Page 14

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:

#177 - Ghosts, demons, and spirits - Mar 25, 2006, 09:27 AM
#178 - Materialism or materialism? - Mar 25, 2006, 10:38 AM
#179 - Dare to compare - Mar 25, 2006, 10:49 AM
#180 - Maligned with reality - Apr 08, 2006, 06:46 AM
#181 - Priorities - Apr 08, 2006, 07:27 AM
#182 - Fear - Apr 08, 2006, 08:08 AM
#183 - Means to an end? - Apr 08, 2006, 08:16 AM
#184 - The continuing infection of the religious meme-virus - Apr 08, 2006, 08:26 AM
#185 - One less victim of mythology - Apr 08, 2006, 08:35 AM
#186 - Hanging on to the afterlife - Apr 08, 2006, 09:55 AM
#187 - How to fix the system - Apr 08, 2006, 10:12 AM
#188 - Crack-houses of faith - Apr 08, 2006, 10:41 AM
#189 - The far left - Apr 15, 2006, 12:48 PM

Click here to see next weblog page...

#177 - Ghosts, demons, and spirits - March 25, 2006, 09:27 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}

Mr. Siderain wrote back:

> Im curious to know your take on ghosts. Just the wind? Obviously I dont think it is an angel or a demon or anything like that, but could it be more than a drafty house?

An excellent and timeless question, and the answer as you already suspect is a 10-story 'no', there is absolutely no such thing as ghosts (nor souls, witches, psychics, spirits, demons, alternate planes of existence, etc.)
The notion of a ghost originated long, long ago before we had even evolved the ability to communicate. Our evolutionary transition from an animal to a more 'sentient' species has left us with a legacy of instinctual and autonomic biological systems that 'trigger' automatically based upon environmental cues. One of the most pronounced systems we have is called the 'sympathetic' system. Despite the very misleading name, this system really only serves to prepare us 'animals' for a 'flight or fight' state of mind and body. You can feel the effects of this system when you get angry or scared (your pulse quickens, you brain becomes very alert, your muscles tighten, etc.). The sympathetic system is evolutionarily 'trained' to switch on when your senses come across a potential threat. Unfortunately, these 'threats' are not always fully discernible and so your imagination works hard to fill in the blanks of what a perceived threat might be.
For example, most everyone is creeped-out by an old decrepit house. The pitfalls of weak floor structure and rabid animals aside, the many dark corners, accompanied by the creaks and groans that an old house generates, provides ample 'unknown' stimulation for the senses to feed the imagination with. The imagination's job is to try to identify those noises and dark shapes, and if there's not enough information (too dark, weird creak, etc.), it 'must' assume the worst case scenario (a threat) in order to keep you as alert as possible to a potential (unidentified) threat. It doesn't matter if you 'know' that the house is safe and there's nobody there, because the instincts cannot operate on this knowledge, they only respond to the senses. Your intelligence only comes into play 'after' the assessment of environmental stimuli by the instincts. This means that even if you know it's safe, your sympathetic system has already kicked in and you'll 'feel' scared regardless.
Now having this understanding of the biology behind fear can help to dissuade false perceived 'threats', but let's examine what happens when people do 'not' understand this mechanism. It is quite easy to interpret your biological responses to this type of environment as somehow 'sensing' a 'presence' of something else. True, your mind is 'preparing' for the presence of something else, but that is not the same as there actually being something else. Someone that is susceptible to ethereal notions, might investigate those dark corners to find nothing, and think to themselves, "I'm pretty sure I sensed something here, so it must have been here and then vanished. The only thing that can vanish is something magical and ethereal, and the simplest thing that I can relate to that would have this agenda would be an intelligence"; hence, a 'ghost' is born.
Why does our mind work like this? Well, consider the scenario thousands of years ago when our ancestors would rummage through the forest in search of food. Back then, predators that preyed upon humans were a very real danger and conceivably the stealth-like nature of those creatures would make them very difficult to visually locate before they were within deadly range. This meant that in order for us to survive, our senses had to be very fine-tuned to the environment to pick up on these background cues (twig snapping, lack of birds chirping, etc.). Once the sympathetic system subconsciously picked up on these cues, it would fire up, put our ancestors on brilliant alert for danger, and their imaginations worked overtime to piece together the environmental evidence into assessing the nature of the threat.
This is where our ubiquitous 'ghost' concept came from, from the very frequent occasions when the threat was never identified (or entirely misconstrued) and the imagination's version of what was 'out there' overruled the reality. This 'wild imagination' may have kept our ancestors out of danger many more times than there actually was danger (better safe than sorry) but it has also imperiled humanity with a litany of legends and folklore about ghosts, demons, and spirits, wildly exacerbated in prominence by the misinterpretation of the causes of various mental illnesses (e.g., demonic possession), delusions suffered under the influence of various narcotics (e.g., psilocybin hallucinogen from mushrooms), the desire for afterlife (e.g., the soul), the need to sedate a state of bereavement (e.g., refusing to accept that a loved one is gone forever), and religious promotion due to the recognition of the power wielding abilities of fear of the 'supernatural'; among other reasons.
> The fact that so many people have encountered these phonomena makes me draw this conclusion.

This consensus 'magical' interpretation of said phenomena is due to everyone having the exact same ancient 'sympathetic' system in their brains. This makes it quite easy to believe 'any' ethereal interpretation of the sympathetic system's response because everyone has a similar reaction to any given 'spooky' stimuli. If the imagination is left unchecked, this can quickly turn into an 'ethereal' explanation, and once a rumor gets going...
> How many dimensions have we yet to understand?

I would like to discourage utilization of the concept of alternate 'dimensions' as some form of human-inaccessible 'hiding' place for all demons, ghosts, spirits, etc. This 'dimension' other-world concept probably began to surface at the time that mathematics and physics started to suggest there might be more than the four dimensions (length, width, height, temporal) necessary to describe the universe. Some examples of 'other' dimensions might be energy, spin, orientation, magnetic charge, etc. Since then, the concept of dimension in its 'quantitative measure' definition, has been horrifically perverted into implying that doppelganger universes exist; creating 'fantasy' out of science. The notion of alternate planes of existence, though excellent fodder for sci-fi literature, is nothing more than yet another fictional spin on science that some people have taken literally, and now it's become difficult to backpaddle away from this 'twilight zone' belief, back into reality.
> Whenever I come to a subject like this (or religion), I just tell myself that the universe doesnt care what i believe, and it will continue on its course to whatever end regardless of what i try to make it. Our best hope is to try to understand it as much as we can and use this knowledge to our benefit (Thats why I want to be an astronomer).

My friend, that is a most excellent frame of mind you have.
Take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}

Link to this article
Back to top

#178 - Materialism or materialism? - March 25, 2006, 10:38 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 14.178, 14.187}

Mr. Yoredove wrote:
> Both you and your reader have misconstrued the term "materialism" as it applies to Atheists. The terms refers to the materialism philosophies of early Greeks, right through to Descartes, Hobbes and Diderot. In a nutshell, the only thing that exists is matter, that all things are composed of material, and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Applied to atheism, the concept of Materialism is often at its core; atheists regard the world as it actually is, viewed only in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. I doubt seriously, that you would reject this view.

I do not reject that there's probably a wide adoption of this perception of atheism, that atheists only perceive things made of 'material' (not to be confused with 'materialistic' in which contemporary definition implies an inordinate value towards goods and power), but as we'll see below, it is not intrinsically a part of atheism.
> Clearly, you've both confused Materialism with its non-philosophical definition: "A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns". This is unfortunate. I expect this kind of mistake from your readers -- you should be setting them straight.

I'll admit to being completely oblivious as to the origin of the application of 'materialism' in reference to atheism, and thank you for providing the history for such (and setting me straight). Your point notwithstanding, I believe our focus was on whether or not 'materialism' (of any definition) is inherently a part of atheism. Let's refer to a couple dictionary definitions to clarify things.
Dictionary.com describes 'atheism' as:
1 a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods
1 b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods
2) Godlessness; immorality
Merriam-Websters online dictionary describes 'atheism' as:
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a) A disbelief in the existence of deity
2 b) The doctrine that there is no deity
As we can see, neither the literal, nor the diminutive definition of 'atheism' make any provisions whatsoever for the notion of matter, materials, or materialism, or any variations of those terms. It may seem a natural conclusion that an absence of perceiving 'ethereal' elements must therefore leave only 'material' elements (the same 'reverse' pseudo-logic that leads us into false paradigms such as 'Intelligent Design'), but this conclusion is perhaps a bit hasty.
For example, some scientists postulate the existence of alternate dimensions, something that we cannot ever 'materialistically' encounter. Though I personally discount this idea, it is nonetheless not encapsulated by either an 'ethereal' perspective, nor your chosen definition of 'materialism', and yet this perception can comfortably be held by an atheist. It is also quite possible for a person to reject both ethereal notions 'and' material presence, considering our reality instead to be a product of information, of which nothing more exists (a perspective that I personally find intriguing). This too is atheism, but not materialism. And what of the possibility that our consciousness is really nothing more than a software program locked into a neural net somewhere and all that we perceive and know is merely a simulation fed to our 'virtual' consciousness. This too, can be atheism and not materialism.
Any appendage of 'materialism' to atheism, regardless of origin or interpretation, is exactly just that, an appendage, and not a fundamental constituent of atheism. Of course the serious fallout of the purported 'materialist' definition of atheism is what we've already witnessed, misinterpretation, and ultimately anyone who isn't privy to the original intent of the word (myself included) is going to naturally assume the contemporary definition and believe that atheists are power and wealth hungry, which makes no more sense than saying all doctors are female, and all females are doctors; there is no relationship.
I hope I've at least clarified the true definition of 'atheism', versus what assumptions and conventions are commonly drawn from that definition.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.178, 14.187}

Link to this article
Back to top

#179 - Dare to compare - March 25, 2006, 10:49 AM

Mr. Grayneice wrote:
> Sir: Are you proud of your understanding of the mind?

I'm not quite sure how to take this. Can I say 'yes' without falling into a trap?
> Have you read "Realms Of The Human Unconcious" by researcher/psychiatrist Stanislav Grof?

No, but from the few excerpts I've found on the Internet, I believe it would be an educational read.
Tell me please, what is it you are pursuing with these two questions? Are you attempting to contrast my work here at BetterHuman.org against a lifetime of hallucinogen-inspired insights from the author you mention? If so, I dare say that our work may very well complement each other's and I see no need to compete for intellectual prominence.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin

Link to this article
Back to top

#180 - Maligned with reality - April 08, 2006, 06:46 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}

Mr. Cardhome wrote back:
> I feel that I've thought the topics through enough for my own needs for the time being rather than a derogation of your forum.

My friend, this is a dangerous 'plateau' to reach, that of believing there's no need for further discussion or learning, especially in light of our recent conversations that exposed a few unfortunate ideas you subscribe to. I'm sure you'll agree that this 'all I need to know' type of mentality is also typically one of the same primary failings with religion, closing one off to the endless pursuit of truth. Knowledge is a river with no source. You can keep swimming upstream, learning more and more, but there is a point for everyone at which they cannot continue; they simply don't have the strength to learn anything more. It is here that they build their cabin (perspective) and live their lives. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, except when those people claim they've reached the river's source. The river of knowledge is far too long for anyone to know everything, so it only makes sense to accept that what you know will always be incomplete.
Previously I wrote:
"Your 'rules' were formulated centuries ago and have little validity in today's modern world; we are no longer simple peasants."
> My rules are probably very similar to yours.

I'd be interested to know how congruent our philosophies are. Take a look at the BetterHuman.org tenets and see how you fit against them.
> I also am not a simple peasant!

In no way does my statement imply you are, in fact, it says quite the opposite.
I previously wrote:
"So, exactly 'when' is it appropriate to 'make up' a false threat in order to control people with fear?"
> When those people are beyond hope of reform and their actions cause greater suffering to others.

The reason that a mythological 'fear' control mechanism fails to have your desired effect is due to the degree and longevity of 'programming' that a person would already necessarily have had to been subjected to, in order to even be able to coerce them with ethereal fears. If you attempt to put the 'fear of God' into someone that has never been to church, they're going to laugh you right out the door. There are many forms of punishment/reform (incarceration, psychology, love, etc.) that are infinitely more effective in modeling socially-congruent behaviors.
> Nonetheless some very dangerous and very capable people are manipulable. Take the suicide bombers of 911 who underwent extensive intellectually demanding training for long periods in time in order to pursue a tast that would end their own lives. These were very tough, very intelligent and very idealistic people. Desperately poor and psychologically devastating situations serve to create make these people homicidal bigotted nutters.

You've rather nicely supported BetterHuman.org's position against religion. In your example, these people were bred to believe that upon their martyred deaths, they would go to an ethereal plane of existence where their sexual appetites would be supremely placated with virgins. Of course this sounds ridiculous to you and I, but it is exactly as ridiculous as an ethereal entity sending his son down to us to be crucified so that upon the death of the believers, they too can go to an ethereal plane of existence where other instinctual placations will be satisfied. Both versions of this same fantasy only serve one purpose, to manipulate believers with false hope. The fact that we know these particular followers were sui/homicidal, is situational, and can easily be paralleled with many historically similar examples in virtually all other religions. All religions have been used as a tool of death.
> I wish I found it within myself to believe that a total transition to humanitarian secularism is inevitable. I don't think the human race will survive long enough. We are doomed.

I'm sure it seems like a very radical transition, especially to those that have led a very religious life and are just now undertaking the colossal shift to a reality perspective, but I'm a lot more optimistic about our future; if only because I have made the journey myself and I know that the hardest part is the first step; accepting true death. It continuously get easier from there.
I'd also like to point out that this 'reality' transition has already begun, and is gaining momentum. What I'm doing here at BetterHuman.org is in no way going 'against' the flow because for quite some time now, there has been a gradual and yet persistent tide shift towards non-theistic perspectives. Humankind's intellectual evolution toward a reality perspective is quite simply, inevitable, and of course we will survive, and be much better for it. Do not be afraid of our brave new future, for what you will witness at the end of religion's reign is humankind's purified love and altruism brilliantly surfacing from beneath eons of ethereal profiteering, and the resultant circulating love from your fellow humans will be stronger than ever in recorded history, because all that love that we waste on fantasy creatures in the sky, will be refocused onto each other; trust me on that.
> We have the power to create our own niches in a way that no other animal has ever done and are outstripping our resources with terrifying abandon.

Of course this concerns me too. A prioritization towards capitalism could very well be our downfall. I have to believe that our future leaders will have the strength of mind to address these issues, but that is beyond the scope of this weblog (though I am working on a solution).
> Maybe I should stand up and be counted but for personal reasons I don't want to because my mother has a very very hard life and is a devout Christian, if she knew what I was it would break her heart.

You are identifying a very common challenge for those that wish to pursue a reality perspective, and that is the risk of alienation from those that they love. For myself, this challenge was only second to not having a guide to take me into reality. It is 'very' painful to have someone you love, look upon you like 'you' were insane, and lose all respect for you. I still suffer those losses today, but you know what? Those losses are not my fault, those losses are on the hands of those that poisoned their minds with mythology in the first place, rendering them insane. For me, it all comes down to 'integrity'; do I want to act and live a lie, or do I stand up against all and represent my true self?
It may help you decide if we put things into perspective (and please don't take offence to this example because it truly parallels your situation and is only meant to shed some light on it): if your mother believed wholeheartedly in the Earian bunny god, and faithfully put on her bunny ears and climbed down into the bunny hole every Wednesday night to worship this magical character because she believed she would go to bunny heaven when she died, would you still find it so difficult to tell her that you didn't believe that this bunny has the power to grant immortality?
Of course, even if you agree, it still may not justify having this conversation with her, as the fallout may be too great. Ultimately, you may not really even need to confront your mother on this matter, but there are many other arenas in which you could vocally represent your philosophies.
> Frankly it's a lot of hassle to unconvert people, you'd have to be very close to them to have an opinion that mattered to them.

Exactly, exactly. This is one of the reasons why I do not want BetterHuman.org to become a 'club' where people can come and remain 'exclusive' from other people. I want everyone that subscribes to our philosophies to integrate with everyone else and do precisely what you are saying above, use your influence on those that are close to you. Nobody's going to listen to Sean Sinjin, but they are going to listen to 'you'.
> I don't fancy being saddled with trying to help these people get psychiatric treatment or feeling guilty for doing so.

I wouldn't suggest you have to. The number one priority in your life should be to make yourself happy. For myself, exposing fraud and injustice makes me very happy and hence you witness Meme and BetterHuman.org. I in no way am suggesting that everyone do the same. Do whatever you feel you can to help, but you are not obligated to do so. You were born into a world of insane people, that's not your mess to clean up.
> Such people would only walk away unless they were very desperate and if they were that low what decent person could stand to make them suffer?

How would you feel if those people were hooked on heroin instead?
> In any case people like lies.

Nobody likes being lied to. They only listen to the lies because they can't handle their fear of death.
> It was the hardest transition I have ever made in my life and made harder by having serious real world challenges to face at the time.

My brother, congratulations on having the strength to face reality, even in the face of despair.
> But having changed I am substantially wiser and more empathic for doing so.

Thank you for contributing that. This doesn't make sense to most religious people so it helps to have other non-believers discuss their intrinsic morality and altruism.
> I think it would be a good thing to establish some kind of secular counselling service/forum with the intent to help people undergoing faith loss to learn to live with themselves.

Agreed, and 'everyone' should do their part. You are reading my contribution to that pursuit.
> Unfortuneatly I don't see how its members of staff could be protected from religious fundamentalists.

That was a serious challenge that I had to address when beginning this project. The risk is very real and I have necessarily had to sacrifice some liberties in order to remain secure. Trying to prove that practically everyone in the world is insane, is a task fraught with peril.
> An internet forum of that type would probably get hacked to pieces, I'm surprised yours isn't.

We will be stepping up our exposure in the near future so those risks are going to surface, I'm sure. But, like the old adage goes, bad press is still good press. The more BetterHuman.org is hated and/or feared, the more the message will get out there.
> Maybe there is no anger there now but you must be changed by it. How can a person loose their religion and be made alien to their own families without wanting to beat the {censored} out of something at sometime?

I was the angriest person on Earth for a very long time. Fragments of that person remain, but none of that anger motivates me today. Once I realized that my anger stemmed from being victimized by a faceless enemy (the religious meme-virus), I was eventually able to reinvent my disposition into something logical and progressive, the vaccine, which you are reading. It makes no more sense to be angry at religion than it does to be angry at an ear infection. The time came to stop screaming, and find a cure.
> My rage is largely abstracted into these kinds of discussion.

It definitely helps to verbalize these thoughts.
> Most of the torrent of anger I have felt is no longer there but it has chiselled out caverns in my mind that still reverberate with its echoes so I am still, in some sense, angry. When my mother dies the cavern will, predictably, fill with malignant bile again as I am left to look after my sporadically alcoholic and/or drug addicted/manic depressive older sister.

What a burden you impose on yourself, my friend. How is it you feel solely responsible to take on these duties? Where do 'you' come into the picture? Why allow your sister to ruin two lives? You don't owe her that.
> You can't effectively punch air!

Much empirical evidence has demonstrated this to me as well.
Seek happiness in life,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}

Link to this article
Back to top

#181 - Priorities - April 08, 2006, 07:27 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 9.134, 10.144, 14.181, 18.248}

Ms. Tellfour wrote back:
> My Dear Sean; As a Atheist I love what you are doing but at this stage of my life it is too frustrating & time consuming to read the ugly ignorant ratings of the 'believers.' I will continue to visit your web site on occasion for a refreshing look at what and should be our future. Keep up the good work.

I know exactly how you feel. It is not my desire to engage them directly either, but, there is a master plan to all this confrontation, and it won't be too long before all this dialogue works against religion.
Thank you for explaining your need to withdraw from BetterHuman.org weblog updates, and congratulations on prioritizing your life towards self-fulfillment and happiness instead. You are an excellent example of a BetterHuman.
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 9.134, 10.144, 14.181, 18.248}

Link to this article
Back to top

#182 - Fear - April 08, 2006, 08:08 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 14.182, 17.236}

Ms. Beadquit wrote:
> stop exploiting ppl

My friend, can I please ask you how you perceive BetterHuman.org to be 'exploiting' people? We don't ask for money, in fact, we have had many offers of donations and I have refused them all. Our primary goal is to clear people's mind of the insanity of mythology; the motivation being education, not exploitation. Our mission is to 'prevent' the exploitation of people by religions, such as yours.
> there is no GOD BUT ALLAH IS THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE

I am so sorry that you are yet another unwitting victim of the greatest tragedy in human history: religion. You may never come to understand the true nature of the universe because of your inflicted inability to accept that which is outside of the safety shell of your faith. But, no matter what you believe, it does not change the fact that the mindless power of the Big Bang was the 'only' creator of this universe. Please read my book, Meme, to educate yourself in the sciences that can explain how the universe came to be without an ethereal consciousness to guide it, and how mythology (like your faith) is a human-fabricated tool for controlling the masses with fear.
Please, don't lead with blind hate towards that which you do not understand; we are here to help.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.182, 17.236}

Link to this article
Back to top

#183 - Means to an end? - April 08, 2006, 08:16 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 14.183, 14.189}

Mr. Zapmoat wrote:
> Please, call me {removed}. I like your site, and can help.

I appreciate the sincere offer, my friend, and please forgive me, but for security reasons I will be unable to connect with you directly. Also, please understand that I am not looking to create a coalition of any sort, I am merely presenting a philosophy to pursue. If you truly want to help BetterHuman.org, then try to educate the people within your realm of influence about reality, and help them to see the evil nature of religion. This will be the greatest contribution you can possibly make to our mission.
> I have a plan that can work to elect a non-religious legislature that will challenge ludditism and faith at the federal level.

I too have entertained notions of a regulatory approach to the oppression of religion, but it's my feeling that any judges capable of making these types of decisions will be unwilling to take on such risk, even if they themselves believe it makes sense. This legal 'oppression' approach may be too premature. Laws are not always reflective of what's in the best interest of a society but instead they're often more reflective of what would maintain the greatest stability. Introduction of powerful legislation like the above in today's current societal state would have phenomenal repercussions that we are not currently fit to absorb. I believe that society itself has to change before the laws will bend accordingly, and this is why I am appealing to the individual, instead of trying to beat them around with the law. People will vehemently resist being told what to think.
> I am an objectivist.

Dictionary.com's definition is: One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
This may or may not do justice to Ayn Rand's more elaborate exposition of this concept, but I think one can draw out the essence of it. This definition handily relates to a recent weblog entry that equated atheism to 'materialism' (in the 'tactile' sense of the word).
> Her views on faith are excellent. Moreover, she is a harsh critic of altruism, which you unfortunately seem to endorse as a merit, in some of your writings.

I'm absolutely stunned that anyone could discount the merits of altruism, though I suppose your statement above could have more foundation to it than this rather bleak summary. Do you have some references to her justification for anti-altruism?
> Selfishness is a good trait that encourages beneficial actions. There is no conflict between the self and the greater good.

I'll disagree because I believe it's quite easy to identify many scenarios where one's selfishness impedes upon another's happiness; contrary to the 'greater good'. And though BetterHuman.org clearly supports the pursuit of self-fulfillment to the greatest reasonable capacity (aka selfishness), in no way is this meant to exclude altruism (selflessness, or self-sacrifice).
> I have attempted to educate, where possible, but the faith addicts have the numbers. What then, is a strategy for succcess against this monstrosity of human ignorance?

Understanding and compassion for their ailment, granting them a meaningful and complete reality education, assisting them to define their own purpose, and lots of time. The transition to a reality perspective is probably the greatest challenge humankind will ever face (and I 'love' a challenge) so it might very well not realize itself in our lifetimes, however, this extended effort does not diminish the importance of the steps we take today to fuel this transition.
> It involves pandering and deception in self-defense, and is a very realistic plan.

I'm afraid that your plan to promote atheism utilizes the same ulterior toolset as religion, and is quite contrary to the essence of BetterHuman.org. We wish to be a symbol of trust, integrity, respect, and credibility. These traits cannot ever be sacrificed, 'ever', even if the end result would ultimately further our mission. We will not take shortcuts, or cheat; we have started with a slow, steady walk, and some day we will cross the finish line, all of us walking together.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.183, 14.189}

Link to this article
Back to top

#184 - The continuing infection of the religious meme-virus - April 08, 2006, 08:26 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 14.184, 15.190}

Mr. Matget wrote:
> I've got to address your book/philosophy from the perspective of somebody (American) teaching English in China. You'd be amazed at how many well educated, English speaking Chinese enbrace fundamentalist Christian theology. ... The reason I think, Christianity is so popular here maybe are two from what I can tell. The unpopularity of the atheistic dry Marxist dogma and the vacuum or morality/belief that people are inclined to embrase.

As witnessed in even recent history, any attempt to suppress ethereal addiction by replacing it with cold, empty atheism, is bound to fail. People need more than just perspective, they need purpose and fulfillment, something which atheism alone does not define. It is important to have a perspective founded in atheism, but it is also necessary to extend this philosophy to attempt to address these 'human' needs.
> The other is the high concentration of Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christian missionaries in the Universities working as teachers.

I'm surprised that China even allows this. I don't imagine they would allow heroin dealers to teach their children to speak English.
> I think the flaws of Communism, as far as atheist thought though, are disturbing.

I know there's a historical correlation between communism and atheism, but I wish it to be clear to my readers that they do not necessarily imply one another. Atheism can occur in any kind of government, and likewise communism can also support religion. The two are not interdependent.
> Atheism is maybe too intellectual an undertaking for the masses of uneducated peasantry the Communist leaders had to deal with. They were never up to the challenge.

Correct my friend, and what you've identified is that education forms a key role in clearing the disease of mythology from humanity. Simply oppressing religion without offering something easily-digestible by the masses to replace it with, will result in nothing more than an exercise in futile attrition. People 'have' to have answers, and if they don't understand the answers given to them, they'll make up their own; hence religion.
> Christian missionaries, on the other hand, don't care much about money. They're more interested in 'saving souls for God' and such. So they will accept the lower pay the universities offer to get access to bright young minds that are already more interested in English and things western, not really having thought about religion before and their teachers are mainly talking about Jesus. It's really a perfect storm environment for Christian missionaries. You get are a large number of well educated Chinese, disenchanted with their own secular country being exposed to Christian theology on their campus and getting the impression that all foreigners are Christian. They have the support network, the faith community, the sexy Western appeal with the frowning of the paternalistic government.

The religious meme-virus runs amok, infecting the disenfranchised as it has for millennia. What an exceptionally resilient virus; though, its resilience is entirely a product of human malcontent.
Thanks for sharing your experiences,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.184, 15.190}

Link to this article
Back to top

#185 - One less victim of mythology - April 08, 2006, 08:35 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 13.174, 14.185}

Mr. Writleap wrote back:
> Compliments of the season. I want to thank you for the motherly and divine advice you gave to me.

I'm so glad you found the advice valuable. I hope you feel much safer and happier now.
> Please what are the main objective of your organisation. I am interested to know more about better human organisation,

BetterHuman.org wishes to educate people so they do not believe in fantasy. You know exactly how scary it is when you believe in magical things, and this is how bad people control good people, with fear. Every single religion in the world is doing this to their followers. Religions 'scare' people with fake stories about demons and gods and spirits and other such nonsense so that these people will give their money to the churches. Religions are 'evil', and that is what BetterHuman.org is trying to teach everyone.
> What is your Nationality.

I will only claim to be a member of the human race; the political details are not important.
> I humbly request for your right hand of friendship and honest co-operation.

My brother, you had my friendship before we ever met. If you have any questions, please send them to us.
Be safe,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 13.174, 14.185}

Link to this article
Back to top

#186 - Hanging on to the afterlife - April 08, 2006, 09:55 AM

Mr. Labeldial wrote:
> Dear Sirs, I do not have any religious faith, and am completely open minded; but, and I say this with utmost conviction, I do Spiritually know spirit, and in myself, know this other higher dimensional life form exists... One thing we do know is that death just does not exist; only the physical body drops away, leaving the spirit, or life force to continue on it's way.

If you look carefully at the statement above, you'll see that it's actually a cleverly disguised admittance of your fear of death. This fear of death is the 'only' reason you subscribe to the concept of a spirit such that you can pacify this fear with a false hope. I'm sorry my friend, but all the hope in the universe isn't going to change the one most painful fact that we all must face, and that is the inevitable true death we are bound by destiny to fulfill. You may choose to continue for the rest of your life hiding under this veil of denial in order to suppress your great fear of death, or you can take steps to address this fear, and find a way out from under its heavy weight. BetterHuman.org and Meme can help you to do this.
> No, science does not, and never will, or can, know what life and consciousness is. You are the egotistical know alls, not people like me!

I'm sorry you feel this way, my friend, but the last thing we here at BetterHuman.org are trying to accomplish is to alienate or disrespect people like you. It is not our goal to diminish your intelligence or cast you as immoral, we just want to help you to see some of the amazing things that our fantastic species has discovered and to help you adjust to the impact it has upon your beliefs. You've probably already noticed that it is, and will continue to be harder and harder for you to keep your 'spiritual' faith unless you continue to isolate yourself even further from our ceaseless accumulation of scientific knowledge. It may seem frightening that people could even consider leaving the safe cocoon of your 'spiritual' perspective, but there is a much better life to be had by embracing reality, rather than disregarding it.
I was once like you, my friend, locked into the perpetual battle to deny the reality of death; and I also reacted with great vehemence to anyone challenging my beliefs. I 'needed' to believe in some kind of afterlife so that I didn't have to deal with the thought of 'true' death. It took me many, many years to come to terms with this, but once I did, I realized that now I could actually begin living. A life spent in constant denial of death, is a lifetime consumed and wasted.
Please read the BetterHuman.org weblog for a great many articles that can help you to better understand what we are all about.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin

Link to this article
Back to top

#187 - How to fix the system - April 08, 2006, 10:12 AM

{All letters from this contributor: 14.178, 14.187}

Mr. Yoredove wrote back:
> Certainly, materialism is not for all atheists, nor is it inherrent. As I referred "materialism is often at its core", not always.

Of course, my friend. My prior diatribe was to pursue clarity of definitions, not to correct you.
> That said, you personally seem to espouse the basic materialist views

It may seem such, but that's only due to the need to 'relate' to others with what is already well understood and tolerated by them. That being said, I do give quite some merit to the notion of an 'information only' universe versus a 'real' universe, though I am agnostic about subscribing to either philosophy (I just know that sentence will appear out of context some day). My primary intent has always been to eliminate notions of the 'ethereal', which does not necessarily imply the remainder is 'materialist'.
> Meme itself, appears to be a large synopsis of a materialist understanding of our being and environment

By prefacing my book Meme with the sentence, "all matter in the universe is nothing more than information", it now becomes entirely a non-'materialist' perspective. Surely, you can see how easily these different perspectives overlap in structure and yet are completely different paradigms.
> I think that you are often quick to blame religion for the woes of humanity,

Forgive me, but I would have to say that's a bit of an exaggeration. I believe religion forms a large part of humanity's problems, but religion itself is nothing more than a tool/weapon/narcotic. The 'real' problems are the underlying motives for 'using' religion, which, of course, will still exist even if religion was eviscerated from humanity. I think it's clear in Meme and in my weblog that there's 'much' more that needs to be accomplished in terms of humanity's emerging morality perspective, beyond the simple removal of religion. The end of religion is merely the starting point for defining a reality-based civilization.
> and find religion (particularly large organized religions), the primary vehicle behind the appropriation of power. Power exists as a corollary of social development, its in its very nature to concentrate.

The accumulation of power isn't intrinsically a bad thing, it's only when that power is misappropriated and/or administrated with evil intent that we are seeking to avert the possibility of. Meme has a heavy focus on suppressing and preventing this kind of ill-gotten 'tyranny'.
> I'd like to see you explore the boundaries of our altruisum (i.e. natural morality). There is nothing like the human stress of choosing the greater good between oneself, one's family, ones "clan", ones "cultural segment", ones nation, ones species, etc, etc. As humans, we belong to many different "subgroups". How do we determine priorities?

The ultimate challenge: how and when do we look past our own needs in order to facilitate the greater good? Of course, there is no one answer that suits all scenarios, but this simple guideline should help: Do whatever you want, unless you directly or indirectly hurt another, or yourself. Other than this, I have written hundreds of pages in Meme that tackle this issue of morality directly, please give it a read.
> How do we distinguish ourselves socially in these groups; and are their any natural codes for interaction?

I believe the BetterHuman.org tenets address these questions, though again, Meme is much more detailed.
> How can these subgroups organize effeciently without despots?

This would take a much more proactive involvement from a ruling body that is largely vacant today. I am currently working on a project that will attempt to address this very issue.
> How do these despots quell their masses? (Religion works quite well as a tool here, but so did opium for the British in China).

Quelling the masses should not be a product of oppression or mass sedation, but instead by providing opportunities for 'everyone' to achieve contentment and reality-based purpose. The vast majority of philosophies, religious or not, fail in this regard due to their fundamental imperialistic catering.
> Religion is not at the core of these conflicts: in fact religion tries hard to solve many of them by providing a "supernatural opinion", if not a fully codified methodology.

Not only does religion not 'solve' any conflicts with its false answers, it stirs up an uncountable number of 'more' problems due to the chaos it introduces into humanity's perspective of the universe.
> how well, relative to the subgroups I care about, are my basic needs met?

That responsibility falls upon you. The ruling body should provide opportunity, and you should provide the ambition. Life is what you make it.
> What kind of status do I, and my subgroups have relative to others?

Status is always relative to the parameters in question. Moral justice should be injected into any apparatus that attempts to define value of members, but outside of that, rank is earned; However, it must be absolutely clear that 'status' only ever applies to a specific system (career, athletics, alpha-status, etc.) and that 'nobody' is intrinsically more valuable than someone else, for we are all equally worthless in the big picture of the universe.
> From a practial perspective, I think eradicating religion will solve nothing. Addiction, be it of the drug or "ethereal" variety will pervade our humanity so long as concentrated power can accumulate.

I couldn't agree with you more. The long term plan of BetterHuman.org merely starts with the eradication of religion, there is much more to be done beyond that. Tyranny is a product of the human ego, which ultimately is the final manifestation of Mother Nature's human reproduction mechanism. The desire for power will always be within. The solution to our dilemma is to create a civilization that allows all of us to placate these ego/greed/G.O.D. instincts by means that do not enslave the masses. Only then will we have been set free of this curse.
Great feedback,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.178, 14.187}

Link to this article
Back to top

#188 - Crack-houses of faith - April 08, 2006, 10:41 AM

{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}

Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> I think that now reading your last e-mail that as a "logical person" facing the world head on. You don't see how anyone could believe in a higher power; if they did, they must be unable to face reality.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that. People believe in fantasy for many reasons: tradition, consensus, simplicity, fear of the unknown, greed for immortality, affiliation with something greater than themselves for protection, ego placation, etc. Also, I 'completely' understand why someone 'would' choose to believe in mythology despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary; I used to be an ethereal junkie myself and I can absolutely relate to the desire for the junkie-like 'high' of being stoned on faith. It's an extremely pleasurable addiction and does not need to be justified; such is the nature of addiction. Do you think a heroin addict cares about the consequences of their abuse on their life?
> I think that everyone no matter who they are or how smart they are all must ask the question is there really a God when they face death.

This makes as much sense to me as stating that everyone who faces death must ask the question, "Is there really a Tooth Fairy?" I, for one, can promise you that my last moments on Earth will not be a desperate grab at fantasy.
> The only real difference between a religious person and a Christian is some one who knows and experiences Jesus personally. That's the difference I to was indoctrinated which did nothing for me; but only later on in life did I accept Jesus into my life, did the real changes begin. Being religious is only skin deep but being as the bible says "born again" changes the person at their core.

What I'm understanding from the above is that your early indoctrination was nothing more than ineffective 'routine' and your first 'real' religious exposure wasn't experienced until well into your adulthood when your life revealed the 'need' for an easy solution to your real-world issues. Your 'discovering' Jesus really means that you discovered the technique of 'denial' of reality, as all very religious people have. The term 'Jesus', is merely a euphemism for the 'dismissal' of responsibility in procuring your own happiness here on Earth. Now you have voluntarily submitted your life to a routine of worshipping mythological creatures in exchange for the perception of receiving the inevitable perfection of your afterlife. It's a horrible waste of a life in the pursuit of fantasy.
Your point may have been to expose to me that perhaps my personal indoctrination into religion as a youth might parallel yours, in that it was merely routine and I really wasn't capable of understanding exactly what it means to be 'religious'. On this notion, I can assure you that I was an exceptional case. Please forgive me for this indulgence, but I was a relatively bright kid with intelligence well beyond my years. Having a large capacity for information, and an extremely sensitive emotional disposition, I became easy prey for the terror-wrangling madness of the religious perspective. I not only 'wanted' to believe, I 'had' to, because the single consequence of suffering ethereal punishment for not doing so became the entire scope of my universe. I would do 'anything' to please my god, just please don't torture me for eternity, please, I'm begging you!
There was no more dedicated soul than I.
Believe me when I say that I know 'exactly' where you are, my brother. I know what thoughts circulate through your head, I know the battle between your heart and mind, and I know how you suffer.
> atheists don't except or believe in the human soul. The soul is something that can't be measured by science.

Nearly by definition; of course fantasy cannot be measured by science, it doesn't exist.
> you to go to relate that there will be some finial war called Armageddon, which is recorded the Bible. As if this is some finial act of survival of religion as it is removed from mankind. Your referral to the war called Armageddon is most surprising as this war is spoken in future tense as prophecy. Something, which you don't accept, to be true, as the Bible as you believe has been written by man.

I mention it as a self-fulfilling prophecy, as in the 'believers' will 'fulfill' the Armageddon. Believers actually use the notion of Armageddon as a 'threat' should they be challenged. This is no more a 'true' prophecy than someone being told that a dam will burst, and they then go and blow it up. It doesn't count as a prophecy if people choose to 'make' it happen.
> This is a little of the prophecy which is found in the Bible; The following prophecy says the "army of the horsemen was two hundred million." These "horsemen" may be a small division or group within that army, such as a strategic nuclear weapons division, or they may be brightly painted missiles sitting upon missile launchers.

I'm sorry my friend, please don't be insulted, but that's an 'extremely' ludicrous and agenda-driven interpretation of 'horsemen'.
> The "two hundred million" may be to help identify the nation or area they will rise out of.

Just what do you base this interpretation on, random guessing? Do random guesses have significant credibility in your faith? Do you not think it possible that the original author of this prophecy may have actually been envisioning 200 million 'humans' riding on 'horses'?
> Also called "the kings of the East," it appears the Chinese military is someday going to use the deadly missile and weapons technologies (which Clinton secretly and illegally gave and sold to them) - against us!!

So, is your interpretation of the prophecy of 200 million horsemen actually telling us that China will attack us with nuclear weapons that the American government gave them? Your statement above, is simply madness. There is absolutely no connection between 'any' even liberal interpretation of 200 million horsemen, and China nuking the Americans.
> The Bible tells us only a small remnant of the population on Earth will survive the coming 'Apocalypse.' Although, here, we find angels being released, much of the global terror will come from mankind destroying mankind, nation-destroying nation, deadly wave after deadly wave. The Holy Spirit goes out of his way to let us know that the day and the hour is real and has already been set. Remember, our future is already history . . . The weapons will be used. Much of the world will be destroyed. Cities will disappear... finest battlefield in the world. The whole world will be drawn into this war over Israel and Jerusalem. No nation will be spared. The Bible warns there will be several deadly waves associated with this conflict, including a massive Chinese led invasion of the Middle East from the "East" which will then be "joined" as the armies of the Anti-Christ march out of Europe and around the world to the place called "Armageddon." Jesus will return to engage this final battle Himself. He alone will destroy the enemies of Israel. We don't know the time between these wars/battles/events.

My friend, my friend, my friend...I love you like a brother, and I'd do anything to help you, but no matter what you choose to believe, please believe this...your mind has been rendered insane by religion, such that you persist in this delusional and paranoid state. Can you not see how crazy all this is? Can you not see how crazy this religious nonsense is making you? Let go of your very established, stubborn, and obstinate beliefs that prophecies really exist, and start the long trek back to a reality perspective, for you have traveled quite far down a path of undue 'faith' in the great narcotic of fantasy; your Bible. The Bible is 'not' a book that can tell the future, it is simply a book of fables and gross exaggerations of historical accounts; that's all. It is the tool of manipulation that religions use to control the masses with fear and ego; just like it is doing to you.
> As you use this war as a reference, do you then have some belief that it will come to pass then?

It very likely will. Religious people will purposely 'blow up the dam' in order to 'make' it come true.
> This war has nothing to do with the removal of religion from society as you believe.

No, but any sizeable collective religious battle in the future will be 'interpreted' as Armageddon, no matter what the intended biblical version may be.
> Can science measure Gods provision, or a person who is healed, or is raised from the dead?

Can you introduce me to a person that has been raised from the dead? Or is this just more hearsay?
> (this) does make sense now when looking from your point of view. But it all hangs on the balance of their not being a God, that's your assumption.

Likewise, you assume that there 'are' ethereal creatures in the sky.
> We see in Australia that Christmas carols e.c.t. Are banned at some places but other religions are promoted at the same time. Would you like a tower next to your house-calling people to prayer 5 times a day?

I would love to someday see all religions rendered 'illegal', and all religious buildings converted into reality education centers; turning the proverbial 'crack-houses' into 'treatment centers'.
> I to can say that you promote only half of what the Bible states when regarding homosexuals. You state that the bible teaches that they should be killed, but this refers only in the Old Testament teaching. The New Testament states that we should not except their life style but should love them regardless as a person.

Not accepting their lifestyle is exactly the same lewd oppression as not accepting people of a different race (but still loving them??). Would you consider yourself a racist? No? Well, homosexual oppression is no less a crime against humanity than racial oppression. Why does this seem acceptable and yet racism not? They are both 'hate' crimes; you just fail to appropriately acknowledge one as such.
> If a person was to focus fully on these goals, love, challenge, altruism, lust, adventure, and curiosity that some how these would fully satisfy that inner emptiness that man has? This would be a poor attempt because we know that people's moods change like the weather and that nothing satisfies us any more. Having the latest phone or car or clothes, the novelty soon wears off and we long to have then next hot item.

You've started by appropriately itemizing a list of instinctual placations, but then all you've done to provide as examples of instinctual placation is to solely focus on the greed instinct, so yes, with your example above, this will leave you quite empty. You don't seem to understand that we are not promoting a life of 'greed' placation; no, for a full life, one has to chase 'all' the instinctual placations. We need to placate the love and communion instincts (hanging out with family, friends), the altruism instincts (philanthropy, elderly assistance), the ego instinct (there are good ways to do this), the power instinct (sports, games, earning respect), the lust instinct (sex), the curiosity instinct (reading, school), etc., etc. There are an uncountable number of ways to pleasure the instincts that have absolutely nothing to do with 'materialism' (in the 'wealth' sense). I assure you, the level of fulfillment one can achieve with a diversity of instinctual placations, leaves 'far' behind any notion of incompleteness.
> What were the feelings that gave you this delusional high? And what gave you this warm gaze of God on your life? As a Christian or unbelievers you cant fabricate these fuzzy feelings

Oh...yes...you...can. I know it's difficult to believe from inside the addiction, but everyone that experiences this high 'is' manufacturing this feeling. There is no external influence whatsoever; it is entirely in their minds. It's simply amazing how susceptible the mind is to the power of suggestion. How do I know this? Because I once was there, and now I've learned to utilize this same instinctually-supported G.O.D. apparatus in my head to provide the same 'high' when I'm performing in a manner that represents the ideals of BetterHuman.org. I've rewired the G.O.D. to help me in 'reality', and I get all the same perks as you (and much more), without having to live a lie.
> you read the bible, you pray and you go to church or you spend time with God alone. Where did you feel God close to you and what did you feel?

It was my imaginary guardian (which was my misinterpreted G.O.D. instinct) that fulfilled a parental role for me. Someone to impress, fear, and beg for accolades and safety from.
> Where they feeling that you felt on the inside or did you just pick up on the excitement of others.

I was mostly able to shed the skin of religious nonsense, but I really did feel the 'presence' internally, as evidenced by my intense experiences of the 'high' even in the absence of other ethereal junkies. The illusion was complete and all-encompassing. Very powerful, this G.O.D. instinct. It's easy to feel the eons behind its powerful evolutionarily-driven presence.
> People that go into churches, get the impression that the atmosphere inside the church is some how different. They can't explain it but its like electricity or as you say "fuzzy feelings". But what are you feeling exactly? What could cause these feeling that you notice?

Drug addicts get the same 'pre-high' before entering their 'crack-house'. This is a mix of anticipation, excitement, and biological preparedness that occurs with the knowledge of an impending 'fix'. It happens with virtually 'any' pleasure-inducing drug.
> Has everyone (that feels the fuzzy feelings inside a church) taken a drug

Actually, yes, they have all taken the virtual narcotic of 'faith'
> is there something in the air that you breath in? –No, is there hypnotism on a grand scale? – No. It's beyond science but at the same time you cant put your finger on it.

Why do you suggest it would be beyond science? It's merely the body readying itself for a narcotic 'fix', very similar to 'sexual' anticipation. It's all biological chemistry; there's no magic to it.
> How then or what does a so-called logical person experience in a church when they state they feel the presence of God.

One simply claiming they are 'logical', doesn't necessarily mean they 'are' logical. A truly logical person is incapable of 'feeling' the presence of an ethereal entity simply because logically they would not believe one exists. You are trying to force an oxymoron. Now, one may 'believe' they are logical and then state they feel the presence of something ethereal, but the simple fact that they do not immediately discount this feeling as something biologically originated, only means they are really not 'logical' after all.
> When the person isn't on drugs or isn't drunk? What could it be, Logic states that what ever is left and most unlikely must be the correct logical answer.

I'm sorry my friend, but this is no more than reverse pseudo-logic; and quite incorrect. There may be other answers that haven't been accommodated and so you can never state that whatever is left 'must' be true because this is not 'logical', just presumptive.
> You could judge and say that they must be unbalanced to feel this way, but then who are you to judge them, are you qualified- No. And if you do judge them then you judge them by your own biased views. If you were to say that church goers were unbalanced then you would have to include soldiers, people in Government and police officers ect. Are these people unbalanced to do their important jobs as well?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I don't think you can imagine how terrifying it was for me the day I realized that virtually everyone in the world is insane with ethereal addiction. Right up to the world leaders, scientists, and most everyone I respect. It would be the same for you if you suddenly realized that everyone you know is hooked on heroin. Yes, I believe it makes for a very dangerous world because these 'addicts' make decisions based upon their perceptions of 'fantasy' creatures in the skies, and hurt themselves, and others with this ignorance.
Am I qualified to make this judgment? Well my friend, I most certainly am, and (no offence intended) my credentials are unfortunately beyond your current ability to comprehend or ascertain. My entire life has been the endless pursuit of truth and so I inexorably stake the claim of having the wisdom, experience, and authority necessary to justly expose all religions as fraudulent. However, I will make no attempt to perpetually justify my presence to naysayers, for that makes as much sense as trying to empty a river, no, my time will be best spent moving forward by educating those want to see beyond the lies, and know the 'true' reality.
> I see that the loneliness that you experienced was from the direction you took, a bit like a fish going against the tide

Excellent analogy. The withdrawal symptoms of ethereal addiction are indescribably painful; but this fish made it.
> Looking at life with out God is very empty, life doesn't have any reason or purpose there is no true fulfilment or end goal to achieve because as you die, it all stops.

You are so closed into your perspective that you can't even begin to understand what incredible beauty of life lies outside of your ethereal addiction. I urge you to 'please' read the entire BetterHuman.org weblog to see a great number of articles that address your statement above.
> Society teaches that life through evolution evolved, this process has no logic or understanding, no guidelines, no values to live by.

Absolutely wrong on all your deductions. Again, instinctual morality is covered in prior weblog entries.
> The process is blind, how anything managed to come to exist by this process is simply outstanding or shear fluke.

Incorrect assumption again. Please read Meme, and the weblog for very clear explanations for the process of evolution.
> In writing your book you aim to solve this emptiness of life by living by the values. Even if you were to master all the book states you still would be living a meaningless life because you are still connected to the evolutionary life cycle.

Forgive me, but you have a very consistent habit of making completely unfounded incorrect assumptions, such as the one above. You obviously haven't read my book. Please, try doing that first before you attempt to summarize it.
> As an atheist you would question all evidence that would promote divine intervention.

My friend, there simply is 'no' evidence that you speak of. Neither hearsay, interpretation, nor prophecies are considered 'evidence', and that is all you have to support the existence of your ethereal creatures. So, by the scientific method, no 'real' evidence means that the best your god is, is a theory. Would you like to be the first to say the following words for me, "My god is a theory"?
> challenge head on. A church member was rushed to a major hospital by helicopter; he died on route and was clinically dead. After approximately half an hour with prayer he came back to life, with no side effects no life support machines.

He wasn't really dead. End of story.
> There are countless divine interventions around the world,

You mean misinterpretations.
> one where a person was raised from the dead three days later. He is unable to leave his country because he has his death certificate.

Cute story, but not true. Do you not think it possible that someone with a religious agenda could have simply fabricated this story? You don't think that people can lie?
> Past civilizations recorded their history as a record of what has happened, which of course we accept as true. They of course had no other way to record what happened, but to write it down. Most historical events, places and people found in the bible can all be verified. It's just the nagging questions about the God thing that logical people cant except.

How does a historical account of an Earthbound event in any way support the existence of an ethereal entity? If I write a book about World War II, and then put a picture of the Easter Bunny on the back cover, does that mean the Easter Bunny exists because there actually was a World War II and the bunny's in the same book? What you're a victim of here is nothing more than the common tactic of 'credibility smearing'.
> But lets look at some of the historical evidence opposed to the human evidence recorded; (1) the account of the flood, there is strong evidence for the location of a boat high in Mt Ararat. Why would people build a fake boat or build a large wooden building in such a hostile climate?

Even if there was a boat, how does this prove ethereal creatures live in the sky?
> The city of Sodom and Gomorrah has to been found destroyed by fire with no volcanic activity near by. Would anyone build a fake city?

How does a city prove ethereal creatures live in the sky?
> The city of Jericho has been found as well.

Same answer as above.
> When looking at the historical evidence found and mentioned in the bible they only support the action of there being a God.

This is called hearsay. The simple fact that everyone was spouting the same well-circulated information, doesn't make it true. Everyone used to believe the world was flat, but it never was.
> when you find evidence of places, which have been affected for real by God. Then this adds real weight to the credibility of the bible.

They've simply found the places mentioned in your historically-premised book of fables. Again, this does absolutely 'nothing' to prove the existence of an ethereal entity.
> You state that Energy flow began the process of evolution (environmentally-directed assembly). I would ask where did the dust atoms ect come from? Did they already exist and what was there origin? Or do you believe they all ways existed? Everything has a cause and an affect, so what caused this energy flow to start i.e friction causes heat so what caused the particles to rub together in the first place?

The Big Bang. The full details comprise the first third of my book, Meme, and is far too much information to encompass here. Please give Meme a read for the answer to these questions.
> You see evolution is a poor attempt to explain the complicated designs of life that we see.

My friend, you simply do 'not' understand the mechanism of evolution. If you choose to persist in your beliefs, that is your choice, but your refusal to educate yourself in the mechanics of evolution, even from resources outside of BetterHuman.org or Meme, situates us on opposite sides of an impasse with no point for further discussion. If you insist that your magic book is always right, and that evolution is wrong, so be it, but, respectfully, please step aside, there are others that aren't as afraid of life and are quite willing to learn.
Thanks for your feedback,
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}

Link to this article
Back to top

#189 - The far left - April 15, 2006, 12:48 PM

{All letters from this contributor: 14.183, 14.189}

Mr. Zapmoat wrote back:
> I address your concerns in the body of your text (I capitalized my responses to allow for easy spotting of my replies, not to 'shout at you').

My friend, I'm not fully convinced that your disclaimer above has merit. I would like to assume you speak truthfully, but the tone of the text matches the intensity of the capitalization (further contrasted by the sections where you didn't use capitalization) and whether intended or not, I'm feeling quite a bit berated by your response. It is quite easy to make your responses distinguishable (and appear more respectful) with appropriate spacing, without the need for capitalization.
> The State initiates force everyday to force people to support religious ideas that are the antithesis of their beliefs.

I think the full extent of this coercion you speak of may be the limited misappropriation of tax funds into religious channels, and perhaps some lingering historical indulgences (e.g. 'In God we trust') that are well-integrated into our cultures. I believe though, for most first world nations, people are largely free to 'spiritually' commit themselves quite unreservedly to their religion (or lack thereof) of choice.
> We've lost the battle to educate the majority needed for electoral victory, to "public schools" (the government youth propaganda camps) 4) Elecotral victory is the bottom line only alternative to armed rebellion, and the "American people" have given up their guns, and their right to self-defense

So are you suggesting that since your desired electoral victory has become mathematically impossible due to the government-driven agenda of our education systems to 'program' our citizens for submission, leaves us with no alternative but an armed rebellion? You don't see this as rather extreme? Forgive me my friend, but there are many other peaceful and intelligent alternative approaches to changing the conscious state of a nation.
You seem fixated on enacting an instant revamp of the government 'from the top', instead of recognizing that government is actually 'reflective' of a society, and not as you believe, the 'molder'; especially in a democratic society. It can be demonstrated with simple mathematics that any reformation of government can only begin with winning the hearts and minds of the citizens that elect them, and not with a barbaric armed coup.
In regard to my statement:
"I appreciate the sincere offer, my friend, and please forgive me, but for security reasons I will be unable to connect with you directly."
> WOULD YOU RATHER BE LESS SECURE THROUGH THE LOSS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION (WHICH ALSO PROTECTS _LACK OF RELIGION_)

I fail to see how my choosing to remain physically secure diminishes my ability to influence our existing freedom of religion. Is it required that I make myself a physical target for extremist religious reprisals in order to accomplish the BetterHuman.org mission? Also, I 'don't' believe that we should allow for freedom of religion since there is only one true reality. The notion that we need 'freedom of religion' to protect atheism is simply absurd because atheism is 'not' a religion, atheism is a 'lack' of religion. Your statement makes no more sense than promoting the freedom to partake in any narcotic of choice, just so the abstainer can choose 'not' to take drugs.
> DOES YOUR PHILOSOPHY ENCOURAGE HAVING TOO WEAK OF A STRATEGY TO PROTECT YOUR GOALS?

I would argue that my strategy is infinitely more intelligent, compassionate, and effective, than any bullet-ridden armed coup could represent to the masses under your proposed dictatorship. Imagine if you actually managed to convert the government to the form in which you envision; all you will have accomplished is to demonstrate that violence, deception, and tyranny continues to evolve, just now taking 'your' form. You will not have changed a thing. You can't change your underwear by switching coats.
> ...IF YOU REFUSE TO MAKE YOURSELF STRONGER BY ALLYING YOURSELF WITH THOSE WHO AGREE WITH YOUR MOST IMPORTANT POINTS

I don't believe we share many values other than atheism, and I have no need for 'allies' to fight a battle that need not take place. I prefer to acquire like-minded and peaceful 'friends'.
> I DON'T WANT TO 'OPPRESS' RELIGION. I WANT TO TAKE THE TOOL OF FORCE AWAY FROM IT. I WANT TO MAKE IT VOLUNTARY, NOT MANDATORY.

I'm very confused how your perceive religion to be mandatory in any capacity. I have been an atheist for a very long time, and other than unfortunate obligations imposed by my family to attend religious functions, I have not had to endure virtually any exposure to anything religious. Sure, some of my tax dollars may have inadvertently been spent in a religious capacity, but there are much larger and more immediate concerns to focus on when it comes to religion. Do you not see your perception of 'mandatory' religion as being somewhat exaggerated?
In regard to my statement:
"...but it's my feeling that any judges capable of making these types of decisions will be unwilling to take on such risk, even if they themselves believe it makes sense"
> EXACTLY WHY THE LEGISLATURE IS THE TARGET, NOT JUDGES.

Forgive me, my brain was thinking one thing, but wrote another. I was intending the notion of changing 'legislature'. But again, my point against a premature legal oppression approach remains valid: it will fail. We need to change the people first, then the system will follow suit.
> A SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF THE MASSES IGNORANT WISHES IS INCREDIBLY STABLE, AND INCREDIBLY BENEVOLENT TOWARDS ALL. IT ALSO CREATES THE ONLY KIND OF MORAL STATE KNOWN TO MAN.

I agree wholeheartedly, but only if the majority of the population already subscribes to that governing body's underlying philosophies. We don't have that situation today, and so if we were to abruptly change the nature of today's government to a form that only reflects a tiny minority's philosophies (atheists?), it would largely be rejected, and corruption would decay its effectiveness until it is once again usurped by tyranny. We need to educate people 'over the hump' before any form of atheistic-founded governing body can be effective and persistent.
> THIS IS RELIGIOUS THINKING, MUMBO JUMBO.

Is this simply meant to be insulting because I'm not bandwagoning on your armed coup approach?
In regard to my prior statement regarding the merits of selfishness:
"Agreed, but only up to the point in which one's selfishness impedes upon others' happiness."
> AT THAT POINT, IT IS NO LONGER 'SELFISHNESS', BUT THE INITIATION OF FORCE. THE INITIATION OF FORCE IS BANNED UNDER ANY MORAL SYSTEM OF LAW.

Two points: first, you contradict yourself because you advocate the use of armed force as a default consequence to not having control of the elections (which you don't have control of), and secondly, this is a very black-and-white take on a very diverse spectrum of situations.
Let me propose an example in order to demonstrate a gray-scale scenario: You're walking across a desert to get to a city on the other side. You are more than halfway there when you accidentally break your water bottle. Things look pretty desperate until you chance upon a large box in which you discover that someone has left two small vials of water. By estimating the volumes, you determine that drinking one vial will just 'barely' be enough for you to make it to the city, but definitely drinking 'both' would make the journey quite easy. However, you also consider that the very reason your life is going to continue in the first place is due to the generosity of some un-thank-able human that had the foresight to predict helping someone (you) in this purely altruistic way. The thought of drinking both and then coming back to this box to replenish the supply is quickly dismissed as virtually impossible given the vastness of the desert and the unlikelihood of finding this box again, so you are left with a decision: do you drink both and cruise into town happy, or do you decide to drink only one (dragging your suffering dehydrated carcass into town) because there's the remotest chance that some day, somebody else will open that box, and they will scream with joy that their life has been saved by some un-thank-able person?
I believe your system would promote drinking both bottles as this fulfills the 'selfish' agenda, and it doesn't utilize 'force' to remove the second vile from the next potential person's hands. The BetterHuman.org philosophy, however, promotes thinking about the next person before making a decision. We do not impose a legal obligation to leave the second bottle, but we do have a moral one.
> TIME, WE DON'T HAVE. TIME, THE PEOPLE IN 1936 GERMANY DIDN'T HAVE. GRANTING TIME TO THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY USING FORCE AGAINST YOU IS KNOWN AS A STRATEGY OF APPEASEMENT. THE STRATEGY OF APPEASEMENT KILLED NEARLY EVERY JEW IN FRANCE IN 1939. OVER 3 MILLION INNOCENT PEOPLE DIED FOR THIS STRATEGICALLY-FLAWED APPROACH.

My friend, it is completely inappropriate to contrast strategies for remediating the Jewish 'holocaust', to our much more subdued political discussion on religion. Time 'is' on our side. Also, we are 'not' endorsing 'appeasement' in any conciliatory capacity whatsoever; though it may appear so to you, relative to your more aggressive and militant approach. BetterHuman.org will not make concessions, but we will not 'force' the issue either. Our weapons are education, compassion, and time; 'not' tyranny.
> I INTEND TO LIVE FOREVER.

I intend to die self-dignified and fulfilled.
> WITH THAT LONG OF A VIEW IN MIND, WHY DO I THEN ADVOCATE A SUDDEN CHANGE? --BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IGNORANT PEOPLE LEARN THE FASTEST.

Your approach is simply brutal, my friend; simply brutal. Your goals can 'only' be accomplished by a coup resulting in dictatorship, and this must not, and most likely will never happen. I know you originally came to BetterHuman.org seeking compatriots, but please be aware that your 'force-feed' approach to achieving your ideals actually pits us 'against' one another, for you are advocating unjust tyranny, which BetterHuman.org wishes to stymie the development of. The sole common foundation of atheism that we share, does nothing to align us philosophically.
> THE REAL BATTLE IS AGAINST CONFORMITY (SUBJECTIVITY), AND LACK OF THOUGHT. RELIGION IS JUST A SYMPTOM OF THAT.

And education is the only realistic cure.
In response to my prior statement:
"I'm afraid that your plan to promote atheism utilizes the same ulterior toolset as religion"
> WRONG. IT USES THE TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

My friend, this same 'use what's available' mentality can also be used to justify 'torture', 'genocide', 'slavery', etc. simply because these are 'also' available. Do you advocate these tools as well?
No matter which approach you take, you will be forced to define a moral 'line' that even you will not cross, because the end must not 'always' justify the means, or else those 'means' can ramp up to take on infinitely horrific forms. BetterHuman.org defines this line at the boundaries of compassion and trust; your line appears to reside at maniacal control and deception, which is the 'same' line employed by all religions.
The very reason that you desire to break free of your perceived containment (by government, religion, etc) and to take control of your destiny by becoming the all-powerful administrator of this system, will be the very reason your new tyranny eventually fails. BetterHuman.org is trying to break this ancient and perpetual power cycle by highlighting the dangers of unjustly 'coercing' people to conform, and to demonstrate that it is ignorant to believe it's possible to ever really control people anyway, for there will always be 'someone' unhappy enough with being controlled, that has the strength, intelligence, and fury to topple you; continuing the cycle infinitum.
> WHAT I ADVOCATE IS AN ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE, NOTHING MORE. BETTER THAT I SHOULD CONTROL AN ELECTION THAN KILL THE TAXMAN AND POLICE OFFICER WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO FORCE MY CHILD INTO A MINDLESS RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.

There are a couple very concerning points here: the first and obvious one is that you have once again endorsed violence as a consequence of not being able to control the 'election', which, of course, you do not control; so, you are indirectly telling me that violence is your only recourse. Very disturbing, and quite primitive. This doesn't inspire me to believe your ideals have any intelligence or humanity behind them. Secondly, I still don't understand how you perceive 'anybody' is being forced to submit to a religious agenda? Are your children being forced to endure religious schooling? This may have been somewhat true in the past, but I think if you do some research of today's public schools, you'd find that there is virtually no religious influence. Forgive me, but you have a habit of using non-existent oppressions to vindicate your aggressive retaliation against the 'system'.
> IT COMES DOWN TO: IS VIOLENCE OR PEACE BETTER?

I barely have the strength to dignify this with an answer. Of course, 'peace' is the only solution.
> WHEN DEALING WITH A DISHONEST AND IMMORAL SYSTEM, DISHONESTY IS SOMETIMES A NECESSARY VIRTUE: ie: IF THE NAZIS ARE AT THE FRONT DOOR, AND ASK YOU IF YOU ARE HARBORING JEWS, AND YOU ARE: IT IS MORAL TO LIE TO THEM.

Excellent example, and I'm glad you brought this up. When BetterHuman.org utilizes the term 'honesty', it is much more than the notion of the spoken truth, it is a frame of mind. It entails the prevention of 'denial', the mollification of the ego, and the genuine spirit of communion with your fellow humans. One should virtually 'always' speak the truth as it is a reflection of your dignity, self-respect, and inner-strength. Lying (which includes any conceivable definition of 'deceipt') for personal gain (e.g., to avoid repercussions of an evil act, or to accumulate wealth) is probably the most vile infraction of honesty there is and is indefensible. However, there are many other less offensive reasons for lying: sometimes for simplicity (making a point at the expense of accurate details), exaggerating for dramatic effect (such as making a joke), etc. but the very least offensive reason for lying would have to be one that has altruistic intent behind it, such as in your example above.
The problem with 'words' is that they typically convey a very concrete definition, forcing one to automatically perceive the term 'lying' to be equally impious in both selfish, and selfless scenarios. To vindicate the selfless version of a 'mistruth', as would have saved the lives of the harbored Jews above, I volunteer we describe this lie as 'altruistic', and not as an infraction of morality. In fact, I believe that in this scenario, this 'altruism' is 'more' aligned with the spirit of BetterHuman.org than a strict observation of our honesty policy would be. Until someone can present to me another type of scenario that can justify lying, I would like to propose that 'only' in cases where someone attempts to 'unjustly' (not to be confused with 'undesirably') manipulate us with our honesty policy, you should feel free to correct the injustice with a minimum of appropriate false verbiage. (Be sure that the definition of 'unjust' being applied is congruent with the BetterHuman.org tenets, and is not a personally convenient version.)
It is always going to be possible to conceive scenarios where our tenets will collide, so, in these situations, it's important to lean towards altruism. Is this nothing more than a 'convenient' flexing of our rules? Well, only if you believe we shouldn't protect the above Jewish refugees.
> JUST AS NOW, IF THE RELIGIONISTS BELIEVE THAT YOUR CHILD'S MIND IS AVAILABLE TO BE FILLED WITH MINDLESS PRAISES TO JESUS, AND INTEND TO FORCE YOU TO PAY FOR THAT, AS WELL AS THE POLLUTION OF EVERY OTHER YOUNG MIND IN YOUR AREA WITH RELIGIOUS IRRATIONALISM, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO CAST THEIR BOSSES OUT OF OFFICE, SO THEY TROUBLE YOU NO MORE, THAN TO PUT BULLETS IN THEIR HEADS.

My friend, again with the ultimatums of death. You and I both know that nobody will be thrown out of office, so essentially the above translates precisely into, "If you do not cast religious leaders out of office, we'll put bullets in their heads". You're not fooling anyone.
> MAYBE I READ YOU WRONG, I THOUGHT YOU HAD STRONG CONVICTIONS THAT WERE WELL WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

You've definitely read BetterHuman.org's intentions quite wrong. My definition of 'fight' is much different than yours. I would also venture that my conviction level parallels yours but with the difference that I'm actually acting upon mine, and making progress. Forgive me, but your approach will be at a perpetual standstill because it requires a phenomenal collaboration of many violent minds working in unison to achieve your underlying goal of a coup, but realistically, you may never be able to rally enough anarchists together to achieve your goals. It may take many, many years for you to eventually realize that your desired path for humanity, isn't really a path after all.
In regard to my statement:
"We wish to be a symbol of trust, integrity, respect, and credibility."
> TO NAZIS?

Peculiar response, given your camouflaged goal of an armed uprising against the 'system' in order to impose your personal blend of values.
> IS IT CHEATING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO WIN, AND DO IT?

The mere fact that we endorse and pursue honesty, justice, and instinctual/logic-founded morality as goals, makes it impossible to circumvent these caveats for the sake of convenience in achieving our mission. Violating our tenets to achieve our mission, only means we've failed in our mission.
It is quite human nature to want to 'strong-arm' others into submission, as it was probably a very effective 'alpha-status' acquisition tool in primitive human social structures; 'might is right' per se. Though we still retain these primitive conquering instincts, they truly have been rendered obsolete in today's modern world because our intelligence has made the effectiveness of force moot, as evidenced by thousands upon thousands of incarcerated criminals that have unfortunately resorted to this primitive 'controller' instinct to pursue their goals.
'Psychology' is the most powerful force known to humans today, and though in and of itself it isn't evil, it is a tool ubiquitously used for evil. You witness this evil incarnation of psychology every single day when witnessing people's submission to religions, submitting to popular opinions, submitting to indentured servitude (employment), etc. It might not be obvious at first, but believe it or not, this is 'submission by force', even though most of them believe they are submitting by 'choice'. The tool of psychology has impressed upon these people that they 'want' to submit to whatever system they belong to; brainwashed into apathy and acceptance, becoming an excellent example of a cog in a machine that benefits the tyrants. This is the power of psychology.
Why these 'evil' psychology models are perpetually repeatedly usurped over time is that there will always be those (such as yourself) that see beyond the 'painted' picture, become motivated enough to want to do something about it, and then eventually constitute a 'regime' change. Unfortunately, as history continues to demonstrate, no matter how noble the tyrants believe their motivations to be, the next regime often just continues using the same evil psychological 'forced coercion' tactics to support the new tyranny's goals.
Psychology, however, can also be just as powerful in enacting 'pious' ambitions. Instead of it being a tool of control, it should be a tool of education to liberate people from their mental cages. By educating people with the incredulity skills needed to identify the monikers of tyrannical power structures (e.g., religions, mass employment enslavement, etc.) and to remain immune to their effects, only then can we create a truly altruistic system that doesn't attempt to or allow for the controlling of individuals, but instead gives them virtually complete freedom, within morally-defined boundaries.
The only 'realistic' perpetual human harmony that we can ever hope to achieve lies in the ability to provide everyone clarity of reality, and the ability to pursue overall happiness within their independent definitions, and 'not' by force-feeding them a 'standardized' model for existence. Humankind needs to be coddled and altruistically boundaried, not controlled. Once this model for society has been accomplished, it will finally allow the masses to 'submit by desire', the only truly lasting peace.
Please find some room in your philosophies for honesty, integrity, and compassion.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.183, 14.189}

Link to this article
Back to top

Click here to see next weblog page...