explained in Matthew 27:35, Roman soldiers gambled (cast lots) for articles of Jesus' clothing while he was being crucified.
How is this a prophecy? This was probably a very common thing.
> There are other descriptions in Psalm 22 that sound like an accurate description of what would happen to a person being crucified, such as the disjointing of bones, the drying up of a person's strength, an intense sense of thirst, a heart melting like wax (Jesus was stabbed in the heart with a sword or spear during his crucifixion), and being "poured out" of one's body. When Jesus was stabbed in the heart, blood and water poured out from the wound.
You've entirely shifted from prophecies to preaching. There is nothing here but hearsay and descriptions of typical executions of the day. Again, you are trying to overwhelm with a flood of repetitive, irrelevant, and non-supported information. The 'overload' tactic you are employing is 'also' very commonly utilized by religions, and that is to stir confusion and ultimately submission, due to the onslaught of irreconcilable information fed to followers. Religions 'beat' down the curiosity instinct within its followers by overloading their minds with the sheer magnitude of nonsensical and repetitive information. It's impossible to surmount it all with reason, and so people 'give in' and just accept all this nonsense out of fear of the purported repercussions of being wrong.
I have been forced to remove the remainder of your letter because it simply boiled down to preaching, and strayed from our original goal of trying to find even a single credible-beyond-hearsay prophecy, which we have not accomplished.
> These are just a few and while you may have no problem rationalizing an explanation as to why they do not meet your criteria of a fulfilled prophecy that does make them any less true.
I still have 'nothing' from any of these prophecies that are in any way compelling, or extend beyond the circular supportive referencing within the Bible itself. You've just presented me with hearsay and many tethers for faith. A lot of your Jesus prophecies rest upon some very consistent assumptions, such as: he had ethereal qualities, that the Bible is absolutely correct in all circumstances, and that written hearsay is the equivalent of evidence; none of which are true. In the end, biblical 'prophecies' are so utterly subjective, loosely-interpreted, and laced with agenda, self-fulfillment, repetition in disguise, and creative license, that they 'all' still boil down to 'faith'.
My good friend, all you've proven is that the qualifications for 'truth' lies in the eye of the beholder, and your requirements for 'truth' only extend so far as required by 'faith' and your all-knowing infallible Bible. These two ingredients combine to create a delusional opiate so fulfilling and complete that it seems unnatural to question its authenticity and credibility. Unfortunately for those of us that require 'evidence' as defined by the scientific method, we cannot allow for 'faith' to overwhelm glaring absences of logic and evidence, of which religion is severely mottled. So, it is for some of us to look past the 'high' of religion, and to pursue the challenge of discovering the true nature of reality.
Enjoy your high, my friend, for what it protects you from, would surely devastate the fantasy-dependant chassis of your mind.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
#137 - The dangers of loose interpretation - January 22, 2006, 10:49 AM
Mr. Lowbutton wrote:
> just a few days ago a reported 350 muslim pilgrims died in their persuit to throw rocks at the devil. being such devout believers one would think allah should have intervened to save them. perhaps the one's that perished were the greatest sinners and there was no salvation for them.
What a tragedy; and there are probably thousands of examples of this kind of deadly hysteria throughout our history (witch hunts, crucifixions, demonic possessions, etc.). I think you are quite successfully drawing out the 'ambiguous' nature of a religion's interpretation, and it's this persistent ambiguity that drives people into maddening fear when confronted with scenarios that they can't understand because everyone interprets religious doctrines differently. Of course there is no 'correct' interpretation when you are speaking about a mythological perspective, because it is 'all' nonsense, but I find it particularly vile when human disasters are interpreted as 'divine' acts of a god, as if their accidental deaths were some form of punishment that they so rightly deserved.
> i have been an atheist all my life and can not understand the mindset of these idiots. maybe in one of your articles you might touch on this event.
My impassioned friend, please understand that these people are victims of circumstance, and don't necessarily have less intelligence or potential than you or I. They just sadly grew up immersed in a world of severe ethereal addiction and never had a chance to learn about reality, or could even fathom questioning their faith. The best thing we can do for these people is to demonstrate that love, morality, and compassion exist outside of their mythological perspective, and to offer them channels of reality education to explore. We should never leverage our lucky upbringing that gave us a reality perspective, to think diminutively of these poor lost souls. If you are truly atheist, then you must already realize that we only have each other.
> i read your postings every chance i get, please keep up the good work !
Thank you for the fantastic support.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
#138 - Are facts 'factiods'? - January 22, 2006, 10:57 AM
Mr. Leafstand wrote back:
> Thanks Sean. Yeah, good stuff. I was reading you weblog and, at least from my prespective, there seem to be a lot of pro-religious submissions going down in flames. Good work!
Thanks. We have to admire and respect their tenacity; it makes me hopeful that this energy can one day exert itself in the direction that BetterHuman.org represents.
> I think that the Free Will debate will hinge on whether or not we accept the Bether theory of particle formation. Since we agree that the Universe is fundamentally analog and I can't offer you a solid alternative to your model (yet), I'll concede - but you realise, I'm sure, that doesn't mean that I accept it as a "fact"
I'll be the first to proclaim that there's no such thing as a fact.
> Incidentally, this raises the point - with the complex nature of the topics you're discussion, you do an admirable job of avoiding hypocrisy; I would be putting my foot in my mouth far more frequently in your poisition. But I have seen you make statements that you label as "facts" - such as that free will is an illusion - and then make statements deriding the adoption of "facts", such as "It is the inability of the human ego to accept non-absolutes that drives fantasy into fact and that's where I see 'inverted-logic' empowering this transition." I don't think you can have it both ways
I do apologize for my hypocrisy, and you are correct, it has proven extremely difficult not to trip over myself. I hope it's forgivable when I do. One of the first things that I state in my book, Meme, is that there is no such thing as a 'fact', but I would like to clarify it here and now on the weblog that there is absolutely no such thing as a true 'fact'. The best we can do is to work with seemingly highly probable 'factoids'. Now, I did cut corners on my statement, 'free will is an illusion', and it should have been written, 'my opinion is that free will is an illusion', but I'm hoping that these occasional transgressions can be remedied by the 'automatic' and 'understood' inclusion of 'my opinion is...' to literally everything I say, for that is all it ever is, or all what 'anybody' ever says for that matter. (My opinion is) there are no exceptions. In the interest of efficiency, do you think it fair to continue forth with this implicit caveat?
> If you have an analog universe (that is, the scale of the universe is analog), it seems to me that the scales should be infinite in both directions: big and small.
I'm not sure why you draw this conclusion. Are there not an infinite number of heights in a room, starting at the floor, going to the ceiling, and everything in between, and yet there are no heights beyond or below simply because they are no longer in the room? Infinite resolution does not need to imply infinite endpoints. Ultimately though, I do believe that there's an infinite resolution to describe the 'location' of particles, but the minimum 'size' of the particles is determined by the maximum elasticity of bether. Infinity is a purely mathematical concept that doesn't necessarily have to translate back into reality.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}
#139 - Is BetterHuman.org primarily Humanism? - January 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> For a person to recieve a prophecy ie (information) regarding a future event.This information would have to come from a source/power. That source of power ie(God) must know or be in the future to know what is happening and also be in the present time as well to be able to pass that knowledge on to man. It would seem that God would have these abilities to fulfil the above requirements. If God wasnt the source of this information what other source could there be?? -- tooth fairy??
I think you misunderstand my position on prophecies. I'm not saying they come from somewhere else other than your god, I'm saying they don't exist whatsoever. These very 'vague' references of very 'common' events that the Bible purports as prophecies are nothing more than very likely suppositions that are unwarrantedly frequently repeated in the false portrayal of greater credibility, and ultimately they are purposely fulfilled by those with an agenda to see these prophecies through to fruition. There is nothing magical about stating that something will happen, and then having agenda-driven people in the future 'making' it happen.
> One prophecy that has been predicted is the one regarding the final battle regarding Israel. The Bible states that the world armies will turn on this country and will try to wipe it out. The Bible gives a location, number of armies and what nations that will attack israel. This prophecy doesnt give a pacific date but instead give lots of signs posts of little events that will lead up to Big one
This has not, and is not happening. How is this prophecy fulfilled? For, until it 'is' fulfilled, it still remains a vague prediction that hasn't been proven. How can this establish credibility for your cherished prophecies? As presented above, it is more of an empty, 'watch and see' snub, rather than something that might support your case that prophecies are real.
> No little guy hundreds of years ago could have the ability to fortell what is going to happen. Compared to what the Bible states will happen.
My friend, the Bible states that Jesus walked on water, and that Moses parted the Red Sea, and that Jesus came back from the dead, and that Noah put every animal on Earth on his boat, and that the Earth was made in a week, etc. Your book is filled with magic fables and is no more credible than the Tooth Fairy's autobiography.
> Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence, the same facts: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars, the facts are all the same.
I'll disagree. For example, for the longest time, religion had flat out 'rejected' any evidence of the dinosaurs, simply because it didn't fit in with their Biblical portrayal of the universe. There is no mention of dinosaurs whatsoever in the Bible, however, the existence of dinosaurs is overwhelmingly 'proven' and as such it remains a very sore spot in the context of religion, and is mostly overlooked. This is 'not' the same as accepting and understanding their existence. The best that religious people can do to mix both worlds is to 'step away' from the 'literal' interpretation of the Bible, and instead to relax these perceptions so that the Bible's content becomes more metaphorical. An example, religious people will frequently reconcile the 4 billion year-old age of the Earth against the Bible's stated 7 days of creation, simply by saying that it wasn't 'human' days, it was 'God' days, and his days are longer. A very convenient interpretation.
> Why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start off with different presuppositions these are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them.
Exactly, my friend, and well said. You have just described the concept of a 'theory'. So, are you 'finally' willing to describe your god as a theory? Why is it that you refuse to answer this question?
> When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? Etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present. However, if we weren't there in the past to observe the events of our beginning, how can we know what happened for sure?
By integrating all available evidence into one model, we are most likely to have the best theory as to our origins. Religions 'preclude' evidence (such as the fossils) in order to maintain their persisting perception, even though it is inconsistent with the precluded evidence. Denial of evidence is a very poor way to justify a perception, though this denial tactic does 'retain' the power of the religious power structure and as such, 'denial' of evidence is standard policy for religions (keeping the followers blind, if you will).
> we have a book called the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, which has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past. On the basis of these events i.e. (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists on the other hand have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. No God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. For example evolutionists would present the big bang theory for our beginning and thus all the evidence would support that idea. When Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their views based on their presuppositions.
You are correct, and there's not a single evolutionist out there that denies evolution is a 'theory', which is in stark contrast to the notion that there's 'not' a single religious person out there that's willing to consider their god a 'theory'. Do you not see your argument above as attempting to push us into the position we already hold (that being theoretical) and that if you put us in that category, then you must also follow suit by your very own argument?
> It's not until these two groups actually recognize that the argument is really about the two different assumptions (main issue) i.e. there is a literal God and or there is no God, over the lesser argument of creation vs. evolution.
I think this is pretty obvious to just about everyone.
> First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality - something like a pair of glasses.
As we all wear.
> Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. Do not let the word "secular" mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview.
The first thing I would like to do is to correct your assumption that BetterHuman.org is premised upon 'humanism'. Though there is strong congruency, there are many differences that will be flushed out in the remainder of this text. As to your point that we here at BetterHuman.org are a religion, this may be so, but only within the 'group' definition of religion, and not the default contemporary definition of 'religion' that implies ethereal elements. Your attempt to 'bind' the word 'religion' to our counter-religious philosophy is a futile attempt to have our own anti-religious propaganda turned against ourselves simply by drawing us into the very arena we are attacking, 'religion'.
Well my friend, this tactic is not going to work because despite the dictionary definition of religion being applicable to the notion of a 'society' as well, it is not the broad definition of religion that we are assaulting, it is only the 'ethereally-based' version of religion, and that has 'always' been clearly defined in our tenets. Yes, we have 'faith' in our root 'memes', much like you have 'faith' in yours, but we don't state ours as 'fact', nor do we impose fear and manipulate with false immortality in order to garner power from the vulnerable. This, my friend, is the difference between your religion and mine, the 'evil' that becomes of it; and it is this that will always separate BetterHuman.org from the true essence of a 'religion'.
> Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as "religious," because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education.
This is not the reason. We do not wish to be identified as a religion because the default definition of religion implies an ethereal element, which we do not have. It is 'much' more accurate to identify us as a philosophy or perspective.
> Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists - the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, and no afterlife.
This is correct, and BetterHuman.org subscribes to this as well.
> Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution.
BetterHuman.org subscribes to this as well.
> Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment. If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Thus human beings may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is then not discovered; it is made.
On this point I must disagree entirely, despite the seemingly logical conclusion that without a religiously-defined moral code to adhere to, it would seem that we have absolute free will to perform any degree of action we see fit. By this theory, atheists should be able to kill without remorse, steal without guilt, and generally live life conscience-free. I assure you that this is not possible. Even if a humanist 'denies' that they have intrinsic morality, they do have it, because it is borne of our instincts. There are a great many BetterHuman.org weblog entries that address this exact issue so I won't repeat myself here. Please give it a read.
> Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism.
This may hold true for the contemporary understanding of humanism, but as for its reincarnation within BetterHuman.org, it would be more accurate to describe us as a science-based philosophical perspective of the universe, based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and instinctual morality.
> But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg. A more complete discussion of the Secular Humanist worldview can be found in David Noebel's Understanding the Times, which discusses (in detail) humanism's approach to each of ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history.
Again, this may hold true for contemporary humanism, but we are BetterHuman.org, and we have our own definition of a mission, morality, and perspective. Please recognize that we have many differences.
> This debate is of course is heating up with the separation of God and state, it would seem that the humanistic view will pull no stops in getting rid of Christianity.
BetterHuman.org's approach to the elimination of mythology will extend only to education and legal opposition.
> But the biggest source of conflict is that humanism has the nerve to use science as a vehicle to prove that evolution is the only way that we evolved. Science isn't biased it is a tool to reveal, when you add humanism to science. You only get what the humanists wants you to know from science regardless of the truth might actually be. Seems to be very one sided and not realistic.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but to a large extent, you are correct in identifying that virtually all vocal camps exercise data to meet their agenda. I guess that leaves it up to you to explore your own interpretations of science from the source, outside the bias of propaganda (which includes your own religious bias), which I would strongly encourage you to do.
Fantastic letter,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
#140 - The demons in Sean Sinjin's head - January 22, 2006, 11:38 AM
Mr. Gladyoke wrote back:
> ABOVE THE ABBEY de theleme in Rabelais' Gargantua est superecrit le suivante:
> Fais-ce que tu voudras!
> this is a perfect motto for your monastery without walls: do as you wish!
Almost, try: Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anybody, including yourself.
> Christ also teaches us to laugh in the face of imaginary suffering.
So denying the suffering is the lesson to be learned here? Or perhaps to 'laugh' at uncomfortable situations? Instead, shouldn't we 'teach' life-management skills so that people can address suffering in the most appropriate and constructive way, instead of 'burying' it in denial? I would venture that thousands of years of ego-placating spiritual pursuits, and the promotion of the obstinate ethereal 'cockiness' you describe above, have created entire cultures that burden intelligent humanity with a plethora of mental illnesses that overwhelm our ability to seek true happiness. Religious mythology has created an entire mindset (of global proportions) that sickens the mind with the sole driving pursuit of ethereal ego-placation; ego-junkies if you will.
> BUT, and woe is you it doth not! what are you trying to avoid by tilting after theological windmills?
I'm going to surmise that your poetic prose is asking me what Freudian self-induced suppression of my internal struggles I am attempting to camouflage with my pronounced assault on religion. Sure, you could point to my very religious father as being causative, or to the childhood traumas each of us bear that manifests in peculiar ways as adults, or even to textbook syndromes that paint broadly disturbed visions of madness; I'm sure I have symptoms of them all. I volunteer, however, that whatever demons underlie my motivation for BetterHuman.org, I certainly can't identify them, and ultimately, is this important? Does a complete psycho-analysis of my internal wiring in any way alter the validity of BetterHuman.org? I think it's more important to look ahead to what we are hoping to accomplish, rather than try to identify those flaps of a butterfly's wings in my deep past.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 9.125, 9.130, 10.140, 10.146, 11.149, 11.151}
#141 - Does BetterHuman.org blame religion for everything? - January 29, 2006, 11:28 AM
Mr. Cardhome wrote back:
> I once knew a manic depressives whose cycles are based around faith and its absence and seem to change their religion depending on whether they wanted to drink and gamble (Catholisism), wanted to curry favour with attractive female missionaries (Mormonism) or to seek purification from drinking and gambling (Islamism). He also lies a tremendous amount, possibly partly a consequence of having no qualm about lieing to himself or perhaps as a result of a desire for the grandiose which may have lead him to his religions.
It would seem to me that this individual's issues are not stemming from religion, but rather from their own internal turmoil. They use religion as a 'justification' tool, leveraging each religion's disparate tenets to justify whatever compulsion they are currently pursuing. Though religion is involved, religion has little to do with their underlying problem.
> By my worst experience with a "mentally ill" person was a pathological liar with whom I studied at university. ... He had the misfortune to be a vicars son. He used to write to me from fictional email addresses pretending to be various people he had actually invented and told about stories from his fictional past. ... This person was later (having read a great deal about mental illnesses) "diagnosed" with schizophrenia but was I believe simply using the psychiatric system to get money out from the state and to to excuse his behaviour in terms of a debillitating condition rather than to take responsibility for his actions.
> Now, my interpretation of this behaviour is that religion played a pivotal role. ... Brought up in a religious household X began to entertain doubts about the veracity of his parent's religion. Distanced at an early age from his peers by his own religious faith X lies to his parents about his doubts and feels increasingly isolated and his ego becomes totally unsupported by his family: how can a person feel that their parent';s love is genuine if they would be so dissapointed to have brought up an atheist. .... Seeing an (initially esteemed?) other (myself) to be just as gullible as his father was for believeing, or as he had been for believing, temporarily reduced his own feelings of inadequacy.
Again, I would be hesitant to place the gamut of blame for this person's issues upon religion itself. Understandably, religion played a large role in this scenario, but there are probably millions of similar stories that can be told about other people, in which religion is not involved whatsoever. BetterHuman.org is not attempting to blame religion for mental and emotional conditions (such as schizophrenia) that would surface even in the absence of religion, we are specifically targeting religion because it can 'create' insanity in a person even though they might not be biologically predisposed to such. That's not to say your contributions are irrelevant, since they do help us to clarify the succinct nature of our discord with religion.
> Another vicar's son I vaguely know and try and avoid is also very mentally "variant" from the rest of society. Asides from his homosexuality (which I don't have an objection to at all) ... Of course I don't know enough about the developmental psychology of homosexuality to answer with any certainty the question of whether his religious upbringing contributed to this assumption of a benign but alienated category or to his be coming a nazi. I would suspect that a religious upbringing with its curtailment of expression of sexuality, coupled with bitterness at sexual alienation caused partly by religious doctrine, might lead to overcompensation and a change of sexuality.
The first thing that I would like to state is that, typically, in most cases of homosexuality, it is a biological orientation, meaning that homosexuals are not 'taught' to be homosexual, nor do they 'choose' to be homosexual, they are 'born' with a very natural attraction to the same sex. This is quite easy for you to prove to yourself, simply ask virtually any homosexual if they 'chose' to be homosexual, and they will generally reply 'no'. Now, in scenario described above, it must be distinguished that 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual behavior' are not always mutually inclusive. It is possible for someone that is not naturally inclined to be homosexual, to still exhibit homosexual tendencies, though this is rare. In these circumstances, there are usually many other mitigating factors that contribute to this behavior, from as simple as 'rebellion', to as complicated as mental illness. What makes it important to distinguish homosexuality from non-homosexuals that engage in homosexual behaviorisms, is that the latter tends to indicate irrational behavior that stems from unnatural causes, whereas real, biological homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Nature produces homosexuals on a predictable and frequent basis, so how can it be 'un'natural.
Getting back to your example, it seems that your friend may fit in the 'troubled' category, and quite possibly both categories, of the homosexual paradigm, but yet again I'll state, this is not the fault of religion. If we are to demonize religion, let it be for reasons that it is directly responsible for, and not merely to scapegoat religion for afflictions that would manifest even in its absence.
> My own experience of religion was not entirely pleasant either. Aged 15 or so I decided that god was going to damn my agnostic father and sister and many others for their non-Christian beliefs. For a long time I was so angry with god that I swore in my prayers and then prayed for forgiveness knowing myself that it was only the threat of damnation and not a love of god that caused me to pray. This was a passing phase but at other times I prayed obssesively following the same regime each night so that I wouldn't miss one out. Whilst this always seemed to me to be a matter of faith at the time I would now regard the whole thing as an obssesive compulsive disorder. Obssesive compulsive disorders (OCDs) hinge around rituals to prevent hard-to-detect causes of doom; god and germs both fit into this category and both are frequently involved in OCDs.
This is a great perspective to introduce into our weblog, that of religion manifesting compulsive behaviors and thought patterns into the psyches of the population, on a massive scale. Wonderful observation. Anyone who's ever witnessed the Jews praying to the 'wall', or of Muslim's facing toward Mecca during prayer at multiple times per day, or to even the little compulsions that manifest verbally in common dialogue (e.g. God bless you, Jesus loves you, saying grace, praying, hail mary's, etc.), is observing compulsive behavior. It might be easy to surmise that they suffer from genuine OCD, but the difference is that people afflicted with genuine OCD are generally aware they are being irrational, which is clearly not the case with religious people. This doesn't detract, however, from the serious and debilitating nature of the compulsive behaviors that religions instill.
> Losing my faith was very painful for me, and happened, age 21, at a very dark time in my life. However, without losing faith I doubt that I could ever have had the wholeness of psyche (Gestallt) introspective or empathic skills (the later proceeding largely from the former) that I have now.
Congratulations on your awakening; and believe me my brother, I know how difficult the journey was.
> It seems noteable to me that poorer more oppressed countries tend to be religious; this may suggest that religion contributes to poverty or that poverty leads to a 'need' for religion.
Close, I believe the statistical relationship tends to relate the strength of religious influence to a lack of 'education', rather than poverty, though countries with serious poverty tend to have lower quality education systems. Poverty can in its own right, however, exacerbate the influence of religion due to the opiate effect that religion can have upon the suffering of those who are poverty-stricken.
> Monotheistic religions will always dispose tendencies towards feelings that it is ethically alright to kill if it prevents the promulgation of blasphemous ideas
A good point that exposes how easily humans can conveniently 'bend' the interpretation of any religious doctrine in order to justify horrific acts of violence that would otherwise have no place in the 'spirit' of their religions. Can it even be imagined how many innocent souls have been crushed out of existence over the centuries by the sheer ignorant will of ethereally-empowered oppressors?
> I don't think however that it is entirely fair to blame religion for violence.
You followed this with a specific example, but I think it's important to recognize that this point is fair for virtually all scenarios. Religion is only a 'tool' that the tyrant leaders utilize to either sedate or mobilize the masses. Holy wars are fought by soldiers at the front lines because they believe they are doing it in the name of their gods, whilst the leaders send them to their eternal deaths for the sole purpose of power acquisition. It is the leaders that are responsible for the administration of violence.
> In summary I would argue that desperation leads to violence and that religion is usually at most only a catalyst and that if violence is inevitable anyway then that catalysis performs a consequentially indifferent role (smaller conflicts more often and larger conflicts more rarely).
I somewhat agree, but I do believe that it would be much harder for tyrant leaders to incite their members into performing violence if they weren't mislead into perceiving some ethereal justification for that violence. If soldiers were aware that their lives were largely being sacrificed to protect the wealth of the few, and that there was no afterlife, well, no propaganda in the world is going to get them to rush into enlistment.
As for desperation, a lot of the perceived desperation in the world is due to the stark contrast between first-world lifestyles, and the seemingly prehistoric lifestyles of third-world nations. Theirs may seem an awful life of destitution and misery, and to some extent that is true, but what a lot of people don't understand is that a 'lack' of money is not always a miserable life (which is a capitalistically-biased perception). Prior to modern civilization, humankind lived without money for many thousands and thousands of years, and to suggest that every person who lived prior to the concept of 'wealth' was miserable and suffering, is to not understand that humans are well adapted to living off the land.
I have personally witnessed first-hand, many so-called 'impoverished' countries, and found to my great surprise (and pleasure) that the people who do live off the land, and haven't been corrupted by the concept of greed and money, are some of the happiest, most generous, compassionate, and beautiful people on Earth. They are still living in the hunter-gatherer world that we humans are best adapted to genetically, and as such are benefiting from living a life in perfect harmony with nature and their biology. For those that can somehow elude the tyranny, greed, corruption, and freedom oppression of the modern world, I envy them.
> So how about the role of religion in controlling population? Many religions, e.g. Catholicism, are adverse to birth control or consider it worthy to produce large families
The promotion of large families mean more inevitable members of the faith, and eventually more power and money for the church.
> How many people abstain from reproduction because they wouldn't wish the ultimately futile pursuit of life on another generation? Surely atheism and the hopelessness that can stem from it helps to keep populations down and the human situation, paradoxically, less hopeless!
This is a bleak and rather unfortunate take on a reality perspective. The merits of population control aside, it is part of BetterHuman.org's mission to help one define their personal path to a fantastic and fulfilling life, much more rewarding than any religious perspective can hope to offer, simply because ours will be real. There is nothing hopeless about reality once you understand that the level of your happiness is a direct result of how much you intelligently and empathically pursue it; and I'm sure your many children could also benefit from this healthy, atheistic, and optimistic outlook.
Many people view atheism as 'hopeless' simply because it means you must healthily confront and accept your inevitable death. Death is a very natural part of the cycle of life, and you cannot escape it no matter which perspective you may choose to believe in, so in this context, even religious perspectives are 'hopeless'. A lifetime of hiding from the reality of our death, behind the mythological veil of religion, does absolutely nothing to spare you from fear of it, in fact, the persistent denial of it (by trying to force yourself to believe in the afterlife) grossly exaggerates the degree of terror that 'death' holds, and I submit that religions actually foster a much worse and unduly terrifying perspective of death; one laced with horrific fantastical ramifications (meeting your maker, possibly purgatory, or hell).
All death is, is the end of life, and every living creature that has ever, or will ever exist, must die. If you perceive this as 'hopeless', then you are wasting your precious time focusing on the wrong thing; you're supposed to be 'living'.
Thanks for a great contribution,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}
#142 - Beyond reach - January 29, 2006, 12:44 PM
Mr. Wireran wrote back:
> you are plain stupid. to bad you are not as smart as you try to pretend to be..you monkey people just need to shut up and sit down
{Note to reader: I did not reply directly to this poor soul to avoid antagonizing them further. This person obviously has a very difficult time dealing with life and I wish I could have compelled this person to step out of their shell enough to at least see the benefits of mutual respect, but alas, it was not meant to be. This feedback is posted here not to make fun of them, nor to make them look stupid; it is here to demonstrate the horrible and debilitating fallout of religious mythology, and how socially, intellectually, and emotionally handicapped this person is as a result of the evil of religion. BetterHuman.org's mission is to end this type of suffering.}
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 8.117, 9.127, 9.132, 10.142}
#143 - One person at a time - January 29, 2006, 12:49 PM
Mr. Coldrent wrote:
> You're definitely getting the better of them. I am more convinced everyday though that it is a very long battle to win over even a very small amount of people.
Agreed, and this is due to the long-standing 'momentum' of current perceptions. For most people, it is very difficult to go against the flow simply because they don't feel informed enough to make an educated decision to reject the status quo. Earning people's trust is paramount to successfully gaining enough support to begin to resist the flow, and to eventually shift the tide into the direction of reality. It will be some time before 'critical mass' is accomplished, but I believe this is long overdue, and when it happens it will be quick, and unstoppable. I can only hope to witness this magnificent event in human intellectual evolution with my own eyes.
When this finally happens, there will be a sequence of events that will arise at this critical turning point in time: the first being humankind's rejection of mythology, and then the subsequent rationalizations (life is too short) that will lead to humankind's rejection of their self-imposed slavery (employment). There will be a serious shakedown, and once the dust has settled and society has reorganized, those new people will look back upon our time as the great 'enslavement' era, where the masses were unwittingly programmed for, and harvested into, these colossal religious and economic power structures that only served the few.
> I've sat with some people that I thought were fairly intelligent only to have them turn the conversation to god and take a serious hit to their credibility.
I know exactly what you mean, but if anything, they demonstrate the severity and power of ethereal addiction such that even the most intelligent people can be lacking in enough necessary information to put together a complete picture of reality in their minds, and to recognize religion for what it is, mythology. Raw intelligence is not always enough to compensate for a lack of reality education.
> (it) makes me feel the battle is sometimes futile. Fight on though, someone has to make a difference.
I will, and we will. Trust in that we humans will necessarily evolve out of religion's insane grasp, with or without BetterHuman.org. It is the course of intellectual evolution and an inevitable plateau that we will reach in due course. We have been ready for this transition for a very long time, so let's prod it along shall we?
Thanks for your support,
Sean Sinjin
#144 - Uniting with atheists - January 29, 2006, 01:01 PM
Ms. Tellfour wrote back:
> Hi there - I am finishing Meme as we speak, and what a lovely book it has been so far. Quite different and frankly intriguing because of it.
Thank you for the compliments. I hope you will maintain this opinion unto completion.
> NOW let me clarify one thing. My question about contacting other groups was certainly not that you would affiliate with them but rather that their members might appreciate your betterhuman web site for it's own merits. Like me, other Atheists will relate to the philosophy itself. It is that old 'comfort in like minds' that gives you the warm and fuzzies thing I was going for.
Apologies, my friend, if my initial response strayed too far from your intended meaning. I understand your very meritable point, and in this context, my lack of networking really comes down to goal prioritizing. As it stands, I spend an incredible amount of time responding to and weblogging the BetterHuman.org emails, and it doesn't leave me much time for networking. However, networking will become much more important in the near future as the time comes to push the content, rather than to keep filling it out. I just want to be sure that enough content is available, and to that end, once I feel that we have matured to a level that we can be consistent, intelligent, and well-practiced, I will feel more comfortable extending our reach. We are still in an information reconnaissance phase, as well as evolving our desired portrayal.
Again, thanks for your sincere interest; it is very encouraging and motivating to receive your support.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 9.134, 10.144, 14.181, 18.248}
#145 - A sin, or not a sin - January 29, 2006, 01:11 PM
Ms. Mailpalm wrote back:
> Do you have any lectures / seminars planned?
You flatter me. I will tell you that I have imagined many avenues for communicating the ideals of BetterHuman.org and I feel most comfortable behind the written word, for many reasons, but the most important one is that I feel the best work is produced slowly and deliberately, not off the cuff. I prefer to produce content from 'deep' thought, and not 'fast' thought. Though a lecture may somewhat lend itself to this, it still becomes interactive and I am hesitant to answer questions without a great deal of thought behind the answers, making it very impractical to pursue this channel. That said, I am not opposed to the opportunity to verbalize the BetterHuman.org ideals if the forum is unidirectional, but nothing is planned in the short term.
I am also hesitant to physically expose myself to the possibility of a religiously-motivated fanatic reprisal. There are a lot of severely misguided individuals out there that perceive BetterHuman.org as something that needs to be destroyed, and myself along with it. To this end, it will be extremely unlikely to find me in an unsecured public forum.
> Well this is turning out to be totally absorbing.
I'm very happy you find the material interesting.
> Pride
> I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of hostility in my past. And have since found out that it was peoples' Pride that preceded it. (not saying that all hostility stems from pride, but mostly in my case) As a result, I consider pride to be a source of destructiveness. I have and still look for occasions / situations where pride is constructive and as yet have not found one?
What we are experiencing here is the bane of all communication, that being varying definitions in terminology. That's not to say one is wrong and the other is right, but it does mean that there needs to be a 'translation' done in order to truly understand the content from another person. In the example above, I would have used the word 'ego' instead of 'pride' as I define pride as synonymous with self-esteem. Pride is the instinct that wants to say, "I love myself because I'm a good human", and starves if you don't truly believe you are a good human. It's a very nobility-generating instinct.
> Ego
> I have worked out (correctly or not) that Pride works -through- the ego. And therefore probably do other sources. Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Lust.
As I define it, 'pride' is the other side of 'ego', meaning that pride feeds internally, and ego requires external nourishment. Ego is the instinct that wants to say, "I want everyone to love me, worship me, and to serve my needs" (sounds a lot like Jesus Christ, doesn't it? hint..hint..).
I would also categorize greed and gluttony together as the insatiable appetite to 'acquire'. This instinct says, "I want that because I don't have it". Usually the existence of this instinct is explained by its function in 'greedily' acquiring sustenance for our primitive ancestors, allowing for the stronger to survive, however, as I'll explain below, this instinct is quite diverse in function.
The greed instinct is interesting because it might seem logical to presume it should necessarily become obsolete and evolve out of our instincts over time because it is so counterproductive to social harmony and quite wasteful to the individual. The unfortunate thing about it though is that this greed instinct plays a very vital role in stabilizing the human gene pool, as in it stabilizes and centers it, making it difficult to form 'branches' in our species tree. The greed instinct accomplishes all this because its most primitive purpose is simply to help us to identify desirable genetic traits in the opposite sex that we don't currently have. You've heard the old adage, 'opposites attract'? Well, that the greed instinct at work. Whatever shortcomings you perceive you have (don't like your nose, or hair, height, or eye color, etc.), you will find the opposite inordinately attractive in a desirable mate and you must 'have' it, as in acquiring those genes for your progeny. This greed instinct keeps the desirable genes circulating in the human gene pool, and keeps the range of deviation of our DNA to within close proximity of the average.
Since civilized humanity has surfaced, our modern world has introduced amazing new gadgets, trips, fashion, etc. that we've never been exposed to before in our evolution, and we're now held prisoner to this greed instinct in this perpetual chase to 'acquire' all that we can get our hands on, no matter what the cost. The more clever tyrants of our species are quick to recognize this powerful 'greed' handle for manipulating the masses, and as quickly as a self-enslavement structures (employment) are put together, people are throwing themselves into indentured servitude, chasing the unlimited 'must-haves' that the tyrants incessantly dangle in front of our eyes.
I'm not keen on assigning 'sloth' to any particular instinct, unless you want to loosely define the desire to sleep as instinctually driven. I would rather perceive sleep, laziness, or any form of apathy as nothing more than a biological approach to conserving energy, which was in short supply prior to domesticated food supplies. Resting is more the 'absence' of instinctual influence.
'Wrath' is another synonym for the rage/fear instinct, and yes they are driven upon the same foundation, as in rage is manifested from fear. Rage is a very powerful instinct that says, "I am frightened, and I will project great power to hopefully intimidate the source of this fear". This instinct of course played a very crucial role in the development and protection of our species from the beginning of time. It is one of the most primitive instincts we have and served us well in terms of maintaining the social order of our more recent ancestors.
These days, however, this obsolete instinct often causes much more harm than good. We are often forced to stifle this autonomic instinct as it tries to surface in reaction to daily stresses. Unfortunately, our modern world won't allow for phenomenal outbursts of energy because it usually causes unreasonable harm. Exercise is the best outlet for this energy, but not enough people are doing this; instead they are bottling up this rage, which does nothing but fester an unhealthy mind and body. We need to unleash this energy eventually so it is much better to do it in a controlled and beneficial way (exercise), rather than bursting like a volcano and wreaking unnecessary primitive havoc in your more civilized world.
'Envy' is a lighter euphemism for greed, typically applied in a context where someone wants what they cannot ever have.
'Lust' is quite likely the most powerful influence we have in our lives, for it forms the very root of virtually all other instincts. There is a very elaborate explanation of how all the instincts tie together to aid in reproduction that I have outlined in great detail in my book, Meme. I won't burden the weblog with that much material but it is very important information that will clarify a lot of details about the structure of the instinctual mind.
It should be noted that the above categorically-defined 'sins' are not sinful in any way. You are a product of nature and these are the tools that nature equipped us with to survive in a hostile prehistoric world. You are not to blame for possessing these instincts, nor should you feel any guilt whatsoever for any 'desires' that they 'project' into your consciousness since you have no control over their needs, however, you 'are' responsible for the proper and intelligent placation of these instincts in a matter that is considerate to your fellow humans.
> As I understand it, the ego consists of 3 domains - Security, Sensation and Power. And the need to fulfil the addictions of those domains (although the appetite is insatiable) causes all the destructive acts of man.????
Again, terminology and explanations of something so abstract as the instincts can vary wildly, and yet still be correct from a different angle. One point I am immediately congruent with though is that the ego/greed instincts cause all human-based destruction.
> At this time I see the ego as a 'domain in the brain'. Through which the seven sources (above) seek to prevail.
I would probably stray away from the simplistic religious understanding of our human 'desires' simply due to religion's limited understanding of the instinctual 'root' of these desires. We have more desires than just those seven, and to define them as sins is a failing in understanding the very natural biological causation of these motivations.
Ego may cause virtually all the evil in the world, but all religions themselves are literally bursting with ego, so by its own categorization, religion is heavily laced with ego sin. Trying to eliminate the influence of ego would be about as effective as trying to ignore your stomach when you're hungry, it's unavoidable; so, it's much better to find ego-placating outlets that are beneficial (sports, acting, etc.), rather than destructive (wars, employment slavery, etc.).
Greed/Gluttony are tough ones to redeem, especially when defined separately from their more pious cousin, 'Genuine Need'. I'll agree to stamp these ones as bad.
Sloth/sleep/relaxation/apathy are not inherently sinful. If you're happy and aren't hurting anyone with your laziness, enjoy. You don't have to be a super-achiever to achieve true happiness.
Wrath/revenge/hate. Very powerful and destructive energies, but 'always' reflective of some inner fear, no matter how far removed; and from this point of view it's important to recognize that fear is not a sin. Addressing the source of this fear in an intelligent way can prevent this rage from manifesting.
Lust has the 'potential' to be bad when it violates another by not acquiring their mature consent to participate, but other than this caveat, there is 'nothing', and I repeat 'nothing' sinful about any form of sexual outlet that you wish to (safely) partake in. Do not ever believe that masturbating, same-sex, group sex, or anything sexual you can think of that doesn't hurt yourself or another (or anything) is in any way inappropriate or 'sinful'. Religions love to oppress sexual freedom with a myriad of ill-placed guilt mechanisms so it is for you to 'break' those ridiculous 'guilt' connections in your head and use logic instead when pursuing sexual placation. This is the most amazing instinct we have so don't let eons of religious blasphemy take nature's greatest treat away from you.
> At this time I can not rule out the possibility of a spiritual dynamic to mankind.
I assure you that what you perceive as your 'spirit' would cease to exist if the neural activity in your brain was halted. The sensation of 'wholeness' beyond the physical, is the illusion of 'consciousness', but is nothing more than the sum of billions of neurons firing off in your brain.
> I recently watched the film 'A. I.' and it occurred to me that without spirit we are artificial.
What gives us the 'flavor' of spirit that would separate us from a robot, would be the driving purpose given to us by the instincts. Should we instill these same instincts into a robot, we will have created a very real human. Perhaps we can define your concept of 'spirit' as the combined influence of the instincts manifesting into your consciousness?
> There seems no point. Life can't be about just making the most of it because we are here, can it?
My dear lost soul of a friend. This is the most difficult thing for religious people to understand, that there is 'no' ultimate purpose to life. We are not born to 'fulfill' a greater purpose, we are just born to live, that is all. Life is the byproduct of eons of energy flow onto Earth's surface which, by the mechanism of evolution, created our energy-conduit bodies that serve no other purpose than to channel energy. We are the passive result of probability, and all the wishing for and ego-demanding of a more ethereally-worthy existence will not make it so.
I know how disappointing and flat this definition of life seems when compared to the magical fantasyland of the 'afterlife' and 'meeting the creator' and such, but it should immediately expose just how lewd, ulterior, and disgusting the unmitigated antics of religions are in their immoral pursuit of follower 'recruitment'. A large majority of humanity is mentally enslaved to religion because of their fear of death, and those followers are programmed to believe that their only purpose is to pursue religiously ordained goals and behaviors (that ultimately benefit the power of the churches) and this predefines purpose for them with immortality as a reward for compliance. What happens when we expose religions for the frauds they are, suddenly that purpose no longer exists, and an entire lifetime of pursuing that ethereal purpose has been wasted, leaving behind a very disoriented, terrified, and purposeless shell of a human.
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
{All letters from this contributor: 9.125, 9.130, 10.140, 10.146, 11.149, 11.151}
{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}
{All letters from this contributor: 8.117, 9.127, 9.132, 10.142}
{All letters from this contributor: 9.134, 10.144, 14.181, 18.248}
{All letters from this contributor: 8.107, 8.114, 9.122, 9.135, 10.145, 16.217}