Page 1 |
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:
#2 - What is the purpose in life for an atheist? - May 11, 2005, 06:19 AM
#3 - How to dismantle the colossal power structure of religion - May 13, 2005, 03:09 AM
#4 - How to be an atheist in a world full of ethereal addicts - May 13, 2005, 02:56 AM
#5 - Should atheists be tolerant and respectful of religions? - May 22, 2005, 02:57 AM
#6 - Why it is important to be clear on definitions of terminology - May 29, 2005, 07:39 AM
#7 - How the human ego drives our ethereal addiction - May 29, 2005, 08:26 PM
#8 - Justified Oppression? - Jun 10, 2005, 08:56 PM
#9 - Do we really have free will? - Jun 13, 2005, 02:13 PM
#10 - The many myths surrounding atheism - Jun 19, 2005, 04:20 PM
#11 - Proving there is no God - Jun 23, 2005, 11:35 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#1 - The end of religion's reign - May 11, 2005, 06:08 AM |
Hello everyone,
It is our firm belief that the vast majority of problems humankind faces today are a direct result of the skewed perspectives that religions around the globe continue to propagate. Religions use mythology instead of science to explain the universe, they control with fear, they oppress intellectual growth to prevent dissent, and they introduce a plethora of prejudices that have no logical foundation; just to name a few. It is the mission of BetterHuman.org to educate the masses away from this ethereal addiction, and to scientifically and logically explain reality for what it truly is, making it possible to find purpose and happiness within it.
Sean Sinjin
#2 - What is the purpose in life for an atheist? - May 11, 2005, 06:19 AM
Mr. Oakright wrote:
> I'm just curious. Without the existence of a supreme being, why do you keep on living? If when your life gets snuffed out, you just cease to exist, nothing you did will matter because you will no longer care. Why keep going? Nothing you do now, happy times, sad times, when you help others, and when others help you, will make any more difference during life than after life. Are you toiling on pure instinct? Are you and all the people you know, love, and hate, just random organizations of chaos, driven by the power of the sun? Why bother?
This is an excellent question, and the simple answer is: we bother because life is simply awesome when you're not shackled by a religious perspective. Your rationalization that 'nothing matters' suggests that the only point in doing anything is to be able to reflect upon it and be judged for it in your afterlife. Forgive me, but that's quite a selfish perspective because you are not motivated to do anything nice or worthwhile unless you somehow eventually get credit from your god.
One of the most difficult things for religious people to accept is that the notions of honor, pride, love, justice, morals, purpose, contentment, altruism, happiness, etc. do not stem from the existence of a supreme being whatsoever. These emotions (or instincts) are intrinsic to our psyches because these behavior-generating traits have proven themselves naturally selective over countless generations and have evolutionarily been hard-wired into our brains. Placation of these instincts is the path to overall happiness. Many religions profess their piety with a large doctrine of moral values, which is usually the first educated exposure to cultural morality for most people, and by which is it easy to draw the conclusion that religion defines morality, when in fact, religion merely interprets (however inaccurately) our intrinsic instinctual morality.
Too often the focus of our lives is on the ego instinct, as is the case with the virtual drug, 'faith' in the ethereal. The wonderful sedative effect of this drug on our greatest psychological pains is phenomenal: it addresses fear of death by promising afterlife, it addresses fear of life by promising protection, it soothes the incredibly hungry ego by promising affiliation with the supernatural, and it addresses purpose by providing channels of servitude. What greater high can there be than to be affiliated with a supreme being? This faith drug is easily self-administered and very addictive, causing serious withdrawal symptoms to the user's ego instinct should they attempt to reconsider their ethereal perspective.
I imagine the degree of change from a religious to atheistic perspective would be as equally difficult to surmount as it hypothetically would be in trying to accept that your parents were replaced by alien spy doppelgangers (exact replicas) from another world. No way to prove it true or false so it's impossible to believe. That is essentially what atheists are asking religious people to do, gamble everything they believe in without being able to prove to them they are wrong, in exchange for a much more subdued, considerably more frightening, and less ego-satiating reality. Now that's a tough sell.
Let me promise you, I for one, have found much more purpose and meaning in my life since the day I turned my back on mythology than you can possibly understand from within a faith 'shell'. The single-minded pursuit of gaining favor with a god is the 'exact' same degree of addiction that one could apply to illicit chemical abuse. For any type of addiction, the high is all that matters, and nothing else makes sense. There is so much robustness to life that is missed when your eyes are closed to the world outside of religion, and the first step to gaining access to this world is to confront the fear of death. Yes, the whole cornerstone of any and all religions is how it anchors onto your fear of death and soothes that pain for you with all kinds of promises and fantasy.
The truth is, you are going to die some day, and then you will no longer exist, and there's nothing you can do about it. Confronting this sole simple fact is the first door out of ethereal addiction, and onto the true path in the pursuit of happiness.
Sean Sinjin
#3 - How to dismantle the colossal power structure of religion - May 13, 2005, 03:09 AM
Mr. Skyhand wrote:
> I am a very lucky person - I was never a religious person. So, I live without fear of gods, ghosts, Satans, vampires, and other "scary" imaginary characters.
I'm glad you pointed out that important fact; 'fear' is the primary motivator of any religion.
> My heart bleeds when I think about poor kids who were and are brainwashed by religious propaganda.
This, in a nutshell, is why I wrote "Meme", and why I started BetterHuman.org. I need more people like yourself to help me to dismantle the religious structure in our societies. My countless experiences of attempting to reason with religious people have taught me that ethereal addiction is quite nearly incurable. The phenomenal degree of programming they have undergone renders them virtually insane, not in the babbling psychopath way, but in a way that is no different than wholeheartedly believing in the Easter Bunny. To attempt to re-program someone away from a religious perspective is not only a massive undertaking, but the degree of psychological trauma during this transition can be downright dangerous.
In my past, I have attempted to 'help' religious people to take a hard look at their perspective and found many ways to expose to them the holes in their 'faith'. I thought I was doing what was in their best interests, but instead I ignorantly put them through some very serious psychological pain, to which they either responded with a vigorous renewed commitment to their faith drug (upping the dose to soothe the fear of death that was exposed), or were channeled into a different religion, not quite understanding that 'faith' is the problem itself.
One approach to succeeding in BetterHuman.org's mission is to focus on exposing the true nature of religion and ethereal addiction to our impressionable youth (through a multitude of education, media, and Internet channels) and contrast that with the alternative, reality. We can leverage the existing and matured propaganda campaign techniques employed for prevention and treatment of drug addiction, because religion is exactly that, an addiction to fantasy. We might not be able to save this generation or perhaps even the next generation, but I am convinced that a reality perspective will be inevitable for all; intellectual evolution demands it; peace, demands it.
> Unfortunately, governments are not interested in education.
The truth is, with our current democratic structure it is political suicide to weigh on the side of reality. In a democratic society filled with a majority of faith addicts, it will be mathematically impossible for anti-cult legislature to ever surface. One of the posits that I suggest in Meme is the notion of a weighted voting system for electing government. Essentially, those citizens that care to educate themselves will carry a greater voting influence that is in line with the degree of their education and altruistic disposition. Essentially this means that the more you know, and the more you care about others, the more you influence the type of government we have. This may strike a soft spot in most people's hearts that believe we are all equal and deserve an equal voice, but the reality is we are not all equal, and we all know it. In fact, we all want an educationally/morally weighted voting system, and I can prove it: do you believe that a convicted child molester should have as much influence on the type of government body we have, as a medical doctor? Of course not. It is ludicrous to put these two individuals side-by-side and say that their opinions of who should run government are of equal worth.
So, we 'already' believe in a weighted voting system, but it's a tough pill to swallow because we would no longer have the easy 'equality' perspective, and instead we will have stepped into the 'people classification' arena. Egos are going to get bashed, lots of screaming and complaining, misguided comparisons to communism, etc. The truth is, logically, a weighted vote is a much more efficient and intelligent way to run any society, egos be damned. However, once this form of society has taken hold and becomes the norm (after a couple generations), people will not view it as a form of derogatory classification, they will view it as an opportunity for growth, no different than someone aspiring to graduate from high school, then college, etc.
Once this form of society has taken hold, the representatives of government will then be chosen by a much more logical and intellectual premise, and hence, legislature for the prevention of cultism (all religions are cults), and the ubiquitous integration of reality perspective into our education systems, will finally close the door on humankind's ethereal addiction forever, sealing it with a mythology ribbon. What a fantastic world that would be. No religious tyranny, no religious insanity, no religious prejudices; we all finally become one under a unified perspective.
> That's why religious leaders even go to court in Kansas to bring "intelligent design" in schools. They pretend to be not against science, but for it. How ironic!
I have discussed the concept of Intelligent Design with many advocates and have read much about it. As usual, faith-based perspectives attempt to embellish a few simple concepts into something much larger so as to give credibility to the whole structure. Intelligent Design, however, simply cornerstones itself on the inability of science to explain seemingly impossible things, such as the evolution of bacterial flagellum, or how the eye can be so complex. It is true that science has many holes, and will probably always have holes because the nature of science is to 'not' force explanations into these holes without having evidence first, unlike religion where the ethereal entity of choice is forced into all the holes, giving the ethereal addict a complete (albeit fantasy) perspective of the universe.
Intelligent Design is of course a desperate grab by those ethereal addicts that cannot deny the existence of DNA, or the existence of dinosaurs, or the age of the Earth, and instead have tried to find footholds in the realm of science for which the possibility of an intelligent creator can still be plausible. In fact, most Intelligent Design advocates are quite willing to shed the religious manifold that usually encapsulates the ethereal entity (who really wants to go to church anyway) and they instead focus on the utilization of the many weaknesses of science to provide strength for their argument. However, and I quote, "Absence of evidence, is not evidence for absence".
Science will eventually have the answers, but until then, we can't default to an ethereal explanation. Intelligent Design advocates will often provide wildly speculative probabilities on the impossibility of a particular cellular structure ever evolving, comparing it to throwing a million pieces of metal onto the ground and by sheer luck forming a fully assembled automobile. With the obvious improbability of such an event being exposed by this analogy, they insist that this is proof of Intelligent Design behind the complexity of life. However, there's a couple things wrong with this argument: first of all, they don't really answer any questions about where we came from because they don't explain where this omnipotent intelligence comes from, and secondly, they don't understand that seemingly impossible odds can be overcome with billions of iterations over billions of years over quintillions of individual entities. I have an elaborate explanation of this process, with many easy-to-understand diagrams in my book, Meme.
> Thanks, Sean, for what you do.
Thank you for your support!
Sean Sinjin
#4 - How to be an atheist in a world full of ethereal addicts - May 13, 2005, 02:56 AM
Mr. Coppermark wrote:
> I learned that organized religion is an unnecessary option. How do i integrate this thoughtline with existence into a society that hasn't?
I think all of us here at BetterHuman.org are on that learning curve my friend. I often find myself looking at the people in the world and saying to myself, "how can they not see how insane it is to believe in God?" Laypeople, professionals, geniuses; nobody seems to be spared of ethereal addiction. For the most part, avoidance of the topic when in the company of ethereal addicts suffices. I try not to take offence when the topic does surface and they look at me like I'm the crazy one for being atheist. It's not their fault; they probably didn't have a chance, and so I just smile and let it go.
That's not to say I don't express my position (always in a respectful and polite way, never condemning), and these discussions usually end with an agreement to disagree. It is not mine or anyone's obligation to reprogram ethereal addicts, fate has selected them. All I can say is that you have a lot of control over the degree in which other people's faith addiction can influence your life. You can choose to avoid the topic altogether, or to dive headfirst and experience the full onslaught of their resistance to reality. Find your comfort zone that balances your altruistic need to educate, against the futility of reprogramming.
Great question!
Sean Sinjin
#5 - Should atheists be tolerant and respectful of religions? - May 22, 2005, 02:57 AM
Mr. Leafstand wrote:
> I believe that they should be able to discuss their beliefs, and I should be able to discuss mine
In my experience, the sheer depth of a conversation of that nature cannot help but step on both party's egos because of the inevitable conclusions that must be drawn by both parties, for example: an atheist position 'demands' that the perspective of religious people is delusional (not to be confused with unintelligent, demented, or any other conceivable failure of mind performance). Atheism has to define a religious person as one that has failed to assimilate enough information in order to have the correct perspective of reality; therefore, hierarchy has been established. Even if this subtle hierarchy is not derogatory in nature, the religious person will still feel the full weight of the atheist's judgment.
Now, for a somewhat (not trying to over-generalize) typical religious person (let's assume someone with a fairly strong faith), their affiliation with an ethereal being gives them a sense of complacency that is interpreted by the atheist as 'smugness' (whether intended or not), effectively a challenge to the atheist to futilely test their faith. The religious person may regurgitate much pseudo-evidence for the existence of an ethereal being, but when push comes to shove, the impenetrable faith wall comes up, and the atheist is locked out.
I have never successfully had a non-judgmental conversation about different perspectives. It can't be helped because the very nature of the conversation must imply that 'I'm right, you're wrong', and both parties have that position.
> ...everybody should have respect for everybody else's beliefs.
This is a very common tenet held by virtually everybody of all faiths, or non-faiths. It is this non-confrontational position that I am working very hard to identify as problematic for society. It is impossible to 'respect' another's beliefs (not to be confused with respecting the person), simply because you think they are wrong. It would be like trying to respect someone's belief in the Tooth Fairy. I believe the word 'tolerate' is more your intended word than 'respect'. Ultimately, I do 'not' believe that we should have respect (or tolerance) for everyone else's beliefs any more than we would have respect/tolerance for a cult of rabbit worshippers (would you let your child join the Earians?). It's a wasted lifetime of pursuing affiliation with gods that don't exist, and it is important to educate and prevent our newer generations from falling into this trap. I can't imagine a worse fate for someone to live a life this way, and so I personally am not complacent in my position. I consider religion to be the greatest tragedy the Earth has ever known.
Some may say that it's easy to categorize atheism as just another 'religion' so how can ours be right and everyone else's wrong. First, religion as BetterHuman.org defines it means a perspective of reality that requires an ethereal entity. This would mean that atheism fails to be a religion, but perhaps the term, 'philosophy' would be more appropriate. Second, religions tend to provide a 'complete' universe. Anything that cannot readily be explained defaults to the 'God' answer. Atheism however depends upon science and unfortunately that also means accepting holes in that perspective. Science just doesn't have all the answers yet, but everything that science does consider fact is verifiable, which is the single most important attribute of atheism that separates it from being just another 'religion'.
> ...during the course of a balanced discussion, one party sees the other's view as more appealing and decides to change their mind,
That is my target audience for my book, Meme.
> in one of your posts you have experience with causing pain to religious people in this respect, and I admire your recognition of that and your desire to find a better way to promote your ideals.
I'm now focusing more on the younger generations that still have their youthful sense of immortality. They won't be as addicted to the fear-of-death soothing faith drug and should be more receptive. As for the lost souls that will go to the grave after a lifetime of ethereal addiction, I pity them. How shallow and wasted their lives will be. Yet, perhaps there is hope for them: ethereal addicts often cite the sheer number of followers of their belief as some form of evidence for its validity. If somehow we can get the atheism ball rolling and atheism acceptance takes hold, then perhaps there will be a breaking point at which 'faith'-based perspectives will have to give due consideration to the perspective of...thousands (dare I say, millions?) of atheists.
> I'm not sure that I'm quite as enthusiastic about spreading the word as you are - I have to grapple ... change my mind about that if I'm convinced that it can be done in a constructive way.
That's the big question, how to find the motivation and means to free 6 billion ethereal addicts. Personally, the motivation part for me is easy, this work appeals to the comicbook superhero in me, the 'means' part however is very nebulous. I do intend to follow existing conventional models utilized for preventing illicit drug abuse in our youth (religion is a virtual narcotic) but I'm also hoping to gain a foothold in the credibility arena with a stronger following on my gravity and magnetism theories. Credibility would be a huge asset in getting people's attention. Other than that, BetterHuman.org is reduced to advertising, word-of-mouth, and people finding us. I do have some colossal plans on the backburner however.
Any ideas for reaching the masses would be very welcome.
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}
#6 - Why it is important to be clear on definitions of terminology - May 29, 2005, 07:39 AM
In regard to the BetterHuman.org tenets:
- Poverty due to apathy is inexcusable and banishment is the penalty.
- Tyranny in all forms, from childhood bullies, to empire-conquerors, must be prevented
Mr. Slimblock wrote:
> ...contradictions in them? The poverty rule of your RELIGION seems a bit like a bully to me and to impose this onto society only leads further to the contradiction. If you like I can find more contradictions in your religious rules?! You also realize that you have become the thing you hate...a religion.
One of the most challenging things about writing is the loose definition of seemingly precise words. So, let me clarify how I define some of the words that I have used:
Tyranny - the utilization of a population's resources for the sole profit or ego placation of the leader(s).
Religion - a philosophy or perspective of the universe that is founded upon the existence of an ethereal entity.
Now by this definition of 'religion', a reality perspective is not a religion (no ethereal entity) but instead it's more like a philosophy that is buoyed by science. This aside, I do believe that you are attempting to identify the similarities in structure between religion and my proposed reality perspective, in the attempt to expose to me that I am biting my own tail so to speak. I wish to counter this notion by stating that it's not the 'structure' of religion that I'm trying to devalue (all philosophies will probably have virtually the same structure in that it contains rules, rule enforcement methods, codependent 'facts', etc.), it's instead the 'core' concepts that are contained by this structure that I'm attempting to identify as problematic.
For example, a lot of a religion's apparatus is dependent upon the existence of an ethereal entity. Should this ethereal entity be proven to not exist, then a significant portion of that religion's 'structure' collapses into meaningless nonsense (e.g. going to church, giving money to the church, praying, afterlife, ethereal punishment, ethereal protection, ethereal purpose, heaven, hell, religious leaders, religious ritual, etc.). There is nothing inherently wrong with the religion's 'structure', just the information contained in that structure.
Likewise, a reality perspective will also have a similar structure to religion (it contains rules, rule enforcement methods, codependent 'facts', etc.) but the 'core' is founded upon verifiable information, and even that core is understood to be subject to change should new and verifiable evidence to the contrary be discovered. This sheer difference of the verifiable nature of a reality 'core', versus the ubiquitous fantasy 'core' of religion, is how a reality perspective can be distinguished as unique from religion's.
As for the contradiction you identify above about banishment being akin to bullying, I believe you are confusing 'tyranny' (my definition) with 'authority'. If someone in our current society is placed in prison for murder, would that be considered tyranny? Of course not. The process of society punishing someone for their detrimental actions is quite altruistic in the sense that the greater good is achieved by removing that threat to society. Likewise, the above postulate would 'punish' someone that chooses to undeservedly receive support from society, when they are absolutely capable of and have opportunity to support themselves. The threat of banishment would serve as a powerful motivator for apathy-minded individuals.
In a more general light, all forms of society need to have a number of rules in order for structure to be possible. The act of enforcing those rules may on the surface be easily categorized as oppressive, which can lead to cries of tyranny, however, by the definition above, you'll see that enforcing society's rules does not qualify as tyranny by the simple fact that the leaders are not the sole benefactors, the whole of society is. In this context, rule enforcement is altruistic, and is only 'oppressive' to the tyrant that wishes to break a rule for their own selfish pursuits at the expense of society. There is no way to have any form of society without some degree of rule enforcement, which inherently requires oppression.
I think what we've discovered here is that there are two definitions of the word 'oppression'. The literal, meaning to subdue something, and the political, meaning to unjustly control and limit people. I wish it to be clear that I used the literal definition in my postulate.
> This is due to the strict set of rules and no doubt followers of lower intellect.
I believe I have struck a nerve due to my lack of clarity, and for this I apologize. I do hope you'll re-examine my postulates in the light of these renewed definitions and hopefully you will find them to be genuinely more altruistic in intent.
If you can find other contradictions, I would be most grateful. It is very difficult to see things from another's perspective and anywhere that this type of confusion exists, I would like to correct it.
> Be very careful what message you transmit to people, as first impressions do last.
Thanks for the advice. I do wish to convey to you though that I spend a great deal of time thinking about my responses and ideas. Unfortunately, the sheer enormity of ground-breaking a reality perspective may sometimes result in my crossing wires. This is not a project that one person can do alone. I will make more mistakes, contradict myself a thousand more times, and probably explore many concepts that are better discarded, but, with feedback from people like yourself, I hope to weed out the bad memes, and clarify the good ones.
Thanks for your time,
Sean Sinjin
#7 - How the human ego drives our ethereal addiction - May 29, 2005, 08:26 PM
Mr. Shoepark wrote:
> ...I have a question that I and my peers have always been wondering about. You raise a lot of good points on your site but one thing that I can't seem to grasp is how it is possible to find true happiness and actual purpose from our lives on earth? I mean, if our purpose is just to make ourselves happy by making money, procreating and all sorts of stuff that only this world can give us, then we are basically here for nothing at all, which is what prompts me to search for an answer. For you life is probably clearcut, where we try and get the most of our life, but for me true happiness seems unobtainable if we just live and die with no greater purpose. I guess from my perspective religion does seem to provide an answer for this so your help would be really helpful.
I will answer your question with a single word, 'ego'. Our human psyche developed over millions of years to provide us with a plethora of instinctual pulls that all combine to increase our probability of reproduction. One of the most powerful instincts we have is our ego, which is essentially how we perceive ourselves; our sense of self love, and it demands to be fed 'greatness'.
In an ancient hunter-gatherer society (20,000+ years ago), we humans lived intimately with nature and life was very challenging, requiring a great deal of fortitude and aggression in order to survive. Reproduction was a very competitive arena allowing only the most 'alpha' (the most powerful and desirable of all suitors) of our kind to reproduce. Alphas by nature had to be very aggressive and confident in order to procure the role of alpha and so their confident and powerful psyches were passed on through generations, growing in magnitude with each generation, manifesting into what we can collectively refer to as the 'ego'. That leaves us today with this legacy of powerful instincts better suited for a hunter-gatherer society, but perhaps somewhat obsolete in our more modern world.
It is this ancient ego instinct that demands superiority, demands a higher purpose, demands some tangible greatness from our existence. Countless generations of religious perspective has done nothing but exacerbate the ego's intensity with false illusions of affiliation with fantastical ethereal beings, and promises of higher purpose and duty. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to be misled with fantasy in the desperate grasp at something more than life itself, in order to feed our ever-hungry egos. Life on Earth as a simple, reproducing animal does hardly anything to appease our powerful egos nearly as much as even the remotest possibility of being something supernatural. The reality is though, we are 'only' animals.
Religion has been selling higher purpose to us since the dawn of communication and we've all been deceived, even most of the deceivers. It's not possible to define 'purpose' in life in the sense that it is something we are born into. Purpose and meaning is something that we must define for ourselves, and this purpose must be individually created by each person as they learn more about their unique balance of instinctual pulls that define them. You shouldn't be asking, "what is the point of life?", but you should be asking, "what should I decide is the point of life for me?"
I'm sorry my brother, it is a very painful step backward from fantasy to reality, but in the end you really don't lose anything anyway, only the illusion of greatness. I promise you that a much more fulfilling life awaits after the 'faith' narcotic's withdrawal symptoms have ceased and reality becomes clearer. The true path to happiness and purpose is found with honest and deep introspection, the creating of a plan to placate 'all' of the instincts in that balance, and the fulfillment of that plan with a healthy regard for others.
You say that for me that life is probably clear cut, but it wasn't always so. I too grew up with a heavy dose of religious propaganda and programming, and by my own volition, I found that I could never believe in something as obviously fantastical as God. How was it possible to cast the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Zeus, and a million other magical creatures as mythology, and then blindly ignore the similarities to the fable of God? It was ridiculous, but made even more ridiculous by the phenomenal number of followers doing exactly that. It wasn't until many more years passed that I came to understand the powerful nature of addiction, the power of fear of death, and how the need for an ethereal being that can protect, judge, and give eternal life (an extension of our need for our parents), was much greater than our need for proof of that entity's existence.
Hence, religion is the drug of choice for virtually everyone on the planet. I chose to break free of that comfort drug and strove to find the truth, and to find a meaningful existence within that truth. The search was very hard and long, but I do believe I have found it and that is why I wrote the book, Meme. People have to know the severity of humankind's addiction to religion, the damage it causes, and most importantly, how to find purpose without ethereal addiction. A very large portion of my book is dedicated to exactly that but it is much too long to enumerate here. I think you would find a very complete answer to your question of purpose there.
To give a personal example, I took a deep look at myself and discovered my particular blend of instinctual pulls. I found that I had a very large ego, a strong sense of justice, I'm also very altruistic and empathic, secure in myself, sensitive to others' judgments, etc. It was the careful administration of those instincts that helped me to discover what makes me truly happy. I found ways to feed my ego without being overbearing or arrogant. I seek out opportunities to balance justice, as well as opportunities to help people that genuinely need help (which does not mean anyone that is capable of helping themselves). I've also incorporated an 'island' mentality, which is my mental tool for filtering positive constructive feedback from useless derogatory feedback. I also try very hard to be tolerant when people negatively affect me because nobody is truly evil; our instincts are not designed that way. I exercise hard 4 times a week, I've traveled the world, and I 'always' have something exciting to look forward to. But I think the most important and terrifying thing I have done (and I can't stress this enough), I've confronted and accepted my fear of death. Some day I will cease to exist, and I can live with that.
Fear of death will never control me; and that my friend is the first door out of ethereal addiction and on to the true purpose in life; making yourself happy.
I hope I have been helpful,
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
#8 - Justified Oppression? - June 10, 2005, 08:56 PM
Mr. Wheeldon wrote:
> Reading through your belief systems, and saw...
"- Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they personally define it, so long as it does not negatively affect anyone else"
> ...which in itself is a "nice" belief, I can see why people would value it. Everyone wants to be free to do what they want, so that caters for them. However, I got down to this...
"- All forms of ethereal belief systems should be severely oppressed so as to avoid having these concepts escape the category of mythology. Mandatory thorough education will also help to prevent the manifestation of religions"
> ...and got confused. If "Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as the personally define it", then why is one person's pursuit deemed unworthy, and as such must be "severely oppressed". You cannot put "severely oppressed" and freedom of pursuit of happiness are completely contradictory, meaning your purpose is flawed from the start.
Excellent point. In my book, Meme, I am much more elaborate with the details than you see on the website so unfortunately a lot of the essence of the tenets may have been lost, and for this I apologize. I hope I will be able to clarify these points somewhat. I see now that I have to change the ending from 'negatively affect anyone else' to 'negatively affect anyone, including themselves'. Let me explain the important difference with the following analogy (I'm assuming of course that you've read the Earians story on the mission page of the BetterHuman.org website). If you had a 10-year old daughter, and one day she came home from school and started telling you about her new friend Billy who has told your child about his family's faith in the Earians, and how cool it was to climb into the rabbit hole every Wednesday night to worship the magical rabbit, and now your child 'desperately' wants to join so she too can see the rabbit, what would your response be? Should you allow your child to explore this 'faith'? Of course not. How could you possibly allow your child to be subjected to the wiles of such a ridiculous cult? Who knows what the mental consequences could be if she were allowed to grow up believing that a magical rabbit rules the universe?
In this context, you have deemed your daughter to be 'unfit' to make a decision of this nature. She is not mature and/or educated enough to be able to see the cult for the nonsense that it is. She cannot see the traps that are being used to lure her in (the cute bunny, the playground hole, the eternal life with the bunny, the revenge of the bunny should she choose to reject this faith, etc.) She will become a victim unless you teach her that this cult is nonsense. Your motivation for preventing her from joining the Earians is to prevent her from 'hurting herself'. This is not oppression in the 'political' definition, but it is oppression in the literal definition (Please read this prior post 1.6), which is an unavoidable consequence of any conceivable social system.
Though your child may believe she wants to pursue a faith in the Earians, she is incapable of seeing the harm in that pursuit and so you do your duty and prevent her from falling over that edge. So, if you prevent your daughter from joining the Earians, are you violating her right to pursue happiness in any we she defines it? No, simply because she does not have the ability to truly understand that she would 'not' actually be pursuing happiness, she would only be misled by the 'illusions' of happiness, and would unwittingly be indenturing herself with nonsensical servitude to fantasy (aka insanity).
Not everyone is intelligent enough, educated enough, or mature enough to prevent themselves from being absorbed into (and becoming victims of) cults; and yes, all religions are cults. They may believe they are pursuing happiness but ultimately they become slaves to their incorrect beliefs. It is my desire to oppress the persistence of religion in our societies because it is altruistic to do so. Preventing someone from pursuing a faith-based perspective is a very noble and altruistic act. The intended purpose of the first tenet is to prevent oppression of anybody's pursuit of happiness when nobody is negatively affected. The pursuit of religion, however, hurts the unsuspecting pursuer, and as such must be prevented; which does not violate the tenet. Preventing someone from making a mistake is not oppressing their freedom, it is helping them, especially when they are incapable of recognizing they need help.
I wish to also express that every single tenet I have put forward is founded upon an altruistic, anti-tyrannizing motivation. It's also important to recognize that most people truly do not know what is in their best interests, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of religious people that believe in mythological creatures. Of course this notion of being told what is 'right' or 'wrong' will step on people's egos and there will be a phenomenal backlash, but I'm not interested in placating egos, I'm trying to establish the best ruleset possible in order to facilitate everyone's happiness; which leaves little room for politics. I'm focused on helping people to see the truth and to escape the tyranny of religion, whether they are capable of knowing they need help or not. Yes, I am willing to impose this virtue on others, just as you would impose your will upon your daughter so she cannot join the Earians. It's simply 'teaching', which is meant to benefit those being 'taught'; not to be confused with oppressing (political definition), which usually only benefits the oppressor.
> Also, another of your tenets states...
"- Honesty, empathy, patience, tolerance, and perpetual respect must be the foundation for any introspection or when communicating with others. Denial, slander, jealousy, hate, prejudice and ostracism are all intolerable in our philosophy"
> However, you seem more than ready to oppress others based on beliefs, which most definitely is prejudice, and can link into ostracism.
Understand that oppression does not automatically constitute prejudice. Sometimes oppression is founded in prejudice, but one does not necessarily imply the other.
Take a short tangent with me: Religion is a very ancient meme-virus that has a plethora of defense mechanisms to help it survive in someone's psyche (such as: cognitive dissonance, denial, ethereal love, ethereal protection, higher purpose, eternal life, etc.). All of these 'desirables' and 'resistors' allow the 'faith' virus to plant itself firmly in the minds of its victims. To attempt to educate or reason with these victims is usually a lost cause because of the impenetrable 'faith' wall that is put up to counter any logic that challenges faith. This means that in order to accomplish the goals of BetterHuman.org, oppression (the literal) of religion is the only realistic means by which to contain this virus and hopefully eradicate it. Prevention is the cure for many incurable diseases, and religion is no exception. I will stake a claim to be the world's foremost advocate in the peaceful pursuit of oppressing religion, because it is in the best interests of the victims, and humanity as a whole, to be freed from ethereal addiction.
To address your comment above, my mention of oppressing religion is 'not' founded in prejudice whatsoever. Having been a victim of religion myself at a younger age, I am quite educated in the religious perspective. Think about the meaning of the word prejudice: to pre-judge without having all the facts. Due to my exposure to religion, I have enough information to be educated about my judgment of it, and so my disposition against religion is in no way predicated upon ignorance or prejudice.
As for your mention of ostracism, I consider every single person on this planet to be my sister or brother. Some of those sisters and brothers believe in mythological creatures and I wish to help them see the danger and waste of that perspective, and that is why I have written Meme and created BetterHuman.org. Your perception of ostracism stems from the invariable reaction of religious people to having their faith virus challenged by the BetterHuman.org philosophies. 'They' ostracize 'me', fearing that I might dislodge this virus and leave a gaping hole in their reality. And for all intents and purpose, they are correct; it would be very painful to remove this virus and so they choose to isolate themselves from me. I wish it could be otherwise, I do not wish to be excluded by these people, but ultimately, I am the one being ostracized.
> Finally...
"- In order to elect leadership, the voting power of any individual should be calibrated against their level of education, and empathic disposition, granting more electoral power to the educationally and empathically inclined"
> How is this not prejudice? You're assesing on someone's voting capabilities by their education level, which is linked to a person's inherent intellectual capabilities. "You can vote, but because you weren't born as smart as this guy here, your vote counts for less". I do understand that hard work put in also ties into education level achieved, but there are some people for who education beyond a certain point isn't a viable option, as they are not "created" (for lack of a better word) equal to their brainy peers.
You caught me on that one, thanks for pointing that out. I have revised my 'no-prejudice' tenet to more accurately reflect the specific implementation of prejudice I was intending. That being, 'politically-oppressive prejudice'. I hope this rectifies the contradiction.
The human ego has dictated that our democratic society be founded upon the illusion of 'equality', thereinwhich everyone gets equal voting power. The truth is we are 'not' all created equal. There are the weak and strong among us. If you deny this fact then you are attempting to sugar-coat reality with modern day political-correctness (I promise you and everyone else, I will not submit to political correctness for the sole purpose of placating egos. As best I can, I will always express the truth). Do you think that someone who is mentally retarded should be allowed to become a jet pilot? Do you believe that a repeat criminal should become a sheriff? Do you think a high-school dropout should rule a country? Do you believe children should vote? You see, everyone absolutely and wholeheartedly already believes in and relies upon many human classification systems. The illusion of 'equality for all' is for the sole purpose of placating the egos of the less apt. I would argue that for every system that levels the playing field to 'equality for all', there are a thousand 'classification' systems that demand natural ability and/or acquired skills. Look at the employment sector, look at the education sector, look at the beauty sector, look at the physical fitness sector, etc. We are completely surrounded by human classification.
When it comes to electing government, we stray from this very natural tendency of classifying ourselves, and step into this false façade of equality in order to give everyone the sense of equal worth. Unfortunately, if everyone gets the same voting power, then you end up with a government that is reflective of that average intelligence. Realistically though, true leadership requires a genius that is above average, and for the most part, the attributes of great leadership would be unrecognizable by the average person. If the average person is not the best fit for a leader, does it make sense to have leadership determined by the average people?
Now, if you were to let go of this ego-placating equality system for a minute and instead focus on what is in the best interests of humanity, you have to shed the shackles of the human ego and be prepared to classify. This is why I am promoting an intelligence/education/empathy formula for determining voting strength. The more intelligent/educated you are, the more apt you are to recognize good leadership traits, and more apt to recognize any ulterior motives of these leaders. The more empathic you are, the more likely you are to choose empathic leadership, as opposed to tyranny leadership. So you see, my motivation for this election structure is altruistic in nature, to try to create the best voting mechanism that will result in the best leadership for everyone possible, something that is mathematically impossible with an equality-for-all voting system.
Let's try to see this classification system from another perspective. Let's define a scale of 1 to 10 that defines the voting structure of how our governments are elected, 1 being the least intelligent/empathic/educated having the most voting influence (a ridiculous notion no matter what you believe), and 10 being what I am suggesting, where the most intelligent/empathic/educated have the greatest voting influence. Currently in most democratic societies, we are sitting at 5, which means everyone has equal voting influence. Let's look at what different types of governments evolve from changing the position on the scale. If we choose a voting structure of 1, we would have a very corrupt, cartoon-like government. Elected officials have considerable false 'charm' that allows them to swoon the powerful voting sector of the more gullible-minded with false hopes and ego placations. How can I justify this prediction? All you have to do is watch how priests interact with very religious people and you'll be witnessing the same mechanism of tyrants utilizing false hopes to lead the gullible and desperate.
Now, let's move the number to 5, which represents the voting structure we have in most democratic societies today. Our electoral candidates resort to smear campaigns and flashy ads to pitch the feeblest of leadership qualities to the masses, targeting the 'average' person. Few voters are knowledgeable enough of their favorite candidate's policies to make an intelligent and empathic choice, and rather choose them based on a single attribute that appeals to them, ignoring the rest of the factors. This drives electorates to attempt to appeal as many of the target groups as possible, squeezing out the possibility of a focused attempt to facilitate a more efficient government.
And finally, if we move the value to 10, where the most intelligent, educated, and empathic carry the greatest voting weight, we now create a strong bias of intelligence and empathy in the voting pool. This means that it will be exceedingly difficult for a would-be tyrant to infiltrate into a position of leadership as his motives would be much more obvious to the intelligent sector. The empathic attribute of this voting class would also ensure that leadership is not elected with the sole purpose of making life better merely for the more intelligent. The winning candidate will best reflect the genius and empathy of the intelligent voting class, and everybody benefits.
To get back to your point; to some degree you are correct that my unequal voting system imposes prejudice in this classification system. Realistically though, the complex dynamics of humanity makes it literally impossible to define a complete list of parameters that could accurately assess how much an individual's exact voting worth should be. So, a more generalized system like the one that I am suggesting can serve as fundamental criteria that will statistically average out to approximately the same result as if each person was independently assessed for these qualities. The negative aspect of the introduced prejudice is muted by the overall desirable result of the more intelligent and empathic government that still manages to manifest from this system, despite perhaps some glaringly innaccurate individual assessments. It is my firm belief that if the educationally/intellectually/empathically inclined had a greater influence in determining our leadership, there would be significantly less tyranny in the world.
> Also, this social distinction gives rise to the posibility of social segregation, and as such those groups with the more intelligent/empathetical people would hold the power. This, while seeming nice, gives rise the oppurtunity for a dictator to come along through that group and play them to his advantage.
I don't see how, in any capacity, the threat of tyranny or segregation (the negative connotation) is prevented in our current 'equality' system. In fact, I'm more inclined to believe that tyranny is much more rampant due to the equality voting system because the average person is statistically more likely to be swooned by the stealthy charms of a tyrant leader than the educated people would be. As far as segregation is concerned, it is an ever-present fact of life, a reflection of our intrinsic differences, impossible to avoid, but most importantly there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of segregation itself. Is segregation of gifted children into advanced learning a bad thing? Is segregation of women and men in terms of medical needs a bad thing? Segregation only 'becomes' a lewd concept when this type of categorization is used to unjustly judge/oppress others. The type of segregation that absolutely does occur with my weighted voting system, will indeed place the power into the hands of the more intelligent/educated/empathic people, and that is a good thing, for everyone. In other words, let those who should lead, lead.
> In short, how are you doing more than selling anti-religion propaganda, with the façade of making the world a "better place" for everyone, which in itself is just as addictive as any religion, and is built on premises that are just as flawed, as many religions.
'Façade' is an interesting word choice, almost implying that I may have a hidden agenda. Religions do have a hidden agenda, and that is to recruit power through membership. My very obvious agenda is to expose religious tyranny for what it is, and to describe how happiness can be found in each person individually. I truly believe religion to be the greatest tragedy the human race has ever known and I will continue to work hard to promote this idea. Yes, I am very anti-religious, and I justify it for no other reason than it is simply ulterior tyranny that has billions of victims worldwide. My 'façade' of a 'better place' is not an attempt to camouflage, or even to justify, my anti-religious rhetoric, but instead it is a logical progression from that position. When the fantasy world of religion is removed, something has to replace it to define reality, and I choose to define a science and logic-based reality where everyone can be happy.
You asked how I am doing more than selling anti-religion propaganda? Well, my contribution would be to promise happiness beyond ethereal addiction, and I use myself as an example. I'm more content with my life now than I've ever been, and tomorrow I'll be even happier. There is no limit to how much I can improve my life. However, those people that unwittingly suffer from ethereal addiction have their maximum quality of life capped to fit within a religious framework. They can't begin to see the true capacity we humans have for happiness.
I don't think I can address your vague and gross generalization that my premises are flawed, other than to identify it as a perfect example of prejudice.
> I have no more inclination to join you than any other secular or religious organisation, and less so than quite a few of them.
You may not realize it but you've just ostracized me. Nonetheless, I find it curious that you found it fit to respond in this manner to my work. I understand that you are probably resistant to the notion of working together, but you represent to me a very passionate and yet logical person that can help me perceive my work from the outside. You've helped me considerably already. If it interests you, I'd very much like to work with you on trying to find a position I can carry that will appeal to people like yourself, and at the same time accomplish my goals. Does this interest you?
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#9 - Do we really have free will? - June 13, 2005, 02:13 PM
Mr. Verbchoir wrote:
> The sentence that stood out, of course, is "It is not mine or anyone's duty to reprogram ethereal addicts, fate has selected them." How does that stand out? The last 4 words - "fate has selected them". In the very system you promote, there should be no concept of "fate selecting", or at least in my thinking. Fate is not a force, choice is, and it is the choices that one makes that leads them to "etheral addiction", as you put it.
The reason I really like this question is that it opens up a very challenging debate: do we have free will or not? I have tried to answer this question in my book, Meme, and so no sense in repeating it. Instead, I have added a "fate" excerpt to the website.
I hope this excerpt at least clarifies BetterHuman.org's definition of fate.
Here is another excerpt from chapter 5 in my book that addresses free will.
-----------------
What does it mean to be conscious? Or even better, what is the difference between a conscious act and a random event? For example, for you to sit down on a chair is an obviously conscious act, and for a given raindrop to land in your hand is most likely chance-or is there indeed a difference between the two? Look at it this way: the raindrop is following a very precise path from the cloud to your hand, that path being defined by the wind, temperature, and many other complicated parameters that are very precise in their influence on the path of the raindrop, until it finally lands in your hand. The fact that this particular drop made it to your hand may be highly improbable but there was no luck involved, it was the result of the exacting mechanics of the atmosphere unfolding to produce the raindrop/hand collision.
Likewise, your brain is an exacting mechanism. The environmental conditions that existed (the chair being present, feeling tired, activating the wiring in the brain that controls sitting) made the event of sitting down happen. The desire to sit down was an accumulation of all the environmental parameters, including the chemical and electrical state of the brain, resulting in the action of sitting. This wasn't a "conscious" decision that we might be inclined to understand as free will; in actuality it was the fulfillment of internal and environmental conditions inciting our brain to want to sit, and then activating the body to behave in a sitting manner.
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}