| Page 12 |
|
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:
#160 - How to help BetterHuman.org - Feb 26, 2006, 02:53 PM
#161 - Extreme Atheism - Feb 26, 2006, 03:13 PM
#162 - Contradictions - Mar 04, 2006, 06:54 PM
#163 - Idolatry - Mar 04, 2006, 07:02 PM
#164 - Can we rid the world of religion quickly? - Mar 04, 2006, 07:05 PM
#165 - Homosexual causation - Mar 04, 2006, 07:13 PM
#166 - If we can't physically sense something, does it exist? - Mar 05, 2006, 07:46 PM
#167 - Breaking free of ethereal addiction is torture - Mar 05, 2006, 07:52 PM
#168 - Where did the entity of Sean Sinjin manifest from? - Mar 10, 2006, 09:08 PM
#169 - When we die, do we all see the light? - Mar 19, 2006, 11:24 AM
#170 - Igniting ethereal passions - Mar 19, 2006, 11:33 AM
Click here to see next weblog page...
|
#159 - Is defining homosexuality as immoral better than killing them? - February 26, 2006, 02:29 PM |
In a prior posting, Mr. Wheatstart wrote:
> "Christianity does not teach you to hate a homosexual it simply states that homosexuality is wrong just like it states that stealing is wrong."
To which, Mr. Helmroot responded with:
> You let them get away with THAT?! The Bible says to kill homosexuals
And Mr. Wheatstart's reply:
> I would be happy to acknowledge the passage in [Leviticus 20:13]. The Old Testament book of Leviticus is a system of laws, rituals, and morality which are types and shadows pointing to the new covenant in the New Testament fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The laws and rituals in that time are means of access and atonement with God until the time of Jesus who is the ultimate sacrifice and who continually intercedes for us - thus the old ways are no longer followed.
> The morality represented in the book of Leviticus still holds true today. So, the meaning being conveyed in the passage, as it applies to morality still applies, homosexuality is morally wrong - it is sin. The law that deals with the transgression is no longer followed. The Christian now follows the principles set forth in the New Testament.
I volunteer that your religion's act of changing its lethal interpretation of the 'then' to the immoral interpretation of the 'now' in regard to its intolerance toward homosexuality, in no way vindicates the unjustly negative disposition it holds towards them. My friend, how is saying "they are evil" supposed to be more acceptable than "kill them"? You claim that you do not 'hate' them but that fails in an understanding of your very own motives. Hate is manifested as condemnation, oppression, and ostracization, which you and your religion do to homosexuals, so, actually, you 'do' hate them. How is that representative of a supposedly loving and caring faith? Tell me, what would your Jesus Christ do to a homosexual? Is it possible for them to be 'forgiven' for what they will perpetually be? Or do they end up in your hell without exception?
> There is fear represented here but it is the fear of God not any fear of homosexuality.
I submit that the innate fear of homosexuality is how these vicious anti-homosexual religious tenets manifested in the first place, and now that these evil hates are religiously ordained, followers are compelled to pursue the fulfillment of these tenets for ethereal reasons, on top of their own discord with homosexuality.
> About your statement "there is a genetic causation to homosexuality", I will refer you to a response that I have already sent about this subject in a previous Weblog. This response was not directly responded to and scientifically refutes this claim. Please show me one study that proves there is genetic causation to homosexuality, because I can surely show you studies that disprove it. If you cannot provide the case study that proves this position please refrain from representing this as fact.
Again, I never state anything as fact (please read this foreword excerpt), and for the reasons you've pointed out, for every study one way, there's a study that opposes it, thereby rendering moot any possibility of a case study serving as meaningful evidence. However, the strongest evidence (even better than a case study) to support my position of a genetic causation to homosexuality is founded upon their very own verbal testimony that it is 'not' a choice for them; they did not 'choose' to find their own sex attractive, there is a genuine underlying instinctual impetus to that attraction.
You may choose to deny the validity of their statements if you believe that 'all' homosexuals are liars, but then you have also effectively ended our debate with a stalemate. I have no pressing desire to pursue the issue with you beyond this for you are discounting all the evidence I can offer, and decidedly continuing with your flawed perception anyway. I'm not interested in climbing an infinite wall, and I'm also quite comfortable allowing you to persist with your completely unqualified understanding of homosexuality.
> In this light your statement concerning the "increase of degree of homosexuality in the Christian subset of humanity" is false. If you can provide the case study that proves this position I will retract my statement.
It's simple mathematics, assuming for a moment that I am correct that there is a genetic causation to homosexuality, then, from fear of reprisal, many homosexuals would be forced to lead superficially 'normal' lives, which includes possibly having many children, thereby theoretically passing on this homosexual genetic pretense to their progeny, whom most likely would never have been born in the first place if the homosexual parent wasn't oppressed into this 'normal' lifestyle. Oppression of homosexuality increases net homosexuality. This isn't to suggest that all children born of homosexuals necessarily become homosexuals, but it is to suggest that probabilities are skewed in that direction because of this influence.
> What is natural about homosexuality - nothing that I can see?
Anything that Mother Nature produces is 'natural'. What's also very interesting is that even within your mythological perspective, your 'god' was responsible for the creation of homosexuals (as it supposedly created everything, correct?), and so I don't understand where you are coming from when you say they aren't 'natural'. Forgive me if I assume too much, but I believe you are basing this 'unnaturalism' upon what you perceive is their 'choice' not to participate in opposite gender relationships, counter to what our body's various apparatus' would seem to indicate is 'normal' (your biblical definition notwithstanding). Well, by this interpretation, is someone that hang-glides a deviant as well? We're definitely not meant to be flying around. How about those that scuba dive; are they abnormal? Fire-eaters, race-car drivers, coal miners, astronauts...I think your hell is going to be 'full' if immorality is to be defined by what we aren't biologically predisposed to do.
Thank you for once again sharing your perspective.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
|
#160 - How to help BetterHuman.org - February 26, 2006, 02:53 PM |
Mr. Bitcalf wrote:
> I was utterly shocked (and tickled) by the almost identical expressions (to my own) that you and I share. For a while there, I thought I was reading my own writing.
Many thanks for the kind words. I am also often surprised when I encounter someone that has already traveled the same path as I in regard to holding a position against religion. Not many people can see the forest for the trees.
> I would sincerely take pleasure in joining your cause. I can relocate. I have no possessions. I need no possessions. I have nothing demanding my attention at the present time. I have noone demanding my presence at the present time. I vowed to spend the rest of my life opening people's minds, helping deserving people and extirpating religion.
My friend, a very sincere thank you for your most generous commitment to this cause. However, there is nothing to join that you aren't already a part of, that being the 'human race'. You are already well poised to exert yourself with as much influence as possible upon those around you that you see suffering from ethereal addiction. BetterHuman.org (I know the .org is misleading) is not meant to be something you join, any more than you could join a 'map'. BetterHuman.org, and Meme, together draw a 'map' of how humanity could perceive 'reality', and how to live peacefully in it; and that's all we are. The absolute very last thing I would ever want to happen is to have this work bastardized at some time in the future, into a foundation with structure for membership that serves no other purpose than to take innocent people's money, much like has happened with Scientology. We are not a club, we are a state of mind.
If you want to help humankind evolve, then to whatever degree you are comfortable, challenge people that are religious, try to help those that are being poisoned by its enslaving charms of false mythology, and really try to believe that one person can make a 'huge' difference.
> I don't know the status of your organization. I don't know the location of your organization. I don't know the construct of your organization.
For obvious security reasons, BetterHuman.org is, and probably will be for quite some time, a 'virtual' organization. We may never have an office, location, or representatives, that might serve as political targets for those misguided individuals that would do us harm because their 'faiths' compel them to destroy us (as demonstrated by eons of heretic oppression). No, we simply are here to provide information about reality, the rest is up to you, the individual.
> I do know, though, that your organization can use my assistance with it's mission.
Absolutely, and this can take on any form you feel would be effective, within the confines of our tenets; most notably, nobody gets hurt, including yourself. Anything you can think of within those parameters would help us to achieve this mission of saving humanity from the insanity of religion.
> Thank you for your time, consideration and, especially, for showing me that I have "family", somewhere.
Thanks again for your dedication. I envision a day when you can talk to most people at random, and invariably share that exact sentiment with them. I hope your letter inspires others to take a proactive position against the tyrannized mythology of religion.
Sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 12.160, 12.166}
|
#161 - Extreme Atheism - February 26, 2006, 03:13 PM |
Mr. Wayrule wrote back:
> have you seen this site? http://www.faithfreedom.org/. what do you think about it?
It seems quite anti-muslim. I was particularly taken aback by the intensity of the introduction.
One thing I've learned over the years of debating with the very religious is that the two most seemingly powerful tools of persuasion, 'logic' and 'intimidation', are almost completely ineffective to counteract irrational perspectives. So many anti-religious organizations take a stance of 'exclusion' (as the one above does), rather than inclusion, preferring to isolate themselves from religious people instead of trying to find an effective means to appeal to them. This, by the way, is the fundamental reason that BetterHuman.org isn't broadly networked in what could be considered the greater global atheism 'movement' supported by a wide myriad of 'passionate' advocates. BetterHuman.org separates itself by proclaiming to be more a place of learning and personal growth, and not solely focused on condemning religions.
The very lure that religions utilize to draw their members in, must be the same lure to pull them out, and that is done by emotionally addressing their fears of life and death, and not with logic or intimidation. Fear is quite unmanageable when answers do not exist and that is why religions continue to fester as they do because they provide perfect (albeit illogical) answers to people's greatest fears. In my book Meme, I do not attempt to pick apart each religion, hypocrisy after hypocrisy, immorality after immorality, because all of this effort would simply be ineffective against someone armed with their almighty 'faith'. Instead, the approach I took was to provide an 'alternative' science-based set of answers that still address those fundamental fears, but relieving the person from an unjust commitment to a deity that does not exist. Showing someone a better path, one filled with love and purpose, is much more effective than telling them to get off their current path with nowhere for them to go.
Meme is a terrifying read for some people. I've actually had friends that were unwilling to open the covers because of what they believed may lay inside, and perhaps the challenges they expect it would confront them with. Such is the power of ethereal addiction, irrational and debilitating; to a degree where they can't even face the possibility of being wrong by exploring alternatives. Some people become vehemently objectionable even discussing the topic, surfacing their own obvious inner turmoil that they suffer from trying to stretch their 'faith' placebo over the terror of death. This depth of ethereal addiction fear management cannot be corrected with any degree of rationalizing or force.
If we are ever to make progress moving our species away from the addiction of mythology, then we need to show pity, not contempt, for our mentally-enslaved brothers and sisters. Always offer a hand up.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.78, 12.161}
#162 - Contradictions - March 04, 2006, 06:54 PM
In regard to the prior statement by Mr. Wheatstart:
> "I would be happy to acknowledge the passage in [Leviticus 20:13]. The Old Testament book of Leviticus is a system of laws"
Mr. Helmroot wrote back:
> So the writer claims to acknowledge it, but in the end, it's just an old way no longer followed. That sounds better to modern ears and it's so convenient to effectively ignore embarrassing verses. But it's not acknowledgement of that verse nor of Num 15:22-23
Num 15:22 "And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the LORD hath spoken unto Moses,"
Num 15:23 "All that the Lord commanded you by the hand of Moses from the day that the Lord gave commandments and onward throughout your generations."
> and Deu 4:40, stating that the Torah is effective eternally,
{All letters from this contributor: 11.153, 12.162, 12.169, 15.193}
Deu 4:40 "Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, forever."
> and it's not acknowledgement of Matt 5:18 in which Jesus says every letter and dot of the Torah will be carried out.
Matt 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"
> Num 15:30-31 lays out the punishment for knowingly not following all the laws (one of which is executing homosexuals) Yahweh has laid out.
Num 15:30 "But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the lord, and that person must be cut off from his people."
Num 15:31 "Because he has despised the lord's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him"
> You will be cut off from your people. From other verses, this seems to mean dying childless and roaming gray, gloomy Sheol with no connection to the living. I guess this applies to your correspondent and Jesus (and to me, since I won't be murdering anyone - homosexual or not).
Excellent work, my friend. Very powerful examples of how religious mantra is laced with very powerful threats in order to press their followers into submission. This is but one example of the hypocrisies that exist in the vast and deeply muddled pool of biblical interpretations. I would like to take a step back, however, because as I've stated before, I don't believe it makes sense to dissect religious mantra in the attempt to discredit it to the 'faithful' followers, for they will adhere to their beliefs even in the face of indisputable errors and inconsistencies in their religious doctrines.
The only reason I'm entertaining this specific dialogue is that in this circumstance the victimization extends beyond the ethereal addicts, and enters into the very dangerous arena of lethal oppression of other innocent people. I'm hoping that the above content can at least expose the potential for religiously ordained philosophies to have quite unjust and possibly disastrous consequences. It doesn't matter that the original submitter himself would never fulfill these religious ordinances, what matters is that another someone may.
No moral philosophy should teach hate.
Sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 11.153, 12.162, 12.169, 15.193}
|
#163 - Idolatry - March 04, 2006, 07:02 PM |
Mr. Banechart wrote back:
> Thank you and all the parameters that contributed to your essence.
You're very welcome, but don't forget, you too form a part of that essence.
> Honestly you are my greatest hero, I in-vision a seemingly impossible day that is meeting you and having an intellectual conversation with you. But I'm afraid the closest we can get to achieving that is on this weblog.
I'm very flattered and honored to have earned that reverence from your heart, my brother. It is quite human nature to want to behold the physical presence of someone they respect and admire, and I too share these sentiments for those that I admire. For myself, it has always been Albert Einstein, or at least the iconoclastic manifestation of him. What I wouldn't give to have the opportunity to physically look him in the eyes and thank him for all his contributions to humanity. Alas, it was not meant to be.
I hope I can be forgiven for being selfish in limiting my exposure to the public. I did not embark on this journey with the intent of becoming a focal point of devotion, for that motivation would clash with the very notions of inner-strength, independent thought, and pursuit of self-happiness that I am trying to teach. Life is too short to be wasting it on reverence to others. Have no idols greater than yourself, and be worthy of that role.
> I admit i have absorbed some of 'your' essence and with the utilization of mine; channeled it into the fantasy vs. reality debate (unfortunately its much more difficult verbally).
Verbal dissertations are exceedingly difficult. It takes great wisdom to be able to negotiate the inner-workings of another person's mind at the pace of a verbal conversation. The advantages of having real-time feedback from the other person are greatly outweighed by the futility of trying to generate well-thought-out dialogue on the fly. These days, I rarely engage this subject matter outside of a written forum so that I can conserve that energy for maintaining the highest possible caliber of the weblog material. That's not to say that I discourage the verbal challenges, in fact, if you are well-versed in the contents of this weblog, you'll be quite prepared to intelligently debate with the very religious, if for no other reason than I believe the vast majority of their ethereal-addiction 'footholds' have already been addressed here.
> It truly does start at the individual level.
Absolutely it does. Nothing can be more effective that your personal influence.
> Mind the randomness of this question but i was wandering if Steven Hawking believes in a god, maybe if you knew..
I believe his famous quote, "There is no place for a Creator" says it all.
{note to reader: I am corrected by a submitter in a future weblog entry}
Enjoy life,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
|
#164 - Can we rid the world of religion quickly? - March 04, 2006, 07:05 PM |
Mr. Shipbite wrote back:
> I am very impressed with your work but am frustrated because I think you could do more. I just get a feeling that with your present course it's like trying to stop an enormous mud slide with a little kids plastic shovel. At the rate that you are going you will not only not see these irrational religious beliefs gone in your lifetime but probably never. I just think that for every one person that you are helping there are a million being brainwashed by some religion.
Have patience my friend, there are many steps that humankind must take before we as a whole can bear the pains of facing reality. BetterHuman.org is less than one year old, and already I think you can see a considerable maturity in its portrayal and motivations. The weblog is by 'no' means the full extent of our strategy, in fact, we have barely begun. It won't be very long before the work you see is re-engineered into more powerful tools to facilitate the inevitable reversing trend toward reality, after eons of mythological enslavement.
In response to my prior statement:
"The absolute very last thing I would ever want to happen is to have this work bastardized at some time in the future, into a foundation with structure for membership that serves no other purpose than to take innocent people's money, much like has happened with Scientology. We are not a club, we are a state of mind."
you wrote:
> If the organization were founded by you and was based on your tenants why do you feel that it would or could slip into the above? Just because religious organizations have?
Anything that people can conceivably 'want', can be converted to a commodity and subsequently tyrannized; this must not happen with our philosophies. The second the proverbial 'collection plate' enters the equation, we have been corrupted, with no chance of credibility. This is why I am making it abundantly clear that there is nothing to join, nor dues to pay, nor donations to give, such that BetterHuman.org remains largely incorruptible. Ideally, our monetary resources will come from larger establishments, and sales of literature; and not in the form of discretionary unmitigated handouts from the susceptible masses. Having said this, I truly don't believe that a lot of money is necessary to achieve our mission, just time and dedication from those that care.
Also, it must be clear that there would be 'nothing' to gain whatsoever from the notion of 'joining' us, for we cannot offer anything in a membership context that you don't already have. So, instead of trying to say, "I'm a member of BetterHuman.org", you should be saying, "I am becoming a BetterHuman".
> It just seems to me that you need to work together with other high profile, intelligent, articulate, like minded people.
Oh but we do, some visible, some not so visible.
> It's so amazing to me how so many people get away with believing in such irrational beliefs and get to just go on as if there is nothing wrong with it.
Now, I trust that you understand they believe they will be severely punished if they question their faith, so, in that light, why would their persistence in 'faith' amaze you? If you told a child that they would be eaten by a lion if they left their room, do you think they'd ever leave it?
> I felt bad for the person you responded to above and I could just sense the wind being taken out of his sails by your response.
I hope not, I really admired his conviction, but it's important to understand that I am not trying to be another Jesus Christ. I do not want 'followers', for that simply begins 'exactly' the same tyrannized power structure as those (religions) that have controlled humanity forever, all over again. Please understand the same message that I was trying to give to him and that I'm now trying to give to you, my brother: You must stand beside me, not behind me, for I am no more your mule, than you are my master. If I can teach someone to find their unique purpose in life, rather than blindly following another, they will be well armed against the allures of religion.
My friend, if you believe in the pursuit of emancipating humanity from ethereal addiction, then please take on the same challenges that I have, which is to exercise your voice of reason and compassion in whatever realm of influence you occupy. This is the greatest contribution you, or anyone, can make. To demonstrate how powerful you really are, if you were to change only two people's perspective every week, and they also each changed two more people's perspective each week, and so on, well, there's no massive advertising campaign possible that will reach 'everyone' on the planet in under 6 months like your word-of-mouth did; and amazingly, it all started with you.
> Unless you surprise me I anticipate a let down by your response to me.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but it is your 'choice' to feel let down; I have no control over that. Perhaps your expectations of me were unrealistic? I'm a firm believer that if things are going to get done right, you have to do it yourself.
> I just know you are going to tell me why you can't do more than you are.
I could ask you the very same question.
> What I mean by more is you reaching millions of people instead of hundreds.
Again, my friend, patience. If it is meant to be, it will happen in its own due course. Any attempt to blindly rush ahead is perilous to our mission as it can only lead to mistakes, waste, and misinterpretations. There is no 'magic bullet' that will quickly correct the ails of humanity; we need much time to rebuild. BetterHuman.org does have a greater plan in the works, and you are part of it. In the end though, please understand that I can only do as much as you, and others like you, are willing to help me with. This mission needs teamwork more than leadership.
> If you had to change the United States in to being a country where over 90% of the population truly understood and believed your message and you had to do it within the next 10 years, how would you do it? Please think this through and give me your best answer. Please remember where there is a will there is a way. Don't make excuses, etc..
My dear friend, I know your motivation is to stimulate me into some kind of as-yet-undetermined phenomenal action that will achieve the elimination of what frustrates you, but I have to ask you why you feel it is entirely up to me to relieve you of your pain? What you are asking me is, "Sean, please make 6 billion people stop believing in fantasy". If it were even remotely plausible that there was a quick solution to this, I still don't see how that responsibility to enact it falls upon me; I only claim the willingness to try. Are you not as completely capable as I to pursue the challenge that you define above? No offence, but what is your excuse for not achieving this goal yourself?
I have spent many years trying to coax people from their shells of faith, only to remain perpetually defeated, but what I've learned from these experiences is that the solution to humankind's ethereal addiction is not to find a 'cure', it's to create a 'vaccine' to prevent further infection of the religious meme-virus, and that vaccine comes in two parts: the first is 'education'. By introducing into our youth's education systems the concepts of reality, inner and intra-personal skills, and rendering 'illegal' the notions of faith-based religions, (as well as many other concepts that are enumerated by BetterHuman.org's tenets) we will set up the necessary defenses against the insanity of religion.
The second part of the vaccine is to recognize that religion is a narcotic that shields our minds from the pains of life. Addressing those pains by improving the overall quality of life for the masses (by reducing the impact on our lives of the enslaving employment machine and mitigating the capitalistic psychological manipulation the masses are subjected to) will render the need for this narcotic moot. These two parts together will create the vaccine that will manifest the solution you seek.
There is no quick path to achieving this, but, my friend, we'll get there.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.22, 12.164}
|
#165 - Homosexual causation - March 04, 2006, 07:13 PM |
Mr. Wheatstart wrote back:
> I agree that the Christian tenet of it's intolerance of homosexuality does not vindicate 'hate' or an unjust negative disposition toward a homosexual. The keyword here is 'unjust' a homosexual should be approached with respect and love, justly being shown that the behavior is immoral. From a Christian Worldview, once having been shown the truth in love 'not hate' and the individual still willfully continues in their immorality, of course they should be dealt with 'justly' validating a negative disposition.
So this essentially boils down to the subjective interpretation of what is 'immoral'. Your moral code is defined by an ancient legacy of scriptures supposedly endorsed by your mythological entity; whereas, BetterHuman.org's definition of morality is based upon a logical approach to maximizing happiness for all of humanity. From these two perspectives, it should be easy enough to see each other's justification for positions held, so the debate ultimately isn't really focused on homosexuality itself, but rather on who has a truer moral code.
> Saying someone's behavior is immoral is very different then saying they are evil. I did not say "they are evil", I said that homosexuality is morally wrong - it is sin. From a Christian viewpoint sinfulness is not an attribute of only homosexuals it is an attribute of all people. This does make people 'evil' just human.
> The manifestations which you attribute to 'hate' can just as easily and more appropriately, in this case, be attributed to 'justice'. The thief when found guilty is condemned to prison, oppressed by our system, and ostracized from society. The homosexual when unwilling to recognize the truth of the immorality, refuses to repent of the behavior, and deliberately continues in this practice. Is now likewise subject to 'justice' manifested by a condemnation of this behavior, oppressed by Christian authority, and ostracized from Christian society until such a time they are willing to reform. This is not 'hate' as I understand it - it is 'justice'. The sin is hated not the sinner.
My friend, I don't accept your approach at 'mincing words' here. Nobody loves a thief, even if they stop stealing, because it is perceived that these negative actions manifest from a deeper, intrinsic and always-present essence of a thief. Likewise, I sense an immutable disgust towards homosexuals that extends beyond their actions and pervades into their very being. I believe it very unlikely that you would ever welcome a homosexual into your home (to perhaps care for your children?), even if that homosexual has denounced any possibility of further homosexual behavior until their death. This is the hate I speak of; they are permanently condemned in your mind, beyond even their fulfillment of 'your' requirements for penance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Indeed you ask a superb question in what would Jesus Christ do to a homosexual. He 'will' forgive them if they recognize this behavior as sin, request forgiveness, accept him as their lord and savior, and repent of the behavior (repent being a true willingness to no longer practice the behavior). Failing this, knowing the immorality of the behavior, continuing to deliberately practice the behavior, and choosing to do things their own way, then yes according to biblical Christianity it seems they are certainly a candidate for Hell.
Condemned by design. It seems the foundation for your argument that they 'choose' to be homosexual is solely premised upon your religious literature's definition of them, and has no foundation whatsoever in logic or science, but because your Bible says it is so. For you to even consider the notion of a biological causation would force you to categorize them as one of your god's creations, introducing a serious degree of contradiction into your religious tenets, and possibly even forcing you to necessarily accept their presence. Your entire position of demonizing homosexuals rests solely on the need to avoid these ramifications.
> Are you saying that people are born with fear of homosexuality just as people are born homosexual?
Yes, people are born with an instinctual aversion to sexual incongruency. In my book, Meme, I call this instinct the 'repulsion fringe' which manifests itself as the perception of something being 'ugly' (physically, or mentally), and it serves to 'channel' our reproductive potential toward our 'perfect mate' and away from 'random mating'. Typically this instinct flares up when sexual interest is perceived from someone (of either sex) that doesn't fit your profile of a 'perfect mate' and rarely is this more pronounced than when receiving these advances from your own gender. Obviously, one's unique configuration of the 'perfect mate' image, and their 'repulsion fringe' instinct, plays a large role in determining one's sexual orientation.
> If so, then are they to be blamed for hating a homosexual any more than a homosexual can be blamed for their sexual preference?
Your same 'logic' here could also be applied to justify someone raping another when they fail to override their sexual instincts with their intelligence. The key here is 'intelligence'. Our instincts are best adapted for a hunter-gather society, which we no longer belong to, and it takes a concentrated effort to usurp some of the more selfish primitive urges that our ancient brains manifest, in order to facilitate a higher order of coexistence. If we didn't have intelligence to mitigate our instinctually-generated feelings and actions, you would see a much more primitive and hostile society, very much akin to the social structure witnessed in children (cliquey, superficial, intimidating, extreme in emotion, oppressive, afraid of the unfamiliar, weak in integrity or conscience, etc.).
Fortunately for most of us, our intelligence blossoms formidably as we mature into adults, and this is nature's gift that allows us to make sense out of situations that perhaps our raw instincts are ill-equipped to delegate the appropriate thoughts and actions for. The ancient 'aversion' instincts (hate, fear, pain, etc.) are still active of course, but their influences can be managed by a conscious effort to remediate their default erroneous reactions.
In summary, don't trust your aversion instincts, use your brain. You are not to blame for the motivations that your instincts generate, however, you are responsible for how you handle those motivations. If you don't like something, think it through and see if it makes logical sense not to like it; if not, then override that 'dislike' reaction and generate a more peaceful, intelligent one. Though most people's aversion to homosexuality may be founded in instinct (the 'repulsion fringe'), it simply makes no logical sense 'whatsoever' to feel this repugnance towards them; and it becomes especially lewd when this instinctual repugnance manifests into oppressive moral codes.
> Moreover it is simply natural for this antipathy to occur. It is just 'Mother Nature' at work. It also then follows that the innate fear of homosexuality is not the sole providence of the religious.
Correct, there is a strong natural aversion to homosexuality (which is also the very root of your faith's abhorrence toward them), but the simple-minded reflex of this primitive 'prejudice'-generating instinct does 'not' justify holding an overall negative position against them. Again, our instincts are wired for an ancient hunter-gatherer society. We are treading brave new ground with our phenomenal intelligence, so it falls upon us to override the base instincts with more civilized (and logical) thoughts and behaviors.
> The 'evil hates' may be religiously ordained although I am unaware of any religion where one of the tenets is to hate homosexuals. Do you happen to know of one?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" [Leviticus 20:13]
If you do not perceive this as the fulfillment of hate, my friend, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
In regard to my statement:
"Again, I never state anything as fact"
You said:
> You may not state is as fact but you certainly represent it as fact
It is my chosen presentation style that is meant to carry my confidence in, and conviction for, whatever subjective topic we are discussing. It is also meant to be carelessly antagonistic such that passions are unreserved in reply; it makes for excellent topic fodder. But again, there's no such thing as a fact.
> every study (case study or not) ever done on genetic causation of homosexuality fails to prove it - now that is a fact.
I assure you that the specific complex intricacies of the human brain that determine sexual orientation are far beyond our current technological capabilities to quantify. Attempts at measuring certain neurotransmitter/hormonal balances, or even more ridiculous, by measuring the girth of select brain parts (phrenology?) in the pursuit of pinning a biological causation to homosexuality is fundamentally flawed in its approach, but that does not dismiss a biological root. A lack of understanding of this complexity has lead many on a wild goose-chase to try to find a genetic homosexual 'marker', and it cannot be found simply because it's not the presence, absence, or measurement of something, it's the specific layout of the neural wiring in the instinctual brain that makes this determination, of which our current technology is ill-equipped to access and interpret.
> Therefore logically, scientifically, and through examination of the empirical evidence available there is absolutely no support at this time for the position that there is any genetic causation of homosexuality. If your strongest evidence is subjective verbal testimony from people who desperately wants to rationalize their lifestyle and be accepted by society it is poor 'evidence' indeed.
Considering your Bible is entirely a book of hearsay, does that then make your Bible poor evidence for a god?
> By extension if we are to rely on subjective verbal testimony as 'strong evidence'. Then you have made just made the case for Christianity, because we will be easily be able to provide millions of verbal testimonies that claim Jesus Christ is exactly who the bible says he is - God.
Touché; that is an excellent point you make. At least we agree that it is possible for an entire class of people to be extremely misled.
> I do not have to believe homosexuals are liars to deny the validity of their statements, all I have to do is look at the evidence. If a homosexual believes they are born that way it does not mean I have to buy into their rationalization.
My friend, could you not just as easily apply that same logic to yourself and perhaps not buy into your religious mantra's rationalization that homosexuals are innately immoral? Your choice to accept or reject information is solely premised upon fulfilling your ethereal addiction, and not based on the consistent application of logic. The hypocrisies abound: you reject all homosexuals' testimony, yet you believe all of the Christians'; and you reject biological causation to homosexuality because of lack of evidence, and yet unwaveringly accept the existence of your ethereal entity upon 'faith' alone. This is a very 'convenient' manner in which to accept or reject information. It seems evidence only becomes important to you when you need to 'disprove' another's position, and never is it needed to support your own.
> You have no evidence that is not subjective, your position is emotional not logical, politically correct not scientifically correct, and if there is an unqualified understanding it is your own not mine.
A respectful 'ditto'.
> Homosexuals have chosen their immoral behavior they are not 'born that way' with no choice. It is absolutely a choice.
I think I just discovered that we are talking about two different things. I've been speaking of a person's innate sexual orientation, and you've been speaking about their choice to 'enact' this orientation. In your context, yes, you are correct, it is a 'choice' for them to act upon their homosexual desires, as it could conceivably be their choice 'not' to. If this is your argument, then I believe we've been pulling on two different ropes. Can I ask you now, not in the 'choose to act' context, but in the 'underlying desire' context, if you believe that homosexuals are 'choosing' to find their own sex attractive? On a more personal note, did 'you' proactively 'choose' to find the opposite sex attractive? Do you think you could choose 'not' to find the opposite sex attractive?
In regard to my original statement:
"...by this interpretation, is someone that hang-glides a deviant as well? We're definitely not meant to be flying around. How about those that scuba dive; are they abnormal? Fire-eaters, race-car drivers, coal miners, astronauts.I think your hell is going to be 'full' if immorality is to be defined by what we aren't biologically predisposed to do."
You wrote:
> Your comparisons are inappropriate because I am not speaking of human to object relationships but physiological human to human relationships.
What I'm trying to identify is that the diversity of possible actions that we humans can perform is nearly infinite, of which a small subset of those actions can be considered 'immoral'. The definition of 'immoral' is always subjective and defined by the underlying goals of the people that define it. Religion's definition of immorality is largely an extension of our base primitive instincts, some of which (e.g., the 'repulsion fringe') are needlessly illogical, oppressive, and cruel. BetterHuman.org's definition of 'immoral' is defined as thoughts or actions that needlessly hurt another in the pursuit of ego placation or power accumulation. Homosexuality hurts no one, so how can it logically be immoral?
It's quite a coincidence that your faith's most revered trophy, 'immortality', is but one letter away from what BetterHuman.org considers religion to be the embodiment of: 'immorality'.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
|
#166 - If we can't physically sense something, does it exist? - March 05, 2006, 07:46 PM |
Mr. Bitcalf wrote back:
> I was at the understanding that religion was a poison but, after reading your ideas, I now understand that it is an addiction. It (religion) has served it's purpose and pacified the human race through one of the most uncomfortable eras in it's existense; the communication era.
Yes, mythology is a very necessary stepping stone in the process of humankind's burgeoning self-awareness.
> It puzzles me how religious practitioners take everything for granted (like ideas and speech) and have abandoned their bond with nature.
It's very easy to just 'go with the flow', and of course the punishments for dissent are unconscionable, so religions can readily perpetually maintain this tight grip on their followers minds. It takes a phenomenal will to even begin confronting this ultimate of mental illnesses.
Below you've submitted a list of personal memes that facilitate your personal (atheist?) value system. Forgive me for not reproducing the entire list for I think the majority of their essences are encapsulated in our tenets (perhaps not as poetically), but some of them I've made comment on:
> "If your five senses can't detect or recognize it, how can you believe it exists?"
I'll have to disagree with the underlying premise here, my friend. There are many things that are beyond our five senses' ability to detect, such as: atoms, infrared, ultrasonic, carbon monoxide, etc. Technology gives us the ability to extend our senses in such a way that these things 'become' detectable. We cannot limit our perception of reality to what information Mother Nature affords us without aid.
> "Belief does not equal know."
Very important.
> "I'm alive. Everything else is a bonus."
An excellent starting position for the ego.
> "Don't be a leader or a follower, be an example."
Another excellent point.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 12.160, 12.166}
|
#167 - Breaking free of ethereal addiction is torture - March 05, 2006, 07:52 PM |
Mr. Braydeal wrote:
> unfortunetly I suffer from a disorder called Moral/Religious Scrutiny which is a form of OCD which seriously limits my fun factor in life as it has turned me religious from the fear of the possibilities of hell and the expectancy of having to do good like a good little christian. I've actually been going cold turkey as I don't feel I really believe in God but unfortunetly my conscious or OCD is telling me otherwise. For the past 3 nights, I've been surviving on about 4 hours sleep a night and constant butterflies in my tummy every day. Any idea if this is normal for someone trying to undo the damage of "religion " ?
Yes, absolutely it is completely normal to suffer through long periods of doubt, fear, guilt, etc. You have a phenomenal amount of religious 'programming' in your head that latches onto virtually every emotional tether you have, from 'fear' of damnation, to the prospect of losing your immortality, to leaving the safety shell of 'perfection' that a religious perspective promotes, to the 'shame' in resisting what they call 'morality', to being 'ostracized' from your entire social circle, to not knowing what the truth is, to having nobody to turn to, etc., etc. It is quite literally 'torture' to break free of ethereal addiction.
My brother, I have traveled the path you now embark upon and my journey took many years of trial and error, many setbacks, and much fear. But I made it, and anybody can do it. You have forever seen the cracks in religion's magic ball, and over time you will find that you can never go back to the comfort of that sweet denial. You are not wired for submission, or you wouldn't be writing us today. I won't encumber you with a 10-step program to freeing yourself from ethereal addiction because that journey is unique and personal to everyone, but I will tell you the single most important thing that you must accept: Someday, you will die forever, and then you will be no more. Only when this fact is in your head will you be able to find the heart of the beast that controls your mind, and defeat it...then you will be free.
> I'll keep you posted as I battle this, I feel I will as long as my heart is not affected by all of them in the health sense of the word and I can still perform my duties at work, while at least managing some sleep every night.
Please do contact me for any questions or contributions. Sharing the challenges you face in your ethereal liberation will be hugely valuable for others that find themselves starting the same path.
> My OCD developed after my mother had a massive heart attack and I began to question mortality with fears for my mother. I never used to believe in God before those events and I guess I only started believing because my comfort zone was bursted. Not long after, I developed OCD from severe depression as my mother now has a kidney disease so her health is rapidly getting worse.
I wish there was something I could say that was comforting or could improve your circumstances, but I think you'll agree that you cannot avoid this painful situation; there is no solution. This is reality, this is life, and virtually 'everyone' that has ever lived, is living, or will ever live, will have to face the same degree of pain you are facing today. No amount of hiding behind religious denial is going to make you forget about the cracks you've already seen in religion. Blind faith is not an option. Believe me, it will be much harder on you to try to lie to yourself, rather than struggle to your feet and face that pain head on.
The best way to handle pain is to plan for it. You must manufacture the strength to foresee and plan for any outcome, and what you expect to feel like and must do in the event of these outcomes. Turn the 'unknowns' into 'contingency plans' and you can persevere through anything.
> I'm going to be using your website to feel (fill) my head with what I like to call reverse propaganda.
A fantastic compliment.
> (I) think it is great that you teach how we can still be good human beings without a spiritual faith.
Mother Nature has provided us with a gamut of 'moral' instincts that perhaps may require a bit of fine-tuning from our intelligence, but overall they are very well designed to provide for social order. The ultimate premise of Mother Nature's morality is facilitated by giving us the ability to 'empathize', as in sensing another's emotions. By being able to 'feel' another's pain or pleasure, we ultimately share that pain or pleasure, and hence we are forced to interact in ways that don't inadvertently bring ourselves pain as a result of inflicting pain upon others. Very simple concept, but all of morality is founded upon it.
> Thought you may be interested in this thread I created on a christian forum, disputing God's existance.
Ah, you are ramping up quite quickly, congratulations my friend. Keep your fears in check, and watch the religious house of cards crumble.
Best of luck,
Sean Sinjin
|
#168 - Where did the entity of Sean Sinjin manifest from? - March 10, 2006, 09:08 PM |
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> Two types of Atheists Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand.
It's rather simplistic to attempt to squeeze all the variations of atheists into only the categories above. There are just as many reasons for atheism as there are atheists. Some atheists are borne of mistreatment from religion, some find great comfort in not being watched all the time, some are afraid of the mysterious afterlife and don't want to believe, some even do it because they enjoy defying the threats of eternal damnation, etc. Everyone is unique, even atheists.
> Previously stated No absolute morals for atheists Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do have a legal system with a codified set of moral laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes."
My friend, you are making a very broad and grossly inaccurate assumption that the 'legal system' in its current incarnation serves as any meaningful definition for morality whatsoever. This couldn't be further from the truth. As much as religious people are forced to bear the subjective and contradictory interpretations of religious doctrine, so too are we atheists forced to bear the severely abused law-making process that usually only serves to maintain power for those that are already in power.
Firstly, what you claim is the 'atheist' moral code (the legal system) is actually a manifestation of 'your' religious moral code, not ours. It's important to recognize the sheer magnitude of influence that your religion has had in the very formation of this legal system from its inception, and the legal system we have even today strongly reflects the basic teachings of religious doctrine. Sure, over time, our legal system has expanded to adapt to most of the permutations of violations that can conceivably occur, but fundamentally its roots rest in religion. How can you claim that the 'legal system' defines the atheist moral code, when we've had virtually 'no' influence whatsoever in its definition?
What especially makes the legal system an extremely 'poor' example of a moral code is that it has become quite tyrannized since its more innocent beginnings, and these days we see a substantial myriad of laws specifically designed to keep power in the hands of those that currently possess it. Our modern 'laws' allow fantastic pyramids of power to accumulate into the hands of a select few, while enslaving the rest of the masses in order to maintain this power structure. There is no morality in that.
No, for an atheist, the only 'true' moral code is the unwavering definition set by the consistent influences of the altruistic instincts. It never changes. Society's laws are a 'very' poor reflection of this instinctually-founded morality.
> This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right?
You're identifying the very flaw with the legal system in that it reflects the tug-of-war between ideologies. The inconsistencies of the legal system are 'not' a result of 'atheists' not being able to make up their mind on morality, but rather it's a reflection of the differing perspectives (religious or not, or even between religions) that perpetually influence the nature of our laws. Atheists by no means have sole providence over the definition of laws, so how can we be held responsible for its inconsistencies, or subsequently be deemed inconsistent in morality?
> I would say that morals are absolute because they would evolve over time and these left to stand the test of time must be good for us.
So do you think we should kill all homosexuals then? The Bible seems to think so, and this tenet has been around for many hundreds of years.
> I see that you say "I believe there is no God" this of course is a conscious choice. Then, on what would you as an atheist be basing your belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
That's easy: for whatever reasons you could possibly give me why 'you' don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, I could give you exactly the same reasons for why 'I' don't believe in your ethereal entity.
> Your stance Through out your site you assert that there is no proof that God exists. The only problem is that you cannot logically make that claim. In order to state that there is no proof for God's existence, you would have to know all the alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.
My friend, I would repeat the above back to you to demand that you prove that your god 'does' exist, but having been down this path so many times, I'd rather agree to disagree. If this exact topic hadn't been covered so many times in the weblog, I'd entertain it with you, however, it'd be much more efficient if you'd read the weblog in its entirety to avoid repeating concepts that have already been addressed.
> At best, you can only state that of all the alleged proofs you have seen thus far, none have worked. You could even say "I believe there are no proofs for God's existence". But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that you have simply have not encountered yet.
Once again, as with most religious people, 'proof' is only needed by those that oppose your beliefs, and not by you. Do you not see that as rather convenient? Can you give me a single argument that supports the existence of your god that isn't equally applicable to proving the existence of the Tooth Fairy?
> you admit that your views have been taken from other people and that you write through these people as if to channel their personal views on different subjects you write.
Not quite my friend, you misunderstand; for the majority of my role models, I am 'only' attempting to mimic their underlying 'altruistic' motivations, as in trying to exercise their kind hearts, not necessarily their ideas. Some of the most influential people in my life couldn't begin to grasp the full gamut of concepts presented in Meme; it is their purity of heart and absence of ego that I find as their most endearing measure, and it is this disposition that motivates the 'demeanor' of my work. There are too many condemning atheism advocates out there that take a militant and ostracizing stance toward the very religious, whereas I do not wish to exclude the religious, instead, I wish to emulate the generosity of spirit of my idols and extend a welcoming hand to all those that are religious, no matter how much they despise me. People chase gods in search of love and purpose, so I am offering both in their true forms, no fantasy required.
> From that I guess you have replaced Gods word with a poor copy of your version which no doubt has been derived from different people you have come in contact with..
You are overlooking the fact that your god's words have also come from people.
> This is truly scary, what are your own personal views then? Compared to all these other views which you have been influenced by and have taken on as your own?
My personal views are in no way retarded by the influential personas I respect and mimic. They only influence the motivation and demeanor behind my teachings. What you read is 'exactly' what I think. However, you seek to know what separates me from Sean Sinjin so perhaps a better question might be: what am 'I' really like? Well, I won't get into too much detail because I reserve the right for a modicum of privacy, but I can tell you this, I am as much a student of Sean Sinjin as anyone else. In my life, I have played both victim and victimizer during a very long path of pain, ignorance, ego, and denial. I have always had a very strong sense of logic and justice, but the nobility in my enactment of these traits have consistently been diminished by the polluting effects of my ego and ignorance stemming from the many years of constant misdirection by those that should have been my example (priests, adults in general, advertising, etc.). Though I rarely crossed paths with empathic and kind role models, those I did come across made a tremendous impact upon me and I will forever remember their influences. In kind, I vow to reciprocate their altruistic spirit for others to learn and benefit from.
After liberating myself from the insanity of ethereal addiction, I suffered through much purposelessness for most of my life until I finally decided to attack this 'lost-soul' problem head-on. Out of the depths of my quite diverse experiences in life, I created the paradigm of Sean Sinjin to become a moral beacon, originally for myself, but I think everyone can benefit from his example. Still, if you were to compare me today to Sean Sinjin, I would fall considerably short and can only manage to project his level in short bursts (as you witness in the weblog and Meme) but I'm trying every day to take the steps necessary that will bring me closer to the essence of inner and outer-strength that Sean Sinjin represents to me.
Am I being narcissistic? I don't believe so because I (the real me) am constantly focused on my perceived shortcomings instead of my 'greatness'. Is all of this Sean Sinjin stuff just a disguise for megalomania? Perhaps, but lacking a role model that can inspire me on all levels, I had to create something that was achievable and realistic. Do I suffer from delusions of grandeur? When compared to believing in immortality and affiliation with the supernatural, I would say that I'm relatively quite humble. Am I an egomaniac? No, I am only trying to fulfill myself; I desire, but do not 'require' yours or anyone's love.
I am not yet Sean Sinjin.
Because of my perpetual refusal to submit to what is typically the 'norm', I have spent much time as an outcast heretic on this Earth, and I foresee very little change in the near future. I know you perceive me as your adversary, but I swear I want nothing more than to be your friend, and to help you unravel the years of convoluted and terrifying madness that your religion's sinister mythology has impaled onto your life. Unfortunately for both of us though, I know exactly how unlikely you are to allow me to do this; as is the story with every other ethereal addict on the planet. But, if anything, I have become well-adapted to standing alone, and this will be a very practical attribute as BetterHuman.org ramps up to further challenge the most powerful mental illness humankind has ever known, 'faith' in the ethereal.
> By what method have you checked to see what is "credible" and what isn't or have you accepted personal views from other that only confirm your own beliefs that there is no God?
My perspective is independent of what others believe. It's wonderful to have support from others, but I have come to my own conclusions after a very extensive bout of research. It won't be possible for me to explain to you why my information is more credible than yours because it would be necessary for you yourself to have 'all' the same information pooled in your brain as I, prior to being able to balance these perspectives against one another. Sadly, you only have, and will only allow for, the 'religious' data to be pooled in your head, and unfortunately you only have a very 'limited' understanding of logic and science; plus, you are constantly misled by your emotions into a false sense of piety so you cannot possibly even begin to see how obvious it is that your beliefs are nothing more than mythology. My friend, 'real' wisdom comes after much exposure to everything, good or bad, with an open mind...and I know this because I was once like you.
> If you have done the latter it would to an imperfect and bias view which I have clearly seen on your web site.
Of course BetterHuman.org is absolutely biased toward liberating humankind from ethereal addiction. How could we achieve our mission by portraying an impartial and unbiased 'balance' of all competing fantasy perspectives? We are not 'news' agents who typically have an 'unbiased' presentation style; we have decidedly chosen a position to hold and are pursuing the fulfillment of that position. You wield the word 'bias' as if it were a slanderous term, but you probably don't realize that you too are quite 'biased' in your views on religion. Being 'biased' isn't automatically a negative thing, it's just a reflection of underlying motivations.
As to our imperfections, did we ever claim otherwise? I think an interesting question to have answered is whether you consider your faith 'flawless'?
> It seems now that you try to copy these views and try to follow them faithfully as they have become a way of life for you. It would seem that you have replaced your Bible with this bible for a better way of life.
I have role models, yes, and I have assimilated an atheist moral code derived from logic and an altruistic/empathic foundation. You present this as if it is a bad thing, which makes no sense since everyone has role models and everyone needs rules. The fact that I do not subscribe to your ethereal role model or rules does not invalidate the caliber of mine.
> Your bible has been produced by people's assertions and views, which of course have been affected by their own limited knowledge.
A respectful 'ditto'
> To assert the knowledge, which it contains, is some how "better" is a false claim.
In your opinion, of course.
> Your use of the word "better" has only been described by your own tainted version of your limited truth on the subject of "better direction"
I define a 'BetterHuman' as one who understands that true morality includes the opportunity for everyone to achieve happiness. Your religious perspective precludes and condemns harmless non-conformists and so I volunteer that our moral code is indeed 'better' than yours, simply based upon the greater net happiness for all that results from ours.
> You apologize for not living up to the standards for which you have self imposed on your self. Why apologize when there are no absolutes?
You have ran for quite some ways with assumptions that remain incorrect, so I'll state once again that there most certainly 'are' absolutes (the altruistic instincts) that define atheist morality. As for the apologies, they are merely symbolic of my personal struggle to reach the zenith of my perceived potential. I only have this one life to live, and I don't intend to waste it on mediocrity or delusion.
> To apologize means that you have a level of faith for which you put into living your life style and have let down by failing. Faith of course can be seen as putting your hope into something not seen like what you are doing by inventing your Bible. To put your faith into a man made bible such as yours can only lead to false hope and misguided direction.
I will accept that there will be many flaws in Meme, but again, nothing in Meme is purported as fact, as my foreword excerpt will attest to. That is the most important difference between your faith perspective, and my science/logic perspective: mine will adapt to new information by design, whereas yours will reject and oppress it. I have a hard time accepting that your religion's policy of denying the plausibility of new and faith-contradicting information (Dinosaurs? Evolution?) is anything but misguided.
As well, one point you repeatedly overlook is that your Bible was also man-made.
> Are you all knowing?
Of course not, it is ridiculous to assume that everything can ever be known. Are you suggesting that the credibility of a perspective should to be measured by how complete it claims itself to be? How does that make sense?
> Or like you have admitted - have taken on the pre conceived views of others?
I have not admitted the above, that was a misinterpretation on your part. But, my friend, you are quite correct in defining blind faith as foolhardy.
> For me to pick up and choose from either Gods Bible or your bible, which one would I choose? Which one would truly satisfy the inner core of a person and leave them fulfilled? Yours or Gods
Actually, your choice here is really between choosing perfect 'fantasy' in which you can ride the ethereal high, or choosing the very complicated, scary, and ego-challenging reality. You have chosen the much easier to comprehend and narcotic-induced complete-fulfillment fantasy world. I do not blame you either, for when I was an ethereal-addict, I couldn't imagine feeling more complete and pain-free. It's a wonderful high. This is the exact same addiction to an altered state that a heroin user enjoys. Nothing in the true reality will ever compare to the high of heroin, but does that mean heroin abuse is justified?
My friend, for every high there is a low, and I promise you that your ethereal high will end before the last minutes of your life when your 'faith' is put to the final and ultimate test. That one creeping fragment of 'doubt' that was so easily overlooked and denied your entire life, will suddenly and mercilessly 'explode' into full fury in your consciousness, and you will finally realize you've wasted your entire life running from your fear of death. It is at this point when you'll feel a lifetime of suppressed terror well up and rip apart your mind, torturing you beyond comprehension before you blink out of existence forever.
I fear for the psychological pain you will suffer when you die my friend, because your last moments on Earth will be much worse than death itself. You will die feeling utterly alone, unspeakably terrified, and filled with hate for all of humankind for destroying the only life you will ever have; and you will hate yourself for letting it happen.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
|
#169 - When we die, do we all see the light? - March 19, 2006, 11:24 AM |
Mr. Helmroot wrote back:
> The best comfort I can give is this: when one dies a chemical releases into the brain which provides a pure and delightful high beyond the greatest physical pleasures.
I have many times come across this claim. Very difficult to verify but seems persistent and consistent enough by those that have experienced it to perhaps have some credibility. My guess would be that this pleasure is a side-effect of imminent oxygen-starvation of the brain, or perhaps an avalanche of serotonin flow. At least the ride out is pretty nice.
> Most people who have had near-death experiences to the point that they have experienced this chemical release lose their fear of death.
Unfortunately, some of these people misinterpret this sensation as something ethereal and divine.
> At the same time, the brain may be slowing down toward death. There is a possibility that this combination puts the dying person in a state of ecstasy that seems to last an extremely long time to them.
I'm not certain that the perception of time flow slowing is very well qualified. It may be an appealing concept (to live an eternity in your last few seconds), but I don't believe our perception of time can change in such a dramatic sense, even upon death.
> After that, they "live" thru those they have touched in life.
Correct. The only thing that remains of a person after death, is the 'essence' (memories) that they've imparted of themselves onto others.
> An otherwise-intelligent man once told me that he believed in god because he had everything to gain if he was right. If he was wrong he had nothing to lose. I told him that is a formula to believe every religion and every threat.
Well said
> And what exactly is a good little Christian? Luke 14:26 "If any [man] comes to me, and doesn't hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Maybe it's too out of context, but the above is very confusing in how extremely it clashes with the purported typical mantra of this religion.
> Matt 10:34-35 "Don't think that I have come to send peace to the land. I came not to send peace, but a sword, because I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
Interesting war passage from the Bible of peace and love
> the Bible contradicts itself on whether the Torah still applies. The Jews would probably say that it always applies because the "New Testament" is not from god. But the Jews have long rationalized not following the Torah. For example, they don't bring livestock annually to slaughter in Jerusalem and they don't sprinkle bird blood when a baby is born.
A commitment of convenience
Thank you for your continued interesting contributions,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 11.153, 12.162, 12.169, 15.193}
|
#170 - Igniting ethereal passions - March 19, 2006, 11:33 AM |
Mr. Blarenet wrote back:
> the BEATHER on which you have based your theory of evolution has no proof of existence and hence , it itself a mythology of your mind invented for the purpose of defeating religious mythology.
You are half correct. Yes, bether is entirely my 'theory' that helps me to explain gravity and magnetism, and I have created this theory based upon my 'interpretation' of a gamut of the empirical scientific evidence at hand. It's no secret that I cannot 'conclusively' prove its existence, but the important thing here is that I never 'claimed' I could, nor have I ever stated that bether is a 'fact' (please read my foreword excerpt). You are impotently attacking my theory by attempting to force me to admit what I already admit and have only ever claimed; it's only a theory. My friend, is it somehow wrong to theorize?
Now why I said you were only half correct has to do with your rather egocentric position that I created bether for the purpose of defeating religious mythology. This is absolutely incorrect. There was not a single iota of anti-religious motivation behind the creation of my theory; I was simply trying to discover the mechanism for gravity, that's all. Believe me, using this theory against religion was the most incredibly farthest thing from my mind when I was working on it.
> You have gone so much far from the reality and light of true knowledge into the den of darkness/ignorance due to your stubborness/bigotry andwhat not evil thinking , that with the passage of time it becoming more and more difficult for you to come out of that den.
Please allow me to translate the above for you into what you are really saying:
"Sean, you have reduced the caliber of my ethereal narcotic's 'high' by challenging my ability to persuade (infect) you with this addiction. I will react with anger because of the pain I now suffer due to not being able to convince you to try my narcotic, and I will utilize insults to attempt to draw you in with guilt and shame, with a serious threat of ostracizing should you still resist"
As you can see, my friend, you are incapable of manipulating me with the emotional tethers you're attempting to grasp with harsh words.
> You are waisting your time and energies in your evil pursuit of spreading atheism, and will breath your last one day as thousands like you perished in the past history of humanity, some leaving signs for those coming to ponder over.
So much passion...let it never be said that religion isn't dramatic. Well, after so many prior respectful, thoughtful, and even educational emails from you, I'm quite disappointed (and surprised) that you've now chosen to emotionally 'discharge' onto me like this, which I believe is quite contrary to the purportedly 'loving' nature of your very own Islamic faith is it not? Are you upset with me because the websites you've sent me to in order to support your argument, ultimately ended up contradicting you? How is that my fault?
Despite your extremely charged diatribe, the very fact that we've even had this conversation immediately dismisses the notion that I am wasting my time, for potentially thousands of people are going to bear witness to your 'damning' statements above and it's quite possible that many will be repelled by the 'hateful' nature of your words. I find it unlikely that someone who is trying to decide on a philosophy to pursue will be motivated by your 'death' speech, and subsequently join your particular faith. Thank you once again for your immeasurable contribution to our mission.
> So lets us ssay good bye, for ending further discussion.
My dear friend, your religious meme-virus is very hard at work trying to maintain your high whilst simultaneously attempting to infect me, and it is causing you to suffer with rage (fear). There's at least a couple solutions to this dilemma; you could withdraw from further correspondence with me and return to the purity of your ethereal high, or you can accept that I cannot be infected and perhaps engage in a less volatile and more productive information exchange with me. I do hope for the latter for I know there is much to be gained from further (calm) correspondence. Please don't let emotions cloud your judgment.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 8.104, 9.119, 11.154, 12.170}