Page 13 |
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:
#172 - Running with assumptions - Mar 19, 2006, 12:45 PM
#173 - Fear manipulation - Mar 25, 2006, 08:06 AM
#174 - Voodoo - Mar 25, 2006, 08:34 AM
#175 - Steven Hawking on God - Mar 25, 2006, 08:47 AM
#176 - Same old stuff - Mar 25, 2006, 08:55 AM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#171 - How to define a moral code - March 19, 2006, 12:04 PM |
Mr. Wheatstart wrote back:
> I basically agree with the position of interpretation. I would like to point out that the Christian moral code is objective as it is based on the authority of the bible. We can discuss at length the authority of the bible vs. BetterHuman.org's view on morality if you like that would be very interesting I suspect.
I suspect that would be a short conversation. Fundamentally, we are reaching for two different goals, yours being to adhere to your religious definition of morality, and BetterHuman.org's being to apply logic and empathy to define our morality. I don't believe there's much to discuss as neither of us have any intention of budging from our positions, and neither of us are naïve enough to believe we can convince the other of the merits of our own. However, if you wish to contrast your tenets against ours, I'd be happy to engage this with you.
You previously stated:
> This is not 'hate' as I understand it - it is 'justice'. The sin is hated not the sinner.
To which I replied:
"My friend, I don't accept your approach at 'mincing words' here. Nobody loves a thief, even if they stop stealing, because it is perceived that these negative actions manifest from a deeper, intrinsic and always-present essence of a thief."
And your response:
> I am not mincing words at all. Either we don't understand one another's line of thought or you are twisting my words.
I'm not interested in how you can 'legally' vindicate your position by splitting hairs on specific terminology; I'm trying to expose your innate feelings towards homosexuals. I will attempt to justify this position further down.
> I believe somebody loves a thief even if it just Jesus Christ.
I also wasn't referring to all-forgiving definition of your mythological creature, I was referring specifically to 'you' and your fellow followers, for these are the people that homosexuals have to bear the judgment of in reality.
> I have a couple of cousins that are homosexual and I love them.
I'm also not referring to your homosexual relatives that you've become familiar with and built an established trust over a lifetime.
Let's put this into direct focus, how would you feel about a new neighbor that is openly homosexual? Would you let them babysit your kids after gaining the same familiarity with them as you would require before you'd similarly allow a new heterosexual neighbor to babysit your kids?
> Don't you have someone who is close to you but they are religious? Do you not condone their religious lifestyle but still love them?
Yes of course I still love them, but I don't condemn them (or write tenets that teach to kill them) because of their religious pursuits. I don't consider religious people evil or immoral; and I couldn't imagine comparing religious people (who are good people at heart but have misinformation in their heads) to a thief (who is utterly selfish and acts as if without conscience).
> Christianity would have us love a thief even though we may also believe that the thief be subjected to justice. He may be a thief but he can change.
Your continuing analogy of a thief being representative of the mentality of a homosexual rests solely upon your still unqualified presumption that homosexuality is a 'choice'. Therefore, this analogy is only as relevant as the accuracy of your assumptions.
> (I do not) condone the homosexual lifestyle but I have welcomed homosexuals into my home on a few occasions that are not family relations. Not to care for my children but for social events.
Again, it's not a redemption to use these 'safe' encounters with homosexuals as an example of countering any perception of your abhorrence to perhaps a much less familiar homosexual neighbor (as in the example above). You may still profess otherwise, but as you've repeatedly pointed out, verbal testimony has no credibility whatsoever, so perhaps the real test would be to 'actually' procure the services of a homosexual babysitter in order to fully demonstrate your ability to tolerate that paradigm.
> These specific people I would indeed trust to care for my children. I did not require that they denounce their homosexual behavior
Forgive me my friend, but based upon your writings, I don't believe you. From your perspective, this is exactly the same as telling me that you'd let a 'thief' care for your children, which I'm fairly certain you'd never allow. Feel free to prove me wrong.
> They are not permanently condemned in my mind there is always hope.
What you may never come to realize is that your statement above sadly does permanently condemn them.
> Saved by design - condemned by choice. There is also the foundation of all the scientific studies done. None of which prove genetic causation for homosexuality, therefore the logical position is that there is no genetic causation for homosexuality it is a lifestyle choice.
How does not having evidence for one position possibly justify holding the opposite position for which there is just as much absence of evidence? Where is this evidence that supports your 'choice' position? I myself have tried to find this 'evidence' you speak of but all I have found is an unbelievable number of websites in support of your position that also regurgitate your same religiously-motivated 'opposite' pseudo-logic over and over: "there's no proof of a genetic cause so they 'must' be choosing to be homosexual". The one massive failing in this 'logic' is that it doesn't leave room for the possibility that we don't currently have the biological technology to determine sexual orientation. By precluding that option, you have hastily closed the door on what could very well be the real answer.
To demonstrate the fallacy of this 'opposite' logic, imagine I flipped a coin and let it settle on the ground. I tell you that the result is 'not' tails. You immediately respond with, the answer is 'heads', and walk away without ever looking. Unfortunately, what you didn't see is that the coin landed on its edge and neither side is facing up. You may argue that the odds of that are extremely unlikely, but that's because you are making the 'assumption' that the coin is very thin. The coin in this scenario, however, isn't thin, it's actually quite thick (like a stack of coins would be), making this 'on its side' option quite relevant. The moral of the story is: there may be more possible solutions to a problem than immediately meets the eye.
Ultimately, my friend, I'm not asking you to prove you're right, because I know that's impossible. What I'm really trying to ask of you is to give yourself room for error, because the consequences of your being wrong are absolutely catastrophic; with millions upon millions of victims whose lives are ruined by this thoughtless casting of a draconian judgment of immorality. Your beliefs toward homosexuality are 'exactly' as senseless and prejudice as claiming that "all negroes are evil because they are black". The most unfortunate part about this disgusting analogy is that there is absolutely no exaggeration to its extremity.
> Here is my scientific and logical evidence which you claim I have none
I'm confused; you state the above, and yet I haven't read anything you've written that could be construed as more than regurgitated hearsay. Is this your 'evidence'?
> where is your scientific evidence?
This is a moot exercise since you can (and possibly will) rebut all my findings with an avalanche of pseudo-logic counter-studies, but these are very interesting articles:
http://www.soulforce.org/
http://www.lesbian.org/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus2.htm
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu
I found especially compelling the statistic that if one identical twin is homosexual, then the other twin is more than 50% likely to also be homosexual. A very powerful indicator of genetic pretense.
Despite these resources, even I still don't give much merit to many scientific studies that claim to have identified the biological parameters that directly cause homosexuality. I personally haven't come across a compelling scientific process that can definitively describe the biological constituents that lead to homosexuality; but, there is no evidence 'either' to support a 'choice' perspective. This argument will (at least for quite some time) remain unprovable and hence either position held will be based upon circumstantial evidence, intuition, and possibly quite marred by agenda-driven interpretation.
Personally, my intuition leads me to believe that it must be genetic since I myself am absolutely incapable of 'choosing' which sex to find attractive. I was born heterosexual, and it is impossible for me to be sexually attracted to the male gender; I couldn't even fake it if I tried. I can only assume (reinforced by ubiquitous testimony of homosexuals themselves) that they did not 'choose' to find their own gender attractive, and that they have a deep instinctual impetus to that attraction.
> First, "inborn" and "normal" are not necessarily the same. Even if homosexuality is someday proven to be inborn, inborn does not necessarily mean normal. Any number of defects or handicaps, for example, may be inborn, but we'd hardly call them normal for that reason alone. Why should we be compelled to call homosexuality normal, just because it may be inborn?
Ok, continuing with your definition of 'normal' versus 'handicapped', and assuming then that someday we determine homosexuality to categorically be a handicap, should homosexuality still be considered immoral? I don't believe you consider other forms of handicap immoral, so why separate out homosexuality?
> Second, inborn tendencies towards certain behaviors do not make those behaviors moral.
Again, it comes down to the moral code being applied in each situation. Homosexuality is not immoral in a purely logical and empathic moral code; it is only your Bible that pollutes the interpretation of their harmless desires and actions into something immoral. Now, the only reason your Bible defines it as immoral in the first place is due to its assumption that homosexuals are 'choosing' their orientation. Should this orientation be proven to be a biological handicap, then by definition, they are no longer making a 'choice', and can no longer be considered 'immoral' in a biblical context since they are now clearly manifestations of your god and you must accept them for who they are.
> Interesting theory, I believe science has come to understand that our mental condition is part of a complex interplay between our biology and our environment. Not entirely biologically driven as some would theorize or entirely learned.
I do believe that the environment shapes the nature of how you mitigate and intelligently express your instinctual influences; however, the environment has absolutely no influence upon the nature of the base instincts. You are helplessly subject to their interpretations of reality, but once these reactions have entered your consciousness, you 'can' control how these reactions manifest from you. To give an example, if you see a chocolate cake on someone else's plate, your most primal instinctual reaction might be to grab some and eat it; but before your body fulfills this desire, your consciousness evaluates the ramifications of such an action and decides that the likely whooping you'll receive isn't worth the short-lived satiation of a palate fix, and hence the instinct's motivations are usurped by intelligence (but the instinct isn't happy about it as evidenced by the painful yearning feeling it induces for not giving it cake)
> So while each has a part to play in human behavior and someone may be more prone to behave specific ways in specific situations it is no way predetermined it is all a choice.
To make things really clear, the 'choice' you refer to is entirely in how you 'handle' the autonomic instinctual reaction to a given scenario. This instinctual 'reactions' that are injected into your consciousness for a given situation are 'out' of your control, but what you 'choose' to do with the instinct's reactions is 'in' your control.
> So, I believe it is clear that yes people are responsible and culpable for their actions and it is a choice whether someone hates a homosexual or is a homosexual.
No, you don't quite understand. It is not a choice to 'be' a homosexual, as this desire is manifested from the uncontrollable instincts; it is only a choice for them to 'act' upon these desires with homosexual behaviors. Likewise, it is impossible to prevent the typically negative reaction from the 'repulsion fringe' instinct toward homosexuality, but it 'is' a choice about how to handle that instinctual reaction.
In reference to:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" [Leviticus 20:13]
I wrote:
"If you do not perceive this as the fulfillment of hate, my friend, then we'll have to agree to disagree."
To which you replied:
> I think we will have to disagree since you are representing this verse out of context. I have tried to explain the context of this Jewish Old Testament law and how it is viewed in light of the New Testament and Christianity.
I cannot imagine a context that could possibly vindicate this verse; especially in the light that it probably single-handedly represents the weapon of choice by so many anti-homosexual religious zealots. Even if the original intent was more metaphorical than literal, that would be small comfort to the countless homosexuals all throughout history that have suffered or been killed under its direction.
> The statement 'there's no such a thing as a fact' is illogical, it contradicts itself. You are stating a fact when you say there's no such thing as a fact.
Brilliant observation of that oxymoron. I suppose a lawyer would have written it, "The only fact is that there are no other facts besides this one", but that tends to be a bit confusing without really adding any more quality to the statement. In the interest of literary liberty, I will retain the more simplistic statement as it carries the essence of the underlying message quite well.
My friend, you may do well to point that scrutinizing talent more toward surfacing the phenomenal depths of hypocrisy contained in your Bible. Remember, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to get you to accept room for error in your beliefs.
> Without facts or an understanding of how human knowledge is obtained there can be no intellectual defense of any truth claim.
Well, I've said it many times, I do not claim fact (or absolute truth), but I do claim high-plausibility (always subject to error). It's downright ignorant to ever expect to be 100% certain about anything, so it's best to operate with a subjective 99% likelihood of a 'fact' being true. Part of being an atheist is necessarily letting go of the need for 'absolutes'. Religions teach absolutes, which is very congruent with the needs of the human ego, and so if one is indoctrinated into the notions of absolutes, it becomes quite difficult to step back and instead think in 'almost' certainties for everything. It only hurts the ego though, not the credibility of the work, since ultimately the assumed accuracy of the information has only been adjusted to more 'realistic' levels, allowing for error, but also still allowing for progress.
In regard to my statement:
"Considering your Bible is entirely a book of hearsay, does that then make your Bible poor evidence for a god?"
You replied:
> Not if you accept that the hearsay is from God -
The notion of which, quite literally, has just as much credibility as the Tooth Fairy.
> I must disagree that the bible is entirely a book of hearsay. The bible is based on many eyewitness accounts and testimonies of eyewitnesses
My friend, the above is the dictionary 'definition' of hearsay.
> (The Bible) is a proven historically accurate document, has a unity which is unparalleled and supernatural, and has manuscript evidence unlike any other book of antiquity.
Even if much of the information is founded in actual historical events, none of it proves an ethereal entity. You're using the 'credibility smearing' tactic in the attempt to share the credibility of historical events with the non-credible ethereal fables.
> I do believe that evidence to establish the existence of God is crucial and should be undertaken prior to establishing biblical authority.
I have never once seen 'evidence' for the existence of your god. All I've ever been shown is hearsay, creative interpretation, and a muddled pool of grossly exaggerated historical events that even 'if' mostly true, still do not add credibility to the notion of an ethereal creature. 'Real' evidence, in the 'scientific method' context, would mean defining how to directly sense its presence in a compelling (not subjective) means. If this evidence existed, then there wouldn't be any need for 'faith'. Ultimately 'faith' is all you can offer as 'proof', but faith alone is 'not' proof, no matter how badly you want it to be.
> I would love to able to discuss evidence for God and the biblical authority in a different correspondence if you are interested.
I would very much like to focus on your ability to produce 'true' evidence of your ethereal entity's existence, in a fashion that pursues the scientific method; not by hearsay, subjective interpretation, or 'opposite' pseudo-logic.
> Your choice to accept or reject information is solely premised upon fulfilling your materialistic worldview, and not based on the consistent application of logic or evidence.
I'm a little confused about where you drew the conclusion that we entertain a 'materialistic' worldview. Can you please explain? Also, if you could, can you please point out where our logic is inconsistent? Can you also find an example of where we have stated something as absolute 'fact' without the proper evidence to support it?
Before you throw the rather simplistic example of how I accept homosexual testimony and reject Christian testimony back at me as an example of inconsistency, I will validate this position by stating that Christian testimony is founded upon hearsay, whereas homosexual testimony is based upon intimate and self-measurable empirical evidence. Though the 'strength in numbers' notion may superficially appear to be hypocritically applied in my logic, a deeper understanding will reveal that my underlying acceptance or rejection was entirely based upon the caliber of the information purported, not the number of people that believed in it. It is irrelevant how many people believe in something if that something is solely founded in well-circulated hearsay.
> The hypocrisies abound: you reject all Christians' testimony, yet you believe all of the homosexuals';
Touché, except that I do not consider anybody's testimony to be 'fact', just supporting evidence, which is just as subject to error as every single other thing that I subscribe to. I believe this is one the primary differences between our positions, I allow for error.
> and you reject individual choice and culpability to homosexuality despite the evidence,
I still haven't seen one iota of your repeated references to evidence that homosexuality is a 'choice'; and I don't consider hearsay as evidence, or the misguided usage of 'opposite' pseudo-logic that claims one thing must be true because the opposite can't be proven.
> and yet unwaveringly accept the existence of your materialistic worldview upon 'faith' alone.
This statement is inaccurate on a few levels, my friend. I do not 'unwaveringly' accept my views (read the foreword again please) because my information is 'always' subject to being disproved. Also, I still can't understand your justification for using the term 'materialistic'; BetterHuman.org does not in any way endorse placating the greed and ego instincts with wealth or goods. And finally, I have no 'faith' in anything that doesn't have some degree of evidence to support it. I believe you are confusing my conditional acceptance of 'plausible theories' for 'blind faith'. I am willing to indicate a percentage of possible error on every single thing I 'believe'; are you willing to do the same? If not, then you alone are exercising 'faith'. (As a sidenote, I find it quite amazing that not a single religious person will ever categorize their god as a theory).
> This is a very 'convenient' manner in which to accept or reject information. It seems evidence only becomes important to you when you need to 'disprove' another's position, and never is it needed to support your own.
I believe I've done my part for evidence. This isn't necessarily a call for you to do the same since I believe you can surface much 'evidence' to support your position, but feel free to do so. Allow me to prophesize that in the end, you'll discredit all my evidence as subjective, and I'll discredit yours as agenda-driven hearsay.
In response to my prior statement:
"On a more personal note, did 'you' proactively choose to find the opposite sex attractive? Do you think you could choose 'not' to find the opposite sex attractive?"
You replied:
> I don't know. That is an excellent question. Let me take some time to think about that.
Please do, my friend. I eagerly await your response.
> It's quite a coincidence that your website's name BetterHuman.org, is but three letters away from what Christianity would consider being the embodiment of: BadderHuman.org.
Well that is most excellent, and quite true from your moral foundation.
> Sorry, couldn't come up with something that was one letter away.
I'm surprised you didn't throw 'BitterHuman' out there; I think that would have been a knockout.
As always, 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}
#172 - Running with assumptions - March 19, 2006, 12:45 PM
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> I would say that you are " perfectly content as a non-Christian now and that you now don't believe in an afterlife and would never consider belonging to a religion again because it is restrictive."
I'll agree with almost everything except for the reason you state that I would never belong to a religion again. The reason really is that I cannot 'force' myself to believe in mythology, no more than 'you' can force yourself to believe in the Tooth Fairy. It would be impossible for you to become a member of a Tooth Fairy religion, and likewise it is impossible for me to become a member of your religion. It has nothing to do with the religion being too restrictive.
> You are now content with your new belief system, as you are -- fair enough. If contentment is what you are after, the Christian faith may not have much to say to you for a while.
I find it interesting that you chose to end that with 'for a while', as if there is some impending event that will eventually force me to find value in your beliefs. Care to elaborate on what that event could be? Impending death perhaps?
> We are told lots of things bring us contentment but are not true. Would you be willing to consider something if it disturbed your contentment, but though it may actually be true?
If you are referring to experiencing your religion, I have already had that experience as a fully indoctrinated ethereal junkie in my youth. I doubt there is anything you can expose me to that I haven't already experienced. But if this is a more generalized question, yes, I would be willing to consider just about anything. It's the scientific method.
> How do you know that there is no conscious existence after death?
Consciousness is supported by the active chemical and electrical activity of the brain. This activity ceases upon death (actually defines death) and the consciousness is no more. To state that consciousness persists beyond death fails in this basic understanding of what consciousness is. The mere desire to 'want' it to continue beyond death does absolutely nothing to make it possible.
> The main reason that people claim to not believe in an afterlife is that they think that the idea is a naïve and or wishful thinking
Correct
> But disbelief in an afterlife could have the same intellectual status. It could be the hopeful wish that there might be no accountability to anyone after we die,
Very interesting. This really exposes a great deal of your perspective in how you constantly focus on judgment. Atheists, however, do not have the concept of ethereal judgment, and so it never even enters our mind that we are 'avoiding' judgment with eternal death. We don't even perceive ethereal judgment when we are alive so how can it possibly motivate our perception of eternal death?
> And that as die we just simply vanish off the face of the earth.
Now of course, no atheist in the world desires to simply vanish off the face of the Earth. We are as equally afraid of death as the next person; it's simply human nature to fear death. We did not 'choose' to believe in permanent death, it's just the way nature is and we have to accept that.
> Have we become so self-assured from our science and technology? That we have grown out of our need of a God? Similar to a child growing up to be an adult. Is it a sign of our immaturity and our rush as a to grow up.
You've identified a very important challenge that we as humanity are about to embark upon, that of the 'weaning' process. Eons of religious dependency are going to make this transition quite painful for us, but there simply isn't a gentle solution to it. You either believe in mythology, or you don't; there is no gray-scale. This puts humanity at a radical juncture in evolution, and the fallout will be tremendous as huge swathes of power are wrangled back and forth between the camps of 'faith' and 'logic'. I anticipate it will be quite bloody as unreserved passions spill over and the notions of Armageddon fulfill itself. Sounds pessimistic, I know, but the religious meme-virus will not be extricated painlessly from humanity, and it will be quite messy, but, there is no other way. We eventually have to take this giant step out of the dark ages, and the sooner the better.
> These biblical principles that early society lived by have now been slowly eroded away by a new secular materialist thinking. These new views of course oppose Gods teachings and laws at every angle.
And rightly so; for example, do you believe we should be freely killing homosexuals like the Bible professes we should?
> It can be best seen in America with the separation of God and state. Their main aim is to refute that man should not live under a higher being. And that we should rather live for our selves singularly.
Not quite, my friend, though I can understand from your perspective how it may seem this way. The separation of church and state is fundamentally to prevent the oppression of other beliefs, including atheism. Anything that the general tax-payer's money pays for, should be free from religious orientation. I don't believe you would find it fair that your tax dollars go into building a Muslim mosque, so why should you expect Muslim (or anybody's) tax dollars to go into facilitating Christian objectives?
> Of course this idea still doesn't please everyone, as peoples perceived rights are challenged in some form of other.
People have a tendency to reach for the fullest extent of personal freedom, which usually is (perhaps unwittingly) at the expense of someone else's freedom. This is why some people feel oppressed, because they can't become conqueror's, or evil villains, or otherwise reckless, without some form of authority quashing that selfishness. But, for those that feel oppressed by the system because they can't be utterly selfish at other's expense, well, it's hard to feel sorry for them.
> I found this on an atheist web site to help me understand it. It states that Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any.
{note to reader: It is a common misperception that 'materialism' in the atheism context implies some form of wealth/commodity acquisition, but the historical definition simply implies that reality only contains things made of real 'material'. At this time of my writing, I was unaware of the historical definition, but both I and the submitter incorrectly assumed that materialist implied the 'wealth/luxury' definition. Thankfully, I am enlightened by another reader soon afterwards.}
My friend, this is a very agenda-driven definition of atheism. An atheist simply does not believe in ethereal beings; that's it. The above addition of 'materialistic' (in the wealth sense) is in no way related whatsoever to the position of being atheist. Being 'materialistic' is a personal affiliation that anybody can choose to hold, even religious people. Please refer to a dictionary when trying to define terminology, in order to prevent this type of bias-pollution as much as possible {ouch..stuck my neck out too far on that one} .
> The last part of the atheist statement claim "nor can there be any" is most interesting. This suggests to me that they are trying to re enforce their personal view on others that there can't possible be a God because if there were, it would unhinge their core values.
Not that I wish to further entertain this misguided definition of 'atheist', I find it amazing that religious people continue to perceive atheist motivations as somehow always meant to spite religion. Not believing in a god has absolutely nothing to do with trying to 'impose' this perception onto others. The fact that 'I' personally am pursuing this objective, is my decision alone and has nothing to do with the concept of atheism itself. There are millions of atheists out there that couldn't care less about 'spreading' their philosophies. But fundamentally you are correct, yes, if there was a god, then our value system would fall apart in exactly the same way that your value system would fall apart if there wasn't a god. I don't see how this obvious point deserves mention.
> The site also states: But Materialism liberates us,
I'll disagree entirely with this statement
> teaches us not to hope for happiness beyond the grave but to prize life on earth and strive always to improve it. Materialism restores to man his dignity and his intellectual integrity.
Wow, now that's just completely out there. Materialism (in the greed/luxury sense) is the tool of human enslavement, re-invented idolatry actually; and it is something that I'm currently working on creating a solution to.
> I know some people who are so rich and have every material thing. But for some reason lack that inner peace,
They lack that inner peace because, like religion, they focus on only the ego and greed instincts, leaving the other instincts (love, challenge, altruism, lust, adventure, curiosity, etc., etc.) to starve.
> which some say only God can fill.
Well, my friend, you can lie to yourself with mythology, or even use heroin for more immediate results, but ultimately, you are only anaesthetizing the real problem.
> I can see instead of having a materialistic outlook you have invented your Sean sin as a substitute goal, to strive for in you're reach for a better life.
Again, my friend, you are running for quite some way with the 'materialistic' misassumption. I am not replacing any materialism with Sean Sinjin, I am solely giving myself a direction and purpose to pursue.
> Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.
I have never heard of this 'symmetry' you speak of, though I fail to see how human-originated symmetry could be something amazing, or even remotely evidentially supportive of the existence of an ethereal entity
> I am unsure how to gauge your relationship with God.
When I was an ethereal addict, I was about a committed as one can possibly be, in fact, I perpetually felt the warm gaze of my god upon me. It was a wonderful delusional high.
> I can only guess to how real your experience with God was and how long it lasted.
From the earliest that I can remember, our family was participating in the church, mostly driven by my father's conviction. Around the age of 12, I began to see the cracks in religion and started asking some very important questions that the priests perpetually avoided straight answers to. By 14, I would have to say that I finally (and quite fearfully) declared myself an atheist. That fear would stick with me for a decade before I finally had the strength of mind to look straight up into the sky and say without reservation, "you...do not...exist". I was of course speaking to the last remnants of the religious meme-virus in my head, but it seemed appropriate to face upwards when doing so. To this day, it amazes me how potent the programming was.
> I to can only guess what events occurred to you that would cause you to want to escape from God or church.
It's very simple, I discovered that your god is a lie. There was no 'escaping' in the sense that you describe, just an awakening. It would be the same thing as if you were standing in a long line in order to receive your free bag of goodies, only to figure out that the bag that everyone receives is actually empty, so, you just go home. There's nothing to 'escape'. If you are alluding toward perhaps a traumatic experience that prompted my departure from religion (raped by a priest?), I assure you, nothing of the sort occurred to me.
> You go on to describe a relationship with God as a narcotic high. As if Christians need a weekly fix to get them through life as an escape from reality.
Precisely.
> I would say that atheists must be strong to face life head on while at the same time clutching on to their reality of life through the eyes of evolution
Yes, absolutely it takes strength, in a way that you can't begin to understand. But what I 'need' you to know is that every single human has the strength to handle reality. The only thing that makes reality frightening is how it compares with the simplistic and safe perspective of religion, and how religion has wickedly exaggerated the consequences of leaving this safety shell. Please believe me, reality is a much better and more fulfilling perspective to behold than the perpetual high-chasing of a religious one.
> I would ask, does living a life as an atheist while holding on to evolution (in all it offers) leaves you fully content with your life (gives you purpose and meaning).
Not by themselves, for you are only identifying a portion of the BetterHuman.org perspective. Having theoretical answers (science) and a non-ethereal position (atheism) still doesn't provide purpose or define morality. This is why I created BetterHuman.org, to fill in the gaps that cold hard science misses. I assure you, the contents of Meme are quite complete in helping someone to determine a fulfilling and noble purpose in 'reality', much more satisfying than a religious perspective ever could. The thing about our reality versus your mythology, is that we do not have to continuously bury our 'doubt' under a veil of faith. You cannot imagine how taxing that exercise is until you finally release it. I 'literally' staggered the first time I briefly let go of my faith. Very disorienting, but that one peek inside taught me more about myself in an instant, than has ever been paralleled since.
My quality of life today is so beyond the fullest capacity that ethereal addiction can offer that it makes no sense to compare them, for you do not have the mental tools to evaluate my motivations. You are still locked into the limited scope of divine purpose and cannot yet value anything outside of that. My poor brother, how you unwittingly starve for fulfillment. Life is like a meal. A healthy meal is balanced with an assortment of nutritious foods and drinks. Your 'faith' meal is simply chocolate milk. Your mind may crave meats and vegetables, but having never tried these foods before, you instead confuse these needs as a need for yet more chocolate milk. You do not understand how unhealthy your mental diet is when you only feed it one thing, over and over and over.
> Does atheism and evolution fully answer all that you could ever want to know?
Of course not. The universe is a big puzzle, and as unfortunate as it is for our egos that we don't know everything, that's life, and we must accept it. Does religion answer all that you could ever want to know? Or do you just not ask those types of questions?
> Or are you willing to let some things slip by unanswered due to these restrictions of belief?
Not sure what you mean here, but it makes no sense to put answers into slots without proof. If the proof doesn't exist, well the best we can do is theorize. Theories are 'not' the same as facts or answers. Theories are best guesses. There is 'never' a reason 'not' to theorize, as long as they are recognized as only theories.
In regard to my statement:
"I suffered through much purposelessness for most of my life until I finally decided to attack this 'lost-soul' problem head-on. "
You replied:
> This is truly an amazing confession that you mention. You describe the "purposelessness and lost soul" as important because it comes from the Christian perspective and way of life. I guess you suffered this after you left God, An atheist can't suffer from a lost soul problem because you shouldn't have one?
I thought it would be obvious that I was speaking euphemistically (won't assume that again) to describe how I had been passively ostracized from everyone. There's no such thing as a 'soul' in the spiritual sense.
> So I can only gather that as you turned your back on God, you experienced this lost soul pain for real.
I experienced loneliness in a way that cannot be fully described. A good analogy perhaps for you could be for you to be at a party with all your friends, and this party just keeps going and going, for days, for weeks, and nobody gets tired, not even you. Finally it starts bothering you that this party never ends and you start asking how it is possible that everyone keeps going like this, and your friends inform you that they've been mixing cocaine in the drinks so nobody would ever get tired. You react with horror and then confront your friends saying how unconscionable this was without your knowledge, but they just laugh at you and tell you that it's perfectly fine; it won't hurt you. So you run out of the party into the night, only to find that every other house on the block is also having this perpetual party. You simply cannot allow yourself to indulge in the cocaine any further but nobody else seems to care, and as such you are left out in the streets, alone.
This is how I experienced my departure from religion.
Since this terrifying and lonely episode in my life, I have mentally journeyed far and wide, largely without direction, in the pursuit of meaning and purpose, and I have found both, far beyond your ability to comprehend from where you now currently reside at the 'party'. My book, Meme, is the result of that journey so that others who find themselves on this same lonely street at night, can follow the Sean Sinjin beacon to an utterly complete and fulfilling life, without virtual narcotics to buoy the experience.
> atheists hold on to materialism to fill the whole within their life.
This materialism (which has nothing intrinsically to do with atheism whatsoever) is an addiction, no less of an addiction than affiliation with the supernatural. It only appeals to 'one' instinct. The 'hole' you refer to in people's lives results from neglecting to placate their 'entire' range of instincts. By addressing 'all' of the instincts with placation (and not just ego or greed), you can reach a state of unbelievable contentment, far beyond what the obsessive placation of a single instinct could ever hope to accomplish.
> I would then say you went on to formulate this Sean sin to cover up your lost soul feelings.
It would be more accurate to say that it defines purpose for me. It doesn't cover up anything, it fills that slot that religion had previously defined for me with ethereal pursuits. Everyone needs purpose, I just redefined mine to match with reality.
> I find this truly amazing as you have described your created value system
Not exactly, I have taken the influences of the altruistic instincts, and the influences of my moral role models and formulated a very logic-founded approach at fulfilling this morality. I cannot take credit for the definition, only the compilation.
> but not only have you created these views you have also put a name to them and given it an identity or ownership as "His" as if it was real person.
My friend, I don't believe I'm betraying anyone by creating Sean Sinjin, nor am I trying to falsely claim he really exists, unlike many religions that lewdly attempt to with their figureheads. Sean Sinjin is no more than a role model that defines an ideal, and I attempt to speak on behalf of that ideal. I have made many published references to the fact that Sean Sinjin is not a real person, so why do you feel this manifestation is inappropriate if it never leaves the realm of fiction?
{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}