Page 23 |
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:
#329 - After religion, does God remain? - Oct 05, 2007, 04:57 PM
#330 - Missing education - Oct 05, 2007, 05:00 PM
#331 - Respect from over the fence - Oct 05, 2007, 05:08 PM
#332 - Are we spreading lies? - Oct 05, 2007, 05:12 PM
#333 - Saved by God - Oct 05, 2007, 05:18 PM
#334 - Lost - Oct 05, 2007, 05:21 PM
#335 - Atheism evolution - Oct 05, 2007, 05:23 PM
#336 - Bias - Oct 05, 2007, 05:28 PM
#337 - Closing down - Oct 26, 2007, 12:26 PM
#338 - Not retiring just yet - Oct 26, 2007, 12:28 PM
#339 - Closing the weblog - Oct 26, 2007, 12:34 PM
#328 - The abstract ethereal - October 05, 2007, 04:41 PM |
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> Again I attempted to be brief and to the point so as not to tire your patience and yet engage your interest. I fear I could not resist addressing some of the outstanding issues I see as unresolved between us, in spite of your certainty.
I think we're coming full circle on a number of issues my friend. I will be taking an extended, possibly permanent, hiatus from BetterHuman.org weblog activity so this will be the final correspondence between you and I for possibly quite some time. I apologize for not being able to continue this wonderful dialogue with you but time is not my friend and my priorities have recently forced me to change the course of BetterHuman.org.
> I keep writing to you because you practically tar and feather me as an "ETHEREALIST." I have been trying to show you why I think that my point of view is as "Scientific" as yours.
I believe it can be demonstrated from your prior emails that your ultimate pursuit is some form of immortal consciousness. It is because of this pursuit that you attempt to leverage the dark corners of science as a possible conduit. This is exactly the same 'scientifically-bouyed' path that Intelligent Design advocates follow. However, it doesn't matter that the context of your arguments are based in known or theoretical science because your ultimate goal is 'persistence' beyond death, and that my friend, is an ethereal pursuit, by definition. You are indeed an 'etherealist', whether you are comfortable with that title or not.
> It seems to me that it is reductionist (for you) to devalue our participation in the existence of the Cosmos. You appear to assume our tiny size, our weakness and vulnerability and our robotic dependence on cause and effect in relation to the Cosmos proves our total insignificance and unimportance.
This is an incorrect interpretation of my prior statement, my friend. Humans (and any life in general), has the potential to become the most influential 'organizing' force in the universe; creating 'order' on massive scales. Our impact can be limitless; but my original point was that we don't create inherent 'value' to the matter in the universe, we just organize it. If we were never here, then the universe would just be organized differently (more chaotically). Sure, more order in the universe may be more valuable to 'us', but not to the universe. The universe doesn't care if it is ordered or not so how could the matter it contains increase in value because of our activities or observations? Again, value is a subjective, relative, and context-sensitive human evaluation of something, but nothing in the universe has 'inherent' value, including us.
> Where it seems you and I part company is that you seem to affirm that thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. are also relations between materials and forces. You appear to affirm that material, or substance, (space/time/energy) is the Ultimate Reality. You seem (to me) to equate the immaterial with the supernatural and then automatically dismiss them both.
Correct. There is nothing in existence without a physical representation. Even our 'thoughts' are represented as chemical/electrical signatures upon neural pathways in our brains.
> I just looked up physicalism, which is what you seem to endorse, and all I can do (there are many arguments for, but mostly against it) is invoke semantics again. As long as we do not have a precise agreed upon definition of matter
My definition of matter is simply 'loops of bether', as outlined in great detail in Meme.
> , if you define thought, etc. as material, then, by definition everything is material.
Thought 'itself' isn't solely a construct, it's the combination of electrical/chemical 'activity' upon a construct (brain). Thought is more akin to an 'action' upon matter, than to an object.
> The philosophical point of view I've been speaking from is: interactionist dualism.
This is a fancy term for 'soul' theory, which is ethereal. It can be easily proven that consciousness is borne of the electrical/chemical activities in the brain so I cannot see the point in entertaining the notion of a soul to explain it.
> In both our vocabularies supernatural = impossible; by definition non existent.
Agreed, but I think you fail to consider certain things to be supernatural. For example, the duality you discuss above, is supernatural.
> From what little I understand of quantum theory, the role of the observer is essential to the description of "reality."
Quantum theory is one of the few sciences where the 'observation' of quantum events usually always 'influences' those observations. It is because of the tiny masses in question, and the nature of the tools we use to peer at them, that we inadvertently skew the results. But, this isn't the same as trying to justify the notion that results vary between observers, it just implies that the observer is always part of the equation, meaning for each observer that observes an event in the same manner, they will have the same observations each time. Reality doesn't change with each new observer (though the 'interpretation' of that observation can vary wildly).
> Not only that, but your beloved matter is but a sea of waves of probability waiting to be popped into four-dimensional reality by being measured or observed. Everything we experience is in the form of electromagnetic and other vibrations. The very matter we are composed of is made of little wavelets and wave "packets." All this is vibrations, orbits, resonances within a "field."
My friend, I have a much different understanding of the universe's matter allotment. Perhaps if you were better versed in my model, it would be easier to understand my perspective. I will be unable to address the remainder of this portion of your letter as it expounds upon your stated universal model for which I do not subscribe.
> I imagine you agree that all our knowledge arrives as measurable (readable, understandable) vibrations, mostly electromagnetic vibrations our organisms process and present to our attention as images, impressions, etc. All we ever see is like the chained slaves in Plato's Cave. Reality is presented to us as a stream ofinterrelated vibrations which are processed and interpreted before even arriving at our awareness where they are presented as executive summaries of events and current sensations, feelings, thoughts, concerns, subjects and points of interest, etc. We look inward and perceive a model of whatever (if anything) is "out there."
Excellent verbalization of very complex process; and yes, I completely agree with this observation.
> A question: How do we get from pondering our insignificant and deterministic nature to feeling an irresistible compulsion to put forth our vision/opinion on the nature of REALITY FOR THE WORLD TO SEE?
The main reasons would be ego and altruism. These instincts give each of us the self-administered 'right' to profess our beliefs, and at all levels of perception the human ego is designed to convince oneself that they have all the answers, yes, even me, which is why I so heavily leverage the Scientific Method to keep my universal perceptions in check.
> We might not revel in FREE WILL, but we APPARENTLY believe our thought processes, even if blindly automatic, are worthy of consideration.
We can imagine anything we want, and 'believing' in whatever mental ruminations our minds conjure is simply a 'choice' we can make, but that ability to choose what to believe is not naturally mitigated by anything that can direct us towards a true reality perspective and as such we are 'allowed' to choose to believe in anything we want, and wholeheartedly believe it too. This freedom alone is often cited as justification for a perception, however, the mere ability to dive headfirst into a belief does not in any way validate that belief. It is because we are lacking in a meaningful internal means for justifying a belief that we are forced to resort to external means to accomplish this, and that path leads us to the Scientific Method. Therefore, any perceived 'worthiness' of our thoughts should always bear the scrutiny of the Scientific Method.
> Is your concept of science so self effacing that it throws out the subjective = (Ethereal = Do not Consider)? Any description of reality has to take into account the subjective world.
I'll have to agree that semantically, you and I are often challenged. You tend to blur the lines between ethereal, abstract, subjective, etc. I define 'ethereal' to be equivalent to 'supernatural' which implies something without a foundation in matter and is purportedly more than just a concept, which, as per your own words, we both agree is immediately dismissible. We both describe 'abstract' in similar ways, but you've inappropriately leveraged this term to describe things with ethereal qualities (soul). We also use the term 'subjective' as akin to 'theoretical', for which there are no limitations on conjecture, as long as they seem reasonable, not instinctually-interpreted, and are not laced with underlying ethereal agendas (e.g., immortal consciousness).
> What are our definitions of matter, concrete, substance?
The first chapter of my book, Meme, is dedicated to describing this.
> I base my concept of matter on assuming an irreducible particle, a solid, absolute extension in space/time, And I don't believe in it's existence.
Science turned philosophical
> We seem to travel through time and space in discrete minimum plank scale size jumps.
Do not interpret Plank time or distance to mean that everything steps forward together in synchronized Plank steps. The resolution of time and space is infinite (aka analog).
> Like a projection. Is a thought material? Is it the electrochemical reactions in the brain? We input/process/output thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc. Unless we define these as matter; we reside, observe and speak from within the immaterial aspect of things.
Everything we understand as a 'thought' is entirely represented by the combination of neural pathways, and the electrical/chemical energy upon the brain. This is easily 'proven' by chemically/electrically influencing these processes in the brain and witnessing the ramifications. There is nothing immaterial about thought, no more than the processing that a computer performs can be attributed to anything beyond the electricity and processing hardware.
> I have assumed you valued value, but you relegate everything but matter to the ethereal realm.
Not true my friend. I also accommodate the notion of the 'abstract', but only as I define it, that being 'matter-based'. However, the only thing 'real' about the 'ethereal' is that it exists solely as a misguided neural pathway in the brains of believers.
> Am I to understand that you proclaim that our awareness and thoughts, ideas and feelings; our sense of identity and continuity are not only dependent on (we agree on this) but, and this is where we part, you affirm that all the above are somehow the self same matter I see them as "embedded" in? (Physicality)
Again, 'thoughts' are nothing more than the combination of neural pathways and the electrical/chemical activity upon them. Both are required for a 'thought' to manifest, but there is nothing more to a thought than these elements. All components of a thought, feeling, or awareness, are physically represented.
> You can't relegate the persons carrying out this debate to helpless automatons and expect to be able to REALLY exchange, or even have ideas.
Unfortunately my friend, when it comes to the lowest perception of the universe possible, with absolutely no degree of interpreted abstraction involved, we really truly are helpless automatons to the fate of the universe. I know precisely how very contradictory to our intuition this and other concepts I have introduced are, but nonetheless, this is reality. Please recognize that there are no instincts that can assist us with comprehending fate, or time dilation, or to be able to perceive the massive amounts of time that have passed since life first began, etc. Trying to comprehend what is outside of what the instincts 'understand' is by definition: weird, uncomfortable, and irreconcilable. It is this adverse reaction to 'fringe' knowledge that keeps us 'centered' on instinctually-congruent perceptions of the universe (e.g. a caring father-figure god, instead of cold mindless bether, etc).
> The attachment I send presents what I consider an intriguing idea. I do not ask you to accept it, but only to let it show you one of the many reasons I advocate an open mind and a postponement of any certainty.
{view this image}
I have received this image from a prior submitter, and it is a very thought-provoking and wonderful portrayal of how the universe will evolve to eventually perceive its own existence, which may exemplarily be interpreted as 'us' perceiving the universe. I have expanded greatly upon this concept in my book, Meme, which I really would encourage you to read since many of our discussions are covered there.
In regard to my statement:
"Gods are for people that do not know how to say, "I don't know". Learn to say these words, my friend; there is peace of mind within them."
You wrote:
> Are you kidding? "I don't know" is my mantra, but I can't find peace or rest in it any more than I can give in to belief and find the peace of the (mentally) dead.
I know you think you're saying "I don't know", but what you're really saying is "I need to know", which is entirely different. My original point was that you can stop making yourself crazy when trying to answer unanswerable questions, by simply not asking the questions any more. Plug that hole with "I don't know", and walk away. I know 'exactly' how difficult this is to do, but I myself have a number of questions that I've been forced to plug with "I don't know" in order to hang on to my sanity. This is one of the greatest challenges of living in a reality perspective: accepting that there won't always be answers.
My friend, move on with the more important aspects of your life, for if you linger too long at the point where the path of reason ends and the path of desperation begins, you might take one step too many, sacrificing all that is real, and getting nothing in return.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
#329 - After religion, does God remain? - October 05, 2007, 04:57 PM
Ms. Jansuper wrote:
> I agree with your disgust toward the intolerant attitudes of many "religious people," but the flaws in their logic are due to the human condition and selfishness. We are flawed, we are broken and messy creations. Religion is flawed because people are flawed not because God is flawed.
I know it seems a logical conclusion to you that religion can be separated from your concept of a god, but the reality is that religions and the mythologies they fester are inseparable, by design. Religions 'need' to continuously reinforce the belief in a god to the masses, in order to retain its position of power, and these religions purposely program a severe degree of obstinance into their followers to retain said power over them. In other words, your 'god' only exists as a tool for controlling people, in the pyramid scheme of religion. Without religions in this world, it would be very easy for people to look beyond the fearsome fables and magic of 'god' mythology (like we currently do for conventionally understood mythologies such as Greek mythology, or Indian mythology, etc.), and we would be much more capable of absorbing true 'scientific' knowledge, without prejudice or fear.
It is indeed the fable of God that is the very locus of what is 'flawed' with humanity.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#330 - Missing education - October 05, 2007, 05:00 PM
Mr. Edleague wrote:
> I was glancing at your web page, and, don't judge me because of my 'religious standpoint', but I do have to say, some things are incorrect, as far as our beliefs (not religion) I say 'You pick your religion' (there fore it is a drug) ' the Truth picks you'....you may be totally correct, but I have already agreed with you about religion. It is dumb, completely. Full of lies, 'If you worship a dead, fat guy, you will come back (after death) as a tree"... that an obvious one....
All forms of religiously purported immortality are as equally ludicrous as your Buddhism example above.
> But I think religion isn't a good thing.... God is....
They are one in the same my friend. Your mythological god is nothing more than a money maker for religions. Without religions to perpetually wield this tool of fear and control, science would fill the void of knowledge that the mythology of your 'god' intercepts.
> I don't have 'religious criticism' I just have my idea of 'truth'
Not quite my friend, you have the 'desire' to know the truth, and the willingness to blindly accept your version of it, but neither of these will translate into a 'real' truth. Desire and submission do nothing to add credibility to an idea.
> God isn't a crutch, you have to work hard, to love him....
Of course you would have to work very hard to love him, because there's no proof he exists other than subjective interpretations of naturally-occurring, or even unlikely events. Also, by definition, he's responsible for all the suffering in the world, making it very difficult to understand his motivations. Believing in a god, and loving it, are the most demanding exercises in denial and faith conceivable; the ultimate example of irrationality.
> by the way, we do believe in dinosaurs, the bible calls them dragons, and so do many societies of ancient times. Dinosaur came around in the 1800's!!!!
No my friend, dinosaurs came about millions of years ago, and this can be proven scientifically. This statement of yours reveals the massive shortcomings in your understanding of science, and the world around you. Also, your biblical references to dinosaurs are wild misinterpretations of written accounts of modern animal encounters (hippos, elephants, etc.).
> Did you know that when mount saint Helen's erupted, it formed a 1/40th scale Grand Canyon in under 24 hours?!!! so it took millions of years for the grand canyon to form? NO WAY!!! Max: 2 months!!!!
How is this relevant to anything we've discussed? I often see this kind of irrational exuberance when religious people hear about impressive or mysterious events. Their perception is such that when 'anything' big happens, it simply must have been the work of their god, even if there's a completely logical and scientific explanation. To your example above, the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years with a relatively tiny river of water. To compare this process to the unimaginable power of a volcanic dynamo, is like comparing glaciers to hurricanes; they are two completely different paradigms, and certainly not in any way supportive evidence for a god.
> Also, there is evidence for a world-wide flood...
No there isn't. Every place on Earth occasionally experiences flooding, but there's simply not enough water on the planet to flood all land at the same time.
> I may be mad, but I understand both sides, clearly...
No my friend, you do not whatsoever. I don't mean to be insulting, but you are very uneducated in even the most basic of sciences. I'm cannot imagine how you've remained so isolated from an education system that most definitely should have taught you some basic science skills.
> I've studied evolution and the age of the earth, but creation is more logical, both statistically, and just common sense....
You cannot honestly state the above because the truth is you do not understand the scientific perspective. You've already made up your mind to accept the 'easy' religious explanation, and just 'pretend' to understand both sides. You cannot 'fake' scientific knowledge my friend. Please read my free book, Meme, to have a crash course in a 'reality' perspective. It will clear up a great number of misperceptions you have, and can fill your mind with information that may have been bypassed in your education.
Kind Regards,
Sean Sinjin
#331 - Respect from over the fence - October 05, 2007, 05:08 PM
Ms. Ulentrade wrote:
> I have an ex-uncle who is an atheist. I am not, I believe in God. However, I wanted to tell you that I agree an atheist is not to be pigeonholed as selfish or immoral. He gave me a sex talk as a caring uncle which my deceased father did not know about because my father looked down upon my uncle. My uncle did well in that alk, as a mother of 5 I look back in hindsight & still feel proud he went on a limb & talked to me knowing the dislike emanating from my family for him. He had no siblings nor aunts & uncles of his own. I could spend all day reading each post & disagreeing with you, I have faith, but I wanted you to know I do respect you and what I have already read. We simply disagree.
I dare say this is the nicest and most sincere congenial email I have ever received from a religious person. Thank you so much for reaching out to connect with me in this most beautiful human way. Because of your experiences with your atheist uncle, I'm sure you understand that I am not your enemy, and though I would love to encourage you to further explore BetterHuman.org, I'm just grateful for a kind reprieve from the usual religious onslaught.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
#332 - Are we spreading lies? - October 05, 2007, 05:12 PM
Mr. Dolwasp wrote:
> I am just writing to tell you that I do believe in God, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, Angels, and the Devil. They are all real and have had an influence in my life, my parents family, friends, and thousands of people around the world. The Devil having a negative influence.
My friend, you are using the most colloquial definitions of God and the Devil, that being the forces of good and evil embodied into these abstract creatures referred to as 'gods'. Humans have a very strong tendency to aggregate observations into a single self-directed entity such that it becomes more familiar. For example, observations of kindness, good luck, beauty, etc., are all very natural occurrences, but often are interpreted as the result of some 'conscious' plan. It's difficult for humans to relate to 'happenings' without assuming a causative agent was responsible, so we typically 'assume' that these observations of 'good' all stem from the same conscious being. Over time, this originally abstract idea becomes concrete in the minds of those that are led to believe so by those professing the abstract, in other words, what started as an analogy (the force of 'good'), became the literal (God). Such is also the way with evil, bad luck, ugliness, etc. being summed up into the abstraction of the Devil.
These creatures don't exist my friend, they are merely runaway euphemisms meant to describe the sum effect of good and bad observations.
> He has saved me from death three times in my life, brain tumor, removal of a tumor from my neck.
No my friend, you were lucky, that's all. Again, you're attempting to give credit for 'natural' luck to something that doesn't exist. You could just as easily be saying 'the force of goodness saved me', which doesn't make sense either.
> God has done miracles all through time to thousands of people. God does not create death, suffering, hate and all the other negative things in life. Satin does and man
Good and bad luck are not driven by any conscious process (such as gods). It just happens by circumstance; a result of the unfolding of the universe in its preordained evolutionary path.
> It is not too late to believe in him. It is to late when we die if we do not believe in him before death then we shall be doomed for all eternity to burn in the lake of fire.
Can you not recognize the above statement as an example of how the religions manipulate 'you' with nonsensical fear? This is how churches make their money, by terrifying their followers into buying their way into favor with their gods. This my friend, is the full breadth of evil.
> So stop spreading lies that he does not exist and stop, theses hate and lie petitions to get his name out of our schools. Because of your groups some schools can not even say the Pledge of Allegiance because it says "Under God".
I'm sorry this saddens you my friend, but yes, one step at a time, religion will eventually collapse into the category of mythology, with or without the assistance of BetterHuman.org. Humankind will emerge from the dark ages eventually.
> God Bless America, He does exist and I know when I die I will be with him.
I'm sorry my friend, but you are one of millions of people that will have wasted their lives in the pursuit of fantasy. I have much pity for you.
> Here is proof he exists try praying and believing in him and that he will take care of your needs and they will be taken care of.
I've already gone through all of that when I was a child and young adult, until I finally learned the truth about the world's biggest scam: God.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
#333 - Saved by God - October 05, 2007, 05:18 PM
Ms. Piclasy wrote:
> During the first part of 2003 I was involved in a serious car accident. My car was struck by four different vehicles leaving the structure of the car a crumpled pile of steel. I remember I was driving, listening to "Don't Fear the Reaper" no less when I was struck the first time. The details are foggy and I was unconscious for several days but I have a vivid memory of someone opening the car door. The figure took my hand and stroked my face and repeatedly said "No, it is isn't your time" when I screamed out "I don't wanna die!" The bottom line, no one was able to open any door on it save the driver side which took two men to open and the response team said I was unconscious when they pried me out. I am not a avid church goer, I haven't even read half of the Bible and I am unsure of that branch of faith to follow. But I know without certainty there is a God and he has saved my life. I am forever grateful to him and all that comes my way.
Madam, I doubt there's anything I can say to force you to re-examine your recount of this tragic story, but in good conscience, I must tell you that your experiences were partly the product of a severely traumatic brain injury, with probably a good dose of 'creative' memories added to the mix in order to bring the story to its desired fruition. I'm not saying you're lying to me, for I'm sure you believe everything you've written, but I am saying that you are lying to yourself about your exact recollection of that event. Even in the remote chance that you did fully experience the unadulterated version of the above scene, it was entirely the product of your religiously-conditioned mind that generated it.
You did not have an encounter with an ethereal being, of this, I can guarantee. Nothing seems more real than a dream.
> I do wish if you advertised your faith it wasn't in such a public forum as MySpace. I don't think it is a good idea to have such literature available to impressionable young people.
One of the worst things to deal with when I'm trying to educate about reality, is to face people's perceptions that I am evil, or misguided, or harmful to our youth in some capacity. These perceptions of BetterHuman.org's mission, and myself, are largely a product of religious people's tendency to be black and white about their understanding of me. When people see that I'm trying to remove religion from the face of the Earth, all they understand is that I'm trying to end their beautiful events of communion with their fellow humans, to end morality, to end 'love', etc., and this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I imagine a day where people congregate in exactly the same capacity as they do for visiting church. They meet at scheduled times, at wonderful and ornate locations, enjoy ceremonies and lectures, and socialize in a friendly morally-bound setting. Sounds quite a bit like a church scene doesn't it? But in this case, they celebrate 'life' and 'happiness' in a human context, rather than blind worship to a mythological creature. This is my vision for the future. It's unimaginable to me that someone could take offence to this vision, unless of course, they actually buy into the absurd purported penalties (hell?) that their mythological beliefs profess.
Though, to your point, be certain that my target audience is today's youth. They have the capacity to see beyond modern-day mythology and it is my moral duty to assist them with that education. I know you interpret this as a travesty, but I'm afraid your mental illness (your faith) has permanently altered your ability to judge the true nature of good and bad, and as such I'm forced to proceed without your, or any religious person's blessing. Please have 'faith' madam that there are many unseen evil forces at work that you do not have the capacity to understand and that there are many people like me working very hard to eradicate them.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#334 - Lost - October 05, 2007, 05:21 PM
Ms. Canegive wrote back:
> let me apologize for the delay in my reply. I was pleased you wrote and I know that God' spirit is knocking at the door of your heart - He loves you and it isnt too late for you to invite Him into your life as my daughter has and she grows ever stronger in her faith and loving her life in Christ - so fear not. And dont feel bad she isnt dependent on you, rejoice for her and ask God to reveal Himself to you too and you can experience the same joy. Im sure there are other ways for you to earn a living other than peddling lies - God opens doors when you close others to a life of sin and rebellion toward Him. FYI - I showed my daughter all the correspondence between us and she was interested for about oh, 5 minutes then went happily onto her next project. She is thriving at church going from strength to strength and through her own choices and not initiated in any way by me. So, I will pray for you and believe one day you will be grateful that I am God Bless you
The cycle of madness continues, as it has for millennia. Please give your daughter a hug for me, and take care of her to the best of your ability.
Sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
#335 - Atheism evolution - October 05, 2007, 05:23 PM
Ms. Sliborn wrote:
> I found your website interesting.
Thank you.
> Something inside of me just tells me that we are here for a purpose other than to become "better humans" of our own accord.
This 'something' you identify would be the combination of your ego instinct and G.O.D. instinct attempting to inflate your perception of your inherent value. Please read about the G.O.D. instinct on our website and you may come to understand what that 'something' inside you really is.
> Anyway, I have a question, could you please reiterate to me in layman's terms why you have found that our need for religion has run it's course?
All throughout time, the role of mythology (all religions are mythology) has always been to attempt to explain the nature of reality. Prior to the advent of science and the Scientific Method, it was nearly impossible for us humans to be able to truly understand what we are, what an atom is, what the Earth is, what outer space is, etc; and this led us to grasp at the much simpler perspectives, such as: gods, demons, heavens and hells, etc. It's all that we could understand given the limited depth of knowledge that we had access to.
Over much time though, physics, mathematics, chemistry, and many other disciplines eventually manifested, allowing us to start 'really' understanding the true nature of things, without fantasy. We are just at that 'cusp' in our evolution right now, where we are slowly becoming 'self-aware', and no longer necessarily lost in the cycle of creating gods to explain the unexplainable. With science, we can answer virtually every question that religious people might ask. There might not always be a desirable answer to those questions, but at least those answers will be based in verifiable fact, not fantasy, and it is because science has finally matured enough to almost be able to provide the totality of perspective that we all need, it can therefore assume the role that religions have historically provided; that being to describe the nature of the universe. Religion, my friend, has run its course, and has no value to us on into the future, no more than Greek mythology does.
Sadly, there is still quite a bit of momentum behind the institution of religion, and even in the face of cold, hard evidence that can unquestionably prove things like evolution, or true death, people still cling to their beliefs because of 'blind' faith; a most powerful tool that people often use to deny discordant information. It will take some time yet for atheism to firmly plant itself as a dominant perspective, but be assured, it will be inevitable; evolution has selected for atheism ever since the first human asked a question.
> How can we be sure that our instintual desires won't be fulfilled by the drug that is religion?
Oh, but they do; that's my core point: we are using 'artificial' means to placate our instinctual pulls. Look at it this way, nature gave us a number of internal 'pleasure' buttons that can only be pressed when the instincts believe you are doing their bidding. For example, you receive pleasure when eating a good meal, or you feel wonderful when doing something nice for someone else, or even feel good about yourself when you accomplish a great task. These pleasurable feelings are the root motivation for 'everything' that we do, no matter how subtle. These instincts, however, can also be 'tricked' into giving us pleasure. One of the more obvious ways is with conventional drug abuse, which can be as seemingly innocuous as the stimulant: caffeine, all the way up to heroin, which directly influences our pleasure buttons.
There are also psychological ways to 'trick' the instincts into giving us pleasure, for example: you could lie to someone and tell them that they won a lot of money, giving them an unjustified feeling of euphoria. You could tell someone that they will never die, and they would be quite relieved. You could also tell people that their dead relatives are still alive in another plane of existence, and this would artificially relieve them of the pain of grieving.
So you see, anything that 'tricks' the instincts into providing unjustified pleasurable feelings, can be considered artificial stimulation, which is the whole point of conventional narcotics, and from which it is easy to draw the connection to the notion of 'virtual' narcotics when considering the similar pleasurable effects generated by 'psychological' tricks.
Having said this, it must be obvious that there are many more ways to pleasure our brains than are necessarily healthy. For example, it would be difficult for bestow the virtues of heroin abuse because it is so detrimental to the abuser. Likewise, it is difficult to justify the pleasure 'trick' of religion, if for no other reason than it makes believers insanely irrational; so irrational in fact, that they honestly and truly believe that there is some big guy up in the sky, a bad guy in the ground, that they will live forever, and when far enough gone, even willing to die or kill others in order to defend their mythological beliefs.
Religion, my friend, is not a good drug.
We here at BetterHuman.org promote the pursuit of 'real' happiness, without 'tricking' the brain into feeling unjustified pleasures (the root of addiction). We want people to understand our 'true' nature, and the nature of reality, such that when facing the challenges that life throws at us, we no longer need to hide behind denial and fantasy, we instead face those challenges, and their pains, head on. Escaping the allures of fantasy will liberate our minds to pursue 'real' and sustainable happiness. When someone says you look great, you 'really' look great, and the pleasure is 'real'. When you reach the summit of a great mountain (literally), and you look around to the world at your feet, you will feel 'real' accomplishment. It may not compare to the unbelievably pleasurable feeling of believing your god is loving you, but again, that's not 'real', that's artificial stimulation.
Reality may not be able to entirely compete with the 'highs' of a mythological perspective, but is it worth being irrationally insane to attain those highs? As a former ethereal addict, I can assure you, it isn't.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#336 - Bias - October 05, 2007, 05:28 PM
Mr. Quontid wrote:
> I am interested in what you would say about things if you remove your bias.
My good friend, it would be impossible to accomplish the mission of BetterHuman.org if I was to present information in a manner that wouldn't be perceived as biased to you. In order to strike the balance that you might find unbiased, I would have to go much further than just a strictly indifferent presentation of information, no, I would literally have to 'promote' religion at the same time that I 'oppose' it, which is senseless.
Bias, on a topic such as the validity of religion, is simply impossible to avoid. We are not a 'news' company, we do indeed have a direct mission to oppose religion, and obviously, the religious aren't going to like it, as you've demonstrated. And likewise, I would be amazed if you could point me to a religion-endorsing website that objectively discusses atheism.
> For example, please look at what you wrote under Evolution's "Interpretation" and compare it with what you wrote for God's "Interpretation." I would be interested in what you would say if you either removed your bias or allow me to answer those positions.
Fair enough. How would you have written the Instinctual (or intuitive) responses for both those examples?
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#337 - Closing down - October 26, 2007, 12:26 PM
Mr. Zilgrate wrote back:
> sad you are closing down emails but you know how much work you have all the best to you
Thank you for the kind sentiments my friend. I do hope that my future alternative contributions will be enough to maintain everyone's interest in the mission of BetterHuman.org.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 17.228, 23.337}
#338 - Not retiring just yet - October 26, 2007, 12:28 PM
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> Sorry to see you "retire," thanks for the patience in always replying to my diatribes. I guess this was as far as we could go without taking our concepts apart and defining and agreeing on every single term, which would really be a tedious, though probably rewarding, enterprise. I'll look more carefully at your writings. Please let me know if you ever start blogging again. I promise not to bug you any more. Good luck.
Your mind is keen and refreshing, my friend, and I have thoroughly enjoyed all of our conversations. Yet, more work needs to be done to accomplish BetterHuman.org's mission, and unfortunately the weblog will be unable to facilitate that goal. I must now concentrate my energies on dispelling the matured wealth of information contained therein.
Seek happiness my brother,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
#339 - Closing the weblog - October 26, 2007, 12:34 PM
Some final words from the religious meme-virus:
> "you are bunch of {censored} dum{censored} there is a got and u {censored} know it u just want to be a {censored} and {censored} be some cult to get your you are a {censored} {censored}"
To all my readers:
On a somber closing note, the ancient religious meme-viruses that globally infect our species remain a potent and devastating force against the mental health of humanity, causing incomprehensible suffering and lethally dividing humanity with many artificial lines of fantasy-driven prejudice. I've said it before and I'll state it again: religion is the most destructive force known to humankind.
There are many ways (e.g. the BetterHuman.org tenets) that we can attempt to help cure ourselves of this affliction but the most powerful weapon we have against it, is you, in the form of your influence over the people around you. I'm asking you to please accept the depth of this disease as very real, and tragic; yet still within your capacity to make a difference. It may be too late to help older generations, but it's never too late to help our impressionable youth from falling into this life-wasting trap. As much as you would do your best to prevent someone from becoming addicted to heroin, cocaine, or other dangerous narcotics, so too should you apply this altruistic intent to helping someone liberate themselves from the narcotic of religion, for it is the most destructive drug of all.
Become an advocate for reality and exercise as much 'practical' intolerance to fantasy as opportunity will allow. Do not be bullied, or 'politically corrected' into silently accepting the agenda of ethereal addicts. Fantasy is simply wrong, and you are well within the true definition of morality, empathy, and respect for your fellow humans when you stand up and openly denounce mythology. As atheists, we may not have the numbers yet to stand arm in arm, but be certain you are not alone.
I would like to thank you for all your kind interest and fantastic contributions over the past few years of weblog generation. Many people will benefit, and have already benefited from the enormous resource it represents. However, as I have already alluded to, I am changing my focus to concentrate more on quality upfront content, rather than to continue the quite matured debates that repeatedly cycle in the weblog. So, with your forgiveness, I will now close the weblog, with the promise that I will continue improving and adding relevant information to the website in order to augment the effectiveness of BetterHuman.org.
Your friend,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
{All letters from this contributor: 17.228, 23.337}
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}