Page 17 |
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:
#226 - Musical atheists - Dec 03, 2006, 11:09 AM
#227 - Kudos - Dec 10, 2006, 10:32 AM
#228 - Gratitude - Dec 30, 2006, 11:28 AM
#229 - Disconnected - Dec 30, 2006, 11:32 AM
#230 - The damage wrought of 'political correctness' - Dec 30, 2006, 11:39 AM
#231 - Non choice - Dec 30, 2006, 11:46 AM
#232 - Frictionless bether - Dec 30, 2006, 11:50 AM
#233 - Enslaved to Mother Nature - Dec 30, 2006, 11:54 AM
#234 - About agnosticism - Dec 30, 2006, 02:40 PM
#235 - BetterHuman.org's financial motivations - Jan 06, 2007, 09:34 AM
#236 - Separating communism from atheism - Jan 13, 2007, 10:50 AM
#237 - Conveniently overlooking - Jan 13, 2007, 10:52 AM
#238 - Is only one choice, a choice? - Jan 13, 2007, 10:54 AM
#239 - Choice is part of fate - Jan 13, 2007, 10:56 AM
#240 - Never be afraid to ask questions - Jan 13, 2007, 11:00 AM
#241 - Freeing Meme - Jan 17, 2007, 10:10 PM
#242 - Good decisions - Jan 27, 2007, 08:01 PM
#243 - Diminutive atheists - Jan 27, 2007, 08:05 PM
#244 - The power of prayer... - Jan 27, 2007, 08:08 PM
#245 - Death defying - Jan 27, 2007, 08:18 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#225 - Battle weary... - December 03, 2006, 11:07 AM |
Mr. Gullwret wrote:
> First of all, congratulations on your website!
Fantastic. I'm always happy to have another like-minded friend.
> I have already read enough of the weblog to see the various types of feedback you are receiving, I can only imagine how weary you must be getting, fighting what seems like a futile battle?
It's a passion for me so I do get enormous reward for my efforts, but ultimately I don't believe it's a futile pursuit, just colossal...and I love a challenge.
> It is only recently that I am becoming really passionate about trying to deliver and communicate a non-theistic message to the people around me.
Excellent, and this is undoubtedly due to your recognition that 'changing' humankind for the better is a proactive pursuit, and unless we all participate, nothing will ever change. Great to be working with you.
> There are a couple of reasons why it is more important than ever right now to do something about the problem of religious dogma that is rapidly spreading in a world where there is an ever greater emphasis on 'religious freedom'.
This has the ultimate purpose of attempting to 'quell' the festering incongruency between differing faiths but it's merely a deception ploy that delays the inevitable clashes that still and will always occur. When a religion proclaims the need for religious tolerance, they are only talking about toward themselves; not toward other religions. It is in the nature of religions to continuously recruit or condemn as it spreads virus-like and as such there can be no such thing as 'mutual' religious tolerance, for that would require abstaining from recruiting each other's members, and refraining from criticizing each other's pursuits, which of course, they'll never do.
Any religion's purports of 'religious tolerance' is merely just another survival tactic of the religious meme-virus. They purposely leverage the blind momentum of 'political correctness' to be able to liken 'religious tolerance' to that of 'racial tolerance' in the hope that they can manipulate perceptions of religious intolerance to carry the same default shame caveat associated with racism, but the reality is that 'religious tolerance' is actually only parallel to 'drug-dealer tolerance', for which I doubt there'd be much support.
> One, tackling the problem of our next generation; how do we start getting information out to young and still-malleable minds so they can make fully educated decisions on whether or not there are ethereal beings?
BetterHuman.org is currently the most effective solution I've been able to come up with. Anything larger, however, will require far more proactive participation from the atheistic masses.
> Secondly, building a critical mass of like-minded thinkers that can offer non-theistic support and most importantly attract others - safety and validity through sheer volume (hmmm....the 'non-cult cult'?).
Again, this will take proaction on all atheists' part. No longer can we passively allow our society to continue deeply immersing themselves in ethereal addiction. It's an ancient mental illness of epic proportions that we, as atheists, and more as human beings, need to take responsibility for curing, for we are the only ones that can see the disease. We all need to play a role. The afflicted will never be able to help themselves.
Also, I'm glad you've identified that atheism is a 'non-cult' because it is very important that people break away from the misguided pursuit of 'identity affiliation' when it comes to philosophy. Most religious people have been told how to think for their entire lives and it cripples them into believing they need to 'belong' to something in order to find happiness and purpose.
My website and book attempt to teach people to break away from the 'we'll tell you what to think' organizations, and to start thinking for themselves. I'm also trying to teach atheists how to not 'isolate' religious people because we are not trying to polarize ourselves against them, we are trying to help them free their minds. We certainly can't accomplish that if the first thing we do is categorically separate ourselves from them by claiming to be part of a special collective that they aren't allowed to join because of their beliefs.
> may be a single individual but I am slowly converting close friends and family, we are determined to get this ball rolling!
Perfect. Even if you save just one person my friend, just try to grasp how profound of a difference you've just made in that person's life. It's absolutely staggering.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
#226 - Musical atheists - December 03, 2006, 11:09 AM
Mr. Lightbelt wrote:
> I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your website and decided to link it on my personal Blog. I have a band and the ideas our lyrics are based upon are directly linked with yours.
I always love the fact that atheism can connect such a broad spectrum of people, my brother. I've listened to some of your music and it has awesome power.
> Congratulations for your site and keep opening eyes and minds on your way!
Thanks for your generous support.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#227 - Kudos - December 10, 2006, 10:32 AM
Mr. Boundpast wrote:
> Finally some common sense and a true philosophy to live by! And well written common sense at that. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind supporting words my friend. Always nice to hear from congruent minds!
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
#228 - Gratitude - December 30, 2006, 11:28 AM
Mr. Zilgrate wrote:
> its real nice to know, there are people out there in our world. like betterhuman.it makes me feel good that this web site exists
Thank you so much for the kind words, and likewise, it's nice to know that people feel it is important that we do exist!
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 17.228, 23.337}
#229 - Disconnected - December 30, 2006, 11:32 AM
Mr. Catice wrote:
> To the question, "Do we really have free will?" you conclude with, "We are no more truly in control of ourselves than the clouds in the sky." If what you say is true, no one idea can be more true than any other, any more than the phenomenon of a bird can be more true than the phenomenom of a rock
You'll have to forgive me my friend, but I can't make sense out of the above whatsoever. You're trying to somehow describe a relationship between our lack of 'free will', to the completely unrelated notion of the credibility of perceptions. This would be the equivalent of saying that because the alarm clock went off, the shirt was both big and small.
> : it's all the inevitable outcome of mechanistic probabilities. So, what's the point of preaching godless humanism?
I'm as subject to the fate of the universe as anyone else is, and whether I really would want to or not, the universe has slated me for exposing religion as a pyramid scheme that preys (prays?) upon the innocent. Certainly you understand that I cannot alter my fate?
> Actually, I can have a lot of fun with with your presentation. Thanks!
Most welcomed my friend.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 17.229, 17.239}
#230 - The damage wrought of 'political correctness' - December 30, 2006, 11:39 AM
This conversation started on an Internet blog site so please READ the beginning of our conversation first (you may have to scroll down a bit to find the beginning).
Then after reading that, you can follow the continuance of that conversation below.
Mr. Kitpund wrote back:
> It seems I misunderstood the whole oppression thing.
I'd be willing to accept that I insufficiently defined the BetterHuman.org portrayal and utilization of oppression. No fault of yours.
In regard to my statement:
"It's one of our core beliefs that 'just' is defined by the moral instincts, and is a consistent and definable term. We are not robots that can have their minds wiped and programmed from scratch"
You wrote:
> I think it is entirely possible to circumvent natural moralities
I absolutely agree with you. My point was to define the 'baseline' instinctual morality that is neither subjective nor malleable, albeit, they are usurpable.
> myself a neurologist, I would argue that those natural compulsions we have oft called morality no longer exist in the warped minds of say, Al-Qaeda.
I disagree. They're version of morality still primarily extends from the base instincts, but the wiring (learning) between their instincts and intelligence has been grossly skewed (beyond recognition to most of us) into a form that seems almost the antithesis, but, rest assured, they truly believe they are acting in noble and moral ways, ultimately stimulating those precise instincts. Please read near the end of this weblog entry 15.193
> It seems strange to suggest that governments can be 'varyingly totalitarian', as it is certainly a contradiction in terms; however, I think the point is still valid. The point being: at the heart of every government lies a desire to control that, with little exception, overrides more compassionate notions. I would like to believe that fledgling democracies would be, at least in some cases, contradictory to this idea. Truly believing so would likely be naïve.
Due to its mathematical tendency to empower the average person over the gifted and empathic, it's my opinion that traditional democracy inherently suffers from 'stunted leadership' problems, leading to amateur administration of the masses, and the inevitable invasive draconian measures needed to retain control over the resultant dissent. Tenet 25 of the BetterHuman.org tenets outlines a controversial form of democracy (called a meritdemocracy) that attempts to address the shortcomings of contemporary democracies.
In regard to my statement:
"This translates into, 'I don't care about others'."
You wrote:
> I disagree. Certainly I sympathize with their plight and wish they could find more constructive means by which to express themselves and wish they would stop causing self-harm. That said, I think to allow people to continue in whatever path they choose, no matter how absurd, is to respect their identity as an individual, thinking being.
My friend, would you apply this same logic to your child? Would you let your child engage in self-destructive behaviors? Of course not. So, even you don't believe in your statement above because you conveniently only apply it to 'strangers'. The only thing that distinguishes your child from a stranger is the degree of your concern for them, therefore, it is 'exactly' because you don't 'care' enough about that other person that you'd justify allowing them to continue their self-destructive behavior, citing your above 'hand-washing' logic.
Now, please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to demonize you personally, for this hand-washing is something we 'all' do; we are all guilty of turning a blind-eye to opportunities to help our fellow humans. I was perhaps a little overzealous in my prior response when I undeniably assigned the 'responsibility' for someone else's self-inflicted disintegration onto others. That's my empathic instinct overruling logic. In the spirit of being accurate, let me more precisely state we should promote the 'ideal' of responsibility for others (regardless of familiarity), and to treat everyone like your brother or sister, but, always within the limits of 'choice', as in, you can always choose to deny helping another.
My focus with your statement above isn't to chastise the decisive refraining from constructive interference in other's lives, it is to expose the real motivation obscured by the popularly-adopted 'respect others rights to self-destruct' caveat, and that truth is: we're lazy, we're denialists, and selfish, and we really don't want to make any sacrifices when someone else can't get their life together. Life's hard enough without having to carry the weight of a stranger. I certainly don't expect people to run out and start trying to save other people from self-destruction but I do want people to speak the truth about 'why' they won't do it. All I'm trying to accomplish here is the admittance that this disregard is selfishly motivated, and not the proclaimed 'respect for others choices'.
Why is it so important that we speak the truth about not caring much about others, instead of inventing convenient 'respect their rights to self-destruct' moral certitudes? Because, when you create this artificial 'respect' barrier, it takes hold as a popular excuse for many people 'not' to help others, and eventually it becomes an unspoken rule (better known as 'political correctness') that you 'can't' and 'shouldn't' help, even if you wanted to. This insincere display of 'respect for others', actually only serves to macro-dynamically block the people that need help, from the people that 'are' willing to help. Your convenient excuse to not help others, actually hurts them in the big picture.
Tell the truth: you don't care much about strangers, and that's why you wouldn't interfere with their self-destructive behaviors. There's nothing wrong with that, it just sounds like something callous and cold-hearted because the dogma of 'political correctness' says it is, which is nonsense. You are not intrinsically indebted with the duty to help others so don't feel guilty if you don't want to help, however, don't inadvertently 'hurt' them either by creating an obstructive artificial 'respect' barrier that really only serves to placate your guilty conscience.
> I have friends who engage in self-destructive behaviors (i.e. alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and self-mutilation) that I actively discourage, because I care about them.
My point exactly
> But I make sure that I make no effort to inhibit them from making the choice themselves, also because I care about them.
I would argue that you are indeed doing your best to oppose your friend's activities within the realistic scope of your power to do so, which ultimately means that you really have no degree of 'tolerance' whatsoever for their self-destructive behaviors. The fact that you are physically incapable of curtailing their ability to continue doing said behaviors should not be mistaken as your 'tolerance' for their freedom to choose their demise, simply because in your mind you do 'not' tolerate it, you 'suffer' it. If you genuinely respected their rights to choose their path, you wouldn't outwardly oppose any of their pursuits in any way, verbal or otherwise.
> At this point I'm not really arguing, as I believe you feel similarly.
Largely, but I think there's a fundamental difference in our perception of responsibility for our fellow humans. That's not to say you are necessarily obligated to concern yourself with others, for that is entirely your choice, it's just my prerogative to expose to you how your manufactured rationale for disengaging from others can have sweeping repercussions that inhibit those that 'can' and 'will' help them. Take for example, what I'm trying to accomplish with BetterHuman.org: with your sweeping statement that we should 'respect another's choice to self-destruct', you'd effectively completely neutralize my ability to help people see the truth about the tyranny of religious mythology.
But my friend, before you get too upset with me for what must seem like a berating, you should know that if I came across a self-destructive stranger, I too would only go so far as to point them in the right direction and then continue on with my life. One can only make so many sacrifices of time and energy before losing their identity, and with what sacrifices for my fellow humans I am willing to make, I choose to focus the bulk of it through BetterHuman.org; it's all I can give at this time in my life. That being said, however, I would never placate my inaction-borne guilt by stating that we're 'not supposed' to help others, leveraging a bastardization of what 'mutual respect' might entail.
> I am attempting to formulate my own ideas on how such a government would have to operate. Perhaps by providing me with potentially relevant weblogs,
I have consolidated much weblog and extra-site material into the BetterHuman.org tenets. Please give them a read.
In regard to my statement:
"Please feel free to assert your astute scrutiny upon the remainder of BetterHuman.org, my friend, I greatly value your feedback."
You wrote:
> I feel as though the word 'asute' is used at my expense. Though it likely is not, if it were, I'd probably deserve it.
It was both sincere, and a double-edged sword, but please believe me my friend when I say that it was merely intended as a challenge for you to fulfill your obvious potential, and not to diminish your character.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#231 - Non choice - December 30, 2006, 11:46 AM
Mr. Endyet wrote:
> Okay, I am a Christian and I do not believe in what I believe in because I want to live forever.
My friend, this may seem to be true from your perspective simply because you cannot imagine a reality without a pending immortality; but be most certain that a great deal of your thoughts and actions are mitigated by the carrot of immortality hanging in front of you. To demonstrate, do you have the ability to look up at your god and scream, "As proof of my love for you, my lord, I deny my right of passage into heaven!" Of course you can't, for that would completely defeat the purpose of your life. It's impossible for you to willingly reject immortality, and therefore, it is something you 'need' because you 'do' want to live forever.
I suppose an argument can be made that even if your god didn't offer immortality, you might still believe in it, but (and please don't take offense to this, it's honestly a parallel analogy from my perspective) that hypothetical argument has as much value as arguing whether Santa Claus would still deliver presents if he didn't have any reindeer; there simply is no answer.
You god is 'defined' as being one with immortality, and as such they can be considered inseparable, and any hypothetical variations of your god's definition (e.g., no immortality) are quite moot in the light of their invalidity when contrasted to the ubiquitously-adopted version. This ultimately forces the concept of God to actually be synonymous with 'immortality', meaning that they are the same thing. So, in conclusion, your belief in God 'is' due to the fact that, as demonstrated above, you 'need' immortality.
> It is because I have seen and heard the glory of God.
My friend, the above is nothing more than poetry unless you substantiate it. Can you elaborate?
> I worship God because I want to not because he or anyone else forces me to.
'Force' is a tricky word when used as above. You're implying that you are operating of your own free will, and that nobody is perhaps, physically, coercing you. However, there are many degrees of 'force'. One of the most easily overlooked and yet formidable forms of force is 'passive intimidation'. An example of this would be if someone told you they were going to punish you if you act/inact in a certain way. This effectively draws a 'line in the sand' that has consequences for being crossed and now it is left to you to decide whether to cross that line or not.
It sure seems like you have 'free-will' in the above situation, but what if the line you're not supposed to cross is the 'you will go to hell for betraying God' line? Again, it's your decision to cross the line or not, so on the surface it may appear to be within your 'free-will' to choose, but what I'm trying to expose here is that even 'passive intimidation' of this demonstrated form, is also a powerful form of 'force'. It's a little slippery in that you may 'believe' you have a choice, but there really isn't a choice whatsoever, for you would never cross the line. The fact that you believe you 'can' if you really really wanted to, doesn't change the fact that you never will, and effectively your choice has been reduced to staying where you are, which has the same net result of being 'forced'.
My friend, it's the threat of ethereal punishment, and the narcotic allure of immortality, that 'forces' you to believe in your god. You lost your 'free-will' to choose the moment you believed in the ethereal consequences for not complying, and it may take a lifetime for you to understand this unfortunate truth.
> I became a Christian because I wanted to there was no brain washing involved.
The term 'brain washing' is an often-exercised negative slant on what is really 'education'. From each other's perspective, we could easily accuse the other of being 'brain-washed', but this does nothing to constructively bridge the gap between us. Instead, I hope you will find it relevant that I too was once like you, deeply immersed in ethereal-addiction, and a most adamant proponent of it. I have been exactly where you are; but, over time, I continued to acquire knowledge that could not fit in the religious perspective, and eventually, for me, that mythological world popped out of existence, and I finally saw it for the dream it was.
I am awake now, and have been for many years, and I have learned the cold, hard truth: we are all going to die an eternal death some day, and there's nothing that can be done about it. It sounds harsh, painful, even terrifying, but trust me, confronting death is the beginning of life, and once you defeat that monster, your world can finally become the heaven you so desperately seek.
My friend, I have seen from your eyes, and then woke from that dream. Now, I will ask you to draw up the great courage necessary to see reality through my eyes. Please, take the time to read the entirety of the weblog so that you too can benefit from the many similar conversations that have already taken place.
> I have one question for you: Who says what is wrong and right? I ask because you have predetermined idea of what is wrong and what is right.
This question I have answered many times in the weblog, and that is: our morality is defined by the moral instincts that Mother Nature has endowed us with. These instincts allow us to band together in great numbers, leveraging the naturally selective function of 'strength in numbers'. 'Right' and 'wrong' are programmed into our instincts, and are immutable (albeit, they are also unfortunately overridable). Again, please review the weblog; I believe you will gain much from that exposure.
> To help speed the process up if you say "What ever dose not harm someone else?" I will respond like this "Who determines what is harmful to others?"
I believe a decision by consensus of the governing body (proposed in the BetterHuman.org tenets) could go a long way to altruistically defining these lines. It's a seemingly subjective line to draw, but I think there's a simple test that can draw a clear definition: don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself; and if you are going to control others, be certain that this motivation is altruistically and intellectually founded with the single goal of improving the quality of life for the most people possible. That's about as clear as it gets, and I welcome any challenge or improvement to this definition.
Again, thanks for your very valuable and respectable feedback.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#232 - Frictionless bether - December 30, 2006, 11:50 AM
Mr. Sleevepull wrote:
> Well I was reading this "bether" thing and ok Im a physics student so I know my stuff fairly well. SO if this bether has a coefficient of 0.00 (meaning completely frictionless) then absolutely none of the fore you apllied on it would conver to force of friction.
You don't understand my bether theory very well my friend. Allow me to explain: when I state that bether is frictionless, it is in the context of a particle moving through it; similar to a small loop in a rope that you can 'roll' from one end of the rope to the other, simulating how it would move frictionlessly through bether. To experience 'friction' would entail multiple particles moving 'against' one another, not against open bether itself. The concept of 'friction' can only be used in the context of particles against particles.
> therefore nothing could hold it. you would hace to aplly a PERFECTLY perpendicular force to it and then MAYBE youd be able to compress it at the point where you apllied the pressure, but other than that you would have no other way of controlling.
It is extremely difficult to manipulate bether (such as creating particles, or gravity/magnetism fields, etc.) because our only control over bether is via already existing particles. For us to try to control open bether would be very difficult because all particles (our hands, our tools, etc.) just move through it like a wave moves through water. We can't scoop bether. It may be beneficial for you to read the bether theory a few more times until the concept sits better in your mind. It seems simplistic, but it's deceptively elaborate.
> Besides Eintsein already proved that matter (particles in you article) is simply captured energy 10,000,000,000,000,000J/kg infact E=MC squared
My friend, I'm not sure how this is supposed to conflict with my bether theory because all that this formula shows is the energy equivalent of a given mass, which is entirely compatible with bether. Particles are simply loops in bether, and, like a spring, they contain the energy that was used to create the loop. A perfect unfolding of this loop (by a collision with its anti-matter equivalent), would unleash the entirety of its energy, which is easily calculated by Einstein's famous formula.
> FYI airbags dont "randomly" expand, all the forces that acted to compress then, thus causing creases, etc... and a lot of other forces act to make it appear randon, there are just so many forces constuctivly and estructivly interfrering with each other that it only appears random to us.
I couldn't agree with you more, and if you had visited my glossary, you'd see that I've defined 'random' accordingly as:
"Random - No such thing; or, virtually impossible to predict"
...which precisely matches your point above.
> Im just reading through your site and noticing stuff like (not exact quotes but like) "Science can't explain magnetism, but my book can"
Well my friend, that's why exact quotes 'are' important, otherwise it's easy to twist important details out of their intended meaning. For example, science can't explain magnetism, which is true; they can measure it, predict it, and utilize it, but they can't explain it. However, the second part of your "quote" is entirely your fabrication because I never once said I 'can' explain magnetism. I have a 'theory', that 'tries' to explain it, but that's a million miles away from stating that I 'can' conclusively explain it. Please, before you make any further presumptions about the degree of my convictions, read the foreword excerpt from the very first page in my book, and pay special attention to where I clearly indicate that this book is a work of 'fiction' (a story), and that I truly believe there is no such thing as an absolute 'fact'. This should clear up any further misperceptions that I am overstepping my authority.
> and then stuff like "Religion was made mostly for the purpose of explaining the unesplainable" Uh hyppocracy I think so.
My very passionate friend, it's not religion's element of attempting to 'explain the unexplainable' that I'm attacking. The pursuit of knowledge is always a noble pursuit, if not one fraught with peril.
> To me this just looks like another "science-has-yet-again-disproved-religion-so-I'm-gonna-make-a-website-about-how-I-also-don't-belive-in-God" websites man.
Actually, it's more of a "science-can-now-explain-most-of-what-you-want-to-know-so-don't-be-afraid-of-reality-and-free-yourself-from-mythological-insanity" site.
> Youve got some interesting stuff and all but still you're right you can't disprove anyhting but you cant prove anything either.
In the context of science, no, nothing can be proven. In the context of a god, I can't disprove it exists to you, but I can help you disprove it to yourself. That's all I can promise.
> I hate 1 sided websites where people have arguments with themselves (and of course win with their premise), I don't think theology was quite what you were meant for my friend.
You're one-sided argument has been duly noted.
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
#233 - Enslaved to Mother Nature - December 30, 2006, 11:54 AM
Mr. Banechart wrote back:
> What if happiness is a tool for sustaining our very existence (by which produces order, right?). Well we've evolved colossal intelligences, as such our cognitive abilities have increased parallel, (being just another parameter in the notion that a unified consciousness is a mere illusion we all helplessly subscribe to) But because of our ever-increasing intelligence, mother nature has inserted an elaborate, profound "aegis" (or virus, if you will)which keeps us blind, and subdued from the truth. ...This virus being: The pursuit of happiness, pleasure. ...This truth being: We are merely worker ants generating order for our queen (the universe)
A very keen observation my friend; and yes, we are being led around by our happiness buttons to perform for the greater plan of survival of the species. However, the aspect that most of us are blind to this prerogative isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'll explain below.
> I don't wanna be a slave, you know? This is how i feel in a way, An ill prisoner, sick from all of this strange commotion existing ubiquitously, like im dizzy... Is it incorrect to believe existence is very strange, a peculiar form of enslavement?
I think it's important to have a good definition of slavery to work with before your question can be answered, so let's give that a shot:
The lewd and yet contemporary definition of slavery implies forced servitude against one's will, for the benefit of an oppressor. This can be quite literal, such as someone bound by chains, forced to perform manual labor from which the oppressor capitalizes. Less lewd, and yet still slavery, would be our world of employment, which virtually forces the mass population to sacrifice a huge portion of their waking lives in the pursuit of making someone else rich; which is easily demonstrated by statistics showing the vast majority of the world's wealth is held by less than a tiny fraction of the population.
Another possible definition for slavery could be one in which people have been misled about what their actions will accomplish, such as with people's dedication and donations to their religions. This form of slavery relies on blindness to the truth, and submission to misinformation in order to be effective, and of course, it's all to benefit the collection plates of the churches.
With the above examples of slavery, there is a one commonality; that being the unwanton or oblivious efforts of one, benefiting another. This is how I would choose to define 'slavery'.
So now let's look at our relationship to Mother Nature. On the surface, it may appear to be another form of slavery because we are forced to exert tremendous effort to survive, we are programmed into thinking that our pursuit of happiness is what we want even though this pursuit is 'really' meant to propagate our species, and for the most part, we are oblivious to this whole process. It sure sounds like slavery.
But, it's missing a few things. First, who benefits from these actions? It certainly isn't Mother Nature; no, it's us; we are the ones that benefit from our instinctually-founded order-generating actions. We can't really consider ourselves enslaved to ourselves can we? Second, why are we forced to exert this energy anyway? Well, it we didn't, we'd all eventually die and become extinct. It may sound similar to a death-threat form of coercion, but again, in this case, 'you'd' be the one letting yourself die, not someone else; so again, we aren't enslaving ourselves are we? And the third and final point is: the law of conservation of energy. It takes energy to exist, and in order for you to have been created from raw materials by eons of evolution, a 'debt' of energy was paid on your behalf such that you might be alive today. For you to be able to fulfill that debt, you have been instinctually instructed to create more order (reproducing). Without these order-generating instructions in your ancient brain, the chain reaction of life would break, and life would be no more.
So you see my friend, life, and the impregnated instinctual goals that we all seek to fulfill, isn't slavery at all, it's a gift beyond comprehension, granted us by nature, with an easily fulfilled debt obligation that is laced with 'pleasure' and 'happiness' incentives for participation. Fulfilling this obligation only benefits 'us', and what a small price to pay in exchange for the opportunity to 'exist' and to be able to perceive this magnificent universe around us. A bargain at any cost.
For what Mother Nature gives us, paying her back by pursuing our programmed instinctual needs should never be thought of as slavery; it's just a 'fair' trade.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
#234 - About agnosticism - December 30, 2006, 02:40 PM
In regard to the BetterHuman.org welcome page definition:
"Agnosticism - A lack of choosing between being an atheist or a believer. Agnosticism is in itself not a perspective, it is an absence of a firm commitment to a perspective"
Mr. Latchtorn wrote:
> That is what you put in your homepage. And this is the first error, cos you say that an agnostic has no perspective or concrete point of view. Let me say that in the world are more Agnostics than Atheist, you are cheating about these people.
Agreed (although 'cheating' may be rather overzealous). I will alter it to be more accurate as below:
Agnosticism - A lack of choosing between being an atheist or a believer. Agnosticism is in itself not a perspective, it is merely the absence of a firm commitment to either atheism or believing in a god because it's assumed that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproved.
> Let me say that atheism is a belief too, let me define the word belief: Belief: Idea o Ideas focused in explain points of view of human perceptions that has not a totally logical explanations. So your work is a belief too, cos no one in the world had proved If there are Gods or not, maybe you can, with logical points of view, dismount the bible, the torah, ot the coran, but no one person had proved the existence or not existence of a God, sou your movement is a belief too.
You couldn't be more incorrect my friend. Our perspective isn't founded on whether we can 'prove' something true or not, because we don't believe in absolute 'facts' in the first place. Our perspective is based upon probabilities, evidence, and logic. We don't say that God absolutely doesn't exist, we just assign it a near-zero probability of being true, so in essence, we actually incorporate 'all' possibilities into our perspective model. By your definition of 'belief' above, you insist that we incorporate ideas that have no logical explanation, which not only is dead wrong, but is the complete antithesis of what we stand for. Everything that we subscribe to is premised on logical scientifically-endorsed information, with a powerful resistance to illogical, or evidence-less information. Some of these ideas may eventually be proven incorrect (or correct), but we never state anything as fact in the first place because all we'll ever have are theories. Please refer to the foreword excerpt to understand that we do not 'believe' that facts exist:
> Let me say the last things, as a scientific mind i have, I know that universe started at the Bing Bang, is the theory most accepted, a theory, do you remember the meaning of that word?
Yes. Again, if you had taken the time to read our website first, you wouldn't find yourself making these most unfortunate incorrect assumptions. All of our posits are 'theories', without exception.
{All letters from this contributor: 17.228, 23.337}
{All letters from this contributor: 17.229, 17.239}
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
{All letters from this contributor: 17.234, 17.238}