| Page 16 |
|
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:
#209 - Blind fury - Jul 01, 2006, 01:43 PM
#210 - Isolating the ethereal high - Jul 01, 2006, 01:53 PM
#211 - Big daddy in the sky - Aug 22, 2006, 07:33 AM
#212 - Self-defining purpose - Aug 26, 2006, 09:38 AM
#213 - The pursuit of spirituality - Aug 26, 2006, 10:03 AM
#214 - The dream of God - Sep 09, 2006, 08:48 AM
#215 - Mother Earth - Sep 09, 2006, 09:16 AM
#216 - Contrasting gravity theories - Sep 16, 2006, 10:47 AM
#217 - Spooky special effects - Oct 08, 2006, 05:34 PM
#218 - Separating atheism from communism - Nov 04, 2006, 09:48 AM
#219 - What defines 'extremist'? - Nov 11, 2006, 06:42 PM
#220 - Closure - Nov 20, 2006, 09:22 PM
#221 - Recentering - Nov 20, 2006, 09:25 PM
#222 - Kudos for Meme - Nov 22, 2006, 11:03 PM
#223 - Sean Sinjin the recluse - Nov 26, 2006, 05:36 PM
#224 - Understanding the weighted vote system - Nov 26, 2006, 05:49 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
|
#208 - The virulent religious meme-virus - June 21, 2006, 08:34 AM |
Hello my friend, Ms. Playlope
I must say that the three emails you sent back to back each carry with them a distinct mood. This first one has a gritty tone that I've broken apart for careful examination; a very powerful piece.
The first thing I want to point out about your letter, my friend, is how filled it is with mockery, ignorance, and prejudice, and 'completely' devoid of any altruism or generosity of spirit. I'm not suggesting that you don't possess these traits, but I am disappointed that these approaches had no value to you. Let's take a look:
> Wow, what an earthshocking revelation it will be to you when you do die, and you find that you face none other than God himself.
This is mockery manipulation. Of course, you are assuming your mythology is correct without the possibility of being wrong, and so leveraging that position you are now attempting to belittle our scientific perspective instead of selling me on the merits of yours. To me, this suggests that you do not wish to convince me of your perspective at all, but that you'd rather push me away so that you can callously watch me suffer in the end because of my 'miseducation'. Let me ask you, do you let your children burn themselves with matches so that they'll learn not to play with fire?
> Can't wait to be a fly on that wall when you find out that you really aren't a God at all, and he looks at you and says, I never knew you.
There are a couple things here I'd like to point out: first, going back to my point about 'watching others suffer'; can you explain your morbid fascination with observing the demise of your fellow humans that you believe are misguided? Is this mentality something your religion endorses? And the second point is your incorrect assumption that we consider ourselves 'gods'. This, of course, is ludicrous; we're just humans after all. We don't worship anything except the pursuit of happiness.
> Good luck with that.
More sarcasm, my friend.
> Lord, they will know the truth and the truth will set them free. Every knee will bow in this organization and every tongue in this organization will confess that Jesus is Lord.
Now your religious meme-virus is rewarding you with an ethereal 'high' by convincing you that a strong connection was made between you and your ethereal entity. This must feel quite good to you, especially when mixed with your prior ego-placating dialogue.
> Everyone from this day forward who reads their website will also know the truth and the truth will set them free. And I dedicate this website and its teachings to spiritual destruction (not by the hands of men) and pray that they will be shown to be in the wrong. I loose the angels of heaven and the forces of the holy spirit to pull down this stronghold of humanism.
I sincerely do not wish to mock you, but I'm going to translate your statement into a form that will make you understand how I receive it.
"Everyone from this day forward who reads the BetterHuman.org website will turn their backs to its nonsense and eventually submit to the high of ethereal addiction and ethereal addiction will sedate them from the pains of reality. And I ask my magical deity to take this website and its teachings and destroy it (or by the hands of people that we'll deny did it) and we'll go through the motions of pretending to care for them so that we don't look like uncaring people, even though we don't care about non-believers. With as much false magic and empty intimidation possible, I will now attempt to convince you of the 'cursed' demise of your site that promotes social harmony between all humans."
This all reminds me of a prior submitter to our website (article: 13.174) that was desperately trying to find protection from a voodoo-like 'hex' (he called it Juju) that he believed someone had placed on him and his family. He was absolutely terrified and was quite prepared to pay money to have someone break this 'curse' on him. Of course, to you and I this is absolute 'nonsense', but it was very real to him. It took a couple emails back and forth, but I was finally able to convince him that nobody has magical powers and therefore nobody can place a magical 'curse' on anybody else. It's a good thing he was able to see it all for the superstitious nonsense that it is.
My friend, when you look upon me across the void that separates us, do you seriously see a demonic form that spouts evil and needs to be destroyed? Or do you simply see a very strange figure that speaks a different language than you? Ask yourself, why are you compelled to 'destroy' that which you don't understand?
> May god bless you with the discenment you so desperately need.
If even I can see through the insincerity above, then by definition, I believe your god would be able to as well.
Now on to your second letter, which is filled with remorse at having sent the first one. Your retrospection has revealed to you that you wrote the first email with much rage and virtually no compassion, and this time you have backpedaled to a position more representative of a 'caring' faith.
> Exactly when was it that you cried out to God and felt that he either didn't answer you, or didnt answer the way you thought he should?
Again, let me ask you the same question in different terms so that you can see how I receive the above:
"Exactly when was it that you cried out to the Tooth Fairy and felt that she didn't answer you?"
Do you see now how impossible it is to answer that question? It doesn't make any sense.
> You see, I speak to non-believers and atheists all the time. I have recruited many of them to the Kingdom of God.
How very unfortunate for those victims.
> One thing I find as a common thread is loss-- the loss of a loved one, or a situation where they cried out to God and felt that their prayer was not answered, or was not answered in the way they felt it should have been.
Actually, I simply saw through the façade and realized that your 'god' is all a very elaborate smoke-screen sustained by the churches so that they can convince you to give them your money in exchange for false god brownie-points. That's all there is to it.
> Is that a dictator, as you describe it on your site?
It's not the god that's the dictator (because it doesn't exist), it's the purveyors of this faith system that are, the priests. They are the ones that capitalize on this fanaticism.
> I can assure you, that God is real.
No, my friend, you can't. You've only tried to 'compel' me with emotionally-charged threats and mockery; of which I'm completely immune to. Manipulation with powerful emotions is lewd and primitive, surely you must know that.
> How sad it must be to not be able to reach to him for comfort, hope, encouragement.
It would make no more sense than reaching out to the Easter Bunny for comfort, hope, and encouragement. If it doesn't exist, it can't help you. I rely on my friends, my family, and my invincible inner-core to draw the strength necessary to face reality, and face it I do, head on.
> You see, just as man is made of atoms, and just as gravity is a force you cannot see, God is made of love
Now on some metaphysical level, I will agree with you here. The 'real' entity of your 'God' is nothing more than an abstract concept that manifests as the focal point of humankind's desire to find perfect love and ego placation. We've invented the 'entity' of a god in order to have something to 'point' our perfect love at. However, this 'love' would be much more useful if we could instead point it at each other, instead of wasting it on mythology.
> of that is -- if it is true whether you believe it or not, you are in big trouble at the day of judgement.
An excellent example of 'threat' manipulation. This damnation threat is one of the cornerstones of religion's persistence, that being the most unimaginable punishment possible for non-submission. You poor soul, how sad it is that you unwittingly suffer in the very hell you believe you are avoiding.
> Love (and I mean that sincerely)
My dear friend, I truly wish I could accept your statement above, but I do not believe you understand how to love another that does not share your beliefs. No, I'm afraid that the above is merely an attempt to prove to your god that you are capable of compassion. In other words, you are using our situation to garner brownie points from your God (whom in turn you are 'using' to gain access to your coveted immortality).
As for the rest, despite the extreme length of this second letter, I didn't find a lot of value in much of what was said because it mostly boiled down to preaching of your religious mantra, which is readily available by the truckload at any church and therefore not needed here.
> Oh and btw. Anything that I have written in this email is MY property because it is written by my hand and I do not by virtue of having written an email to you, give you any rights to copy it nor use it in any way shape or form without my express legal consent. That means my written approval.
I wish it to be clear to all my readers and submitters that I do not have the liberty of time to interact one on one with individuals, and therefore my time must be focused on generating material specifically for the weblog. To this end, there are very clear statements on BetterHuman.org that forewarn submitters that their submissions will be made anonymous, and become the property of BetterHuman.org. There are no exceptions. Please, for further reference, if you do not wish to have your submissions published, then it would be in your best interest to refrain from submitting material.
And now onto your third letter. It's been quite a roller-coaster of emotions, my friend. Your prior letter was probably at best, a half-hearted attempt to fulfill your duties to be a loving religious person, but this final letter demonstrates how fleeting that generosity was, and dives immediately back into mockery and insults.
> I think a better name for your organization would be: bitter humans . org
So sorry my friend, I actually already thought of that one myself in a prior weblog entry. Another submitter even suggested 'BadderHuman.org', which was also quite clever.
> I already know that it is your bitterness toward god that makes you strike out at him so publicly.
Unfortunately, this statement makes no sense to me. Are you bitter at the Tooth Fairy because you don't believe in it?
Thank you for your fantastic contributions toward the mission of BetterHuman.org. I know it wasn't your intent, but your relentless display of empathy-less ostracism and transparent threats has profoundly demonstrated the evil that religion is. Please understand that this is 'not' to say that I think 'you' are evil. In fact, quit the opposite, I see the depths of your mental illness, and how confused and frightened you are of the world around you; I have much pity for you.
My sister, your sickness is the most sinister and virile that has ever manifested in all of history, so please feel no shame in becoming yet another victim, for it robs you of the very thing you need to defeat it: humility. You will gain much by reading the entirety of the BetterHuman.org weblog. I can only hope that many people will benefit from bearing witness to the hatred (fear) generated by your perspective, and may instead choose to pursue a warm and genuine 'humanity' perspective, rather than the manipulative and terrifying mythological one that has enslaved your mind; turning what could have been a wonderful and sane human being, into a terrified ethereal junkie.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.208, 16.209}
|
#209 - Blind fury - July 01, 2006, 01:43 PM |
Ms. Playlope wrote back:
> Yes I was upset at your website and yes I did express a few human emotions in that letter. After all by your own definition, nothing I do is wrong. Because there is no standard of right and wrong except what I myself believe to be moral and just. Correct?
Your misperceptions of our moral code aside, are you saying that you discarded your own values to use what you mistakenly perceived as our values in order to justify striking 'harder' at me? Do you often discard your own values when they might interrupt your emotional discharges?
As well, I'm always amazed that a 'free-for-all' morality is the default understanding of an atheistic perspective; and you couldn't be further from the truth. Please review the BetterHuman.org weblog to read the many entries regarding our powerful and intrinsic instinctual morality.
> On the Christian side of that, your right, I expressed my anger in that first letter. It was my first response to your website. But then, I did rethink that, being the repentive Christian that I am, and realized that Jesus would not respond to you in that manner. He would turn the other cheek.
My friend, there's a couple things I want to point out here; first, how you initially justified lashing out in ill-form by leveraging the concept of 'repentment', which allows one to conveniently violate any value desired (religious or not) believing that all you have to do is feel bad about it later and complete forgiveness is but a prayer away. Secondly, how you admit knowledge of your religion's endorsed strategy for dealing with confrontation ('turning the other cheek'), and have yet to remotely exercise that strategy. I believe my cheeks are the ones taking a lashing. Have I struck out at you? (not your religion, 'you')
> And when it happens, and God gave you so many chances to change your mind, reached out to you through the letters of believers like myself who told you that it would happen, what will you say to him? When you stand before the Supreme Court of the Universe, what will you say? What excuse will you give that he would accept? Instead, those who came to you, and told you the truth will stand up as witness and say, I told him, Lord, he wouldn't believe. What will you do then? What if YOU are wrong?
I suppose if you were correct, and I magically found myself in front of your god on my day of reckoning, I could probably use your 'unlimited forgiveness' caveat, correct? And you are more than aware of this 'escape-route', which means you 'also' know that I'm not in any real danger. This reduces the entirety of your diatribe to nothing more than an elaborate charade of 'concern for your fellow man' with the underlying motivations of bullying me, and gaining further brownie-points from your god. Doesn't seem like you have much concern for my well-being after all.
> But ask yourself why he would answer you? You are arrogant.
You are confusing 'confident' for 'arrogant'.
> You speak rudely.
I don't believe I do. Can you give me an example of where I was rude (not simply in opposition to your beliefs, but 'rude')?
> He is a King. King of all Kings. And yet you approach him with disrespect? Why would he answer? Instead you come into his courts with reverence, respect, honor-- three virtues, sir, that you have obviously not learned in your pursuit for that harmonious godless environment that you tout on your site.
Based upon your email contributions, we have very different understandings of these terms. Your definition of 'respect' implies unreserved submission to your mythological entity, and any shortcoming in this submission you inappropriately deem as 'disrespect'; whereas the BetterHuman.org definition embraces the notion of 'respect for your fellow humans'. I may not respect your mental illness of faith, and I'm doing all I can to cure humanity of this disease; but no matter how much I deplore the mythology you are a victim of, I will always respect you as a person, which is entirely separate from not respecting your faith.
'Reverence' we both understand similarly, though we entirely disagree on the appropriate application of such. I have no reverence for your mythological entity, not out of spite, but rather from incredulity. Instead, I apply reverence to 'people' that inspire me.
And finally 'honor', being such an extremely vague and nebulous concept makes it difficult to explore the exact context you were implying that I failed to execute it within. Would you care to elaborate how I was dishonorable? Unless of course you are referring once again to my lack of submitting to your mythological perspective, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on my level of honor. In fact, by rejecting the fantasy of your world, I am doing an honorable thing for myself, by not allowing myself to be seduced by the false charms and easy perspective that your simplistic mythological faith purports, and instead I 'honorably' confront the challenges of reality without the opiate of fantasy to dull the experience.
> Yes at the time, I thought you should suffer. But let's face it. You suffer already.
You assume too much my friend, I live a fantastic life.
> I mean let's really get to it here. No one with a heart as bitter as yours could really be happy.
I understand that from your perspective the 'only' possible explanation for my position 'must' be that I am angry with your ethereal entity, but that fails to understand things from my perspective, so let me rephrase the statement in a way that you will receive it the same way that I do (I'll apologize in advance for the seemingly patronizing flavor of this statement, but this is an 'exact' and accurate parallel scenario, and as such your interpreting it as patronizing is entirely unavoidable, but sincerely not intended as such):
"No one who is as angry with the Tooth Fairy as you are could really be happy"
You see, how can I be angry at the Tooth Fairy? It really doesn't make sense to be angry at a myth.
> Its all a pretense in order to somehow convince yourself and others that you have THE WAY. Certainly you profess at least a mental assent at morality. But even your very works on your site and the way you attack people there deny the legitimacy of that morality.
Our moral code is much different than yours. We believe it is altruistic and humane to prevent others from hurting themselves, whether they are aware of this danger or not. Religion is a meme-disease, and to peacefully educate (not attack) people away from ethereal addiction is a strong moral tenet of ours. Our moral foundation stems from the built-in instinctual morality that was defined by Mother Nature over eons of evolution, which we further refine by the intelligent pursuit of providing happiness for the greatest number of people possible.
> Yes I am very sarcastic. Part of that bubbly personality I was born with.
But how does that sarcasm contribute to your purpose of attempting to expose the err of my ways? Sarcasm only 'repels'. Is it your intent to push me away? If so, they why do you keep coming back here? Or is it simply 'shame' manipulation you are exercising? Surely you must know that these types of tactics only serve to diminish your own character, and ultimately they have absolutely no effect on me. Well, almost no effect, ultimately I do feel bad for you because you don't realize how much dignity you sacrifice with these sarcastic jeers, callous disregard for my well-being, and vacuous threats of eternal damnation. I sincerely would love it if you could find value in stepping up to a more dignified and respectful debating style. Don't reduce your dialogue to an emotionally-charged assault and miss this chance to demonstrate your intelligence.
> I'm not buying that. You cover it all very well with your endless dribble and babble and dispute. But the fact is, my friend, that you really are not satisfied with yourself, with your life, or with that deep dark hole that is inside you. In fact, all that powers you and your website is that bitterness in your soul. The cancer the eats away at you mind and your heart.
Actually, I'm quite happy with life. I have plenty of friends, I've traveled the world, I love my wonderful family, I run a successful business, I have helped many, many people cure themselves of ethereal addiction, I have plenty of other projects on the go to keep my mind sharp, I am in excellent health, I have many exciting future plans, etc., etc. If this is misery, then I'm not complaining.
One of the most important things that I have learned in life is that your inner-composure manifests externally in a manner that 'distributes' itself, much like a meme does. For example, when you are happy, you generate a pleasant disposition, when you are sad, you want to 'purge' that sadness onto others, and when you are bitter and angry, you tend to 'lash out' against others. I think if you review the entirely of our dialogue, my friend, you'll begin to see that I have absorbed all of your rage without reciprocation. That is my gift to you. I believe you would coin it, 'turning the other cheek'.
> recruited many of them to the Kingdom of God. How very unfortunate for those victims. Now whose using mockery and sarcasm. All that you have accused me of, you have done, even in your more enlightened state. The difference is, I can admit when I have acted in haste. Can you?
You are incorrect my friend, my statement is absolutely 'not' mockery or sarcasm. That was my very sincere and concerned acknowledgment of your religious meme-virus infecting other victims. It is very sad.
> So stop looking at churches and people and christians to find out what God is like cause those are human beings with failings and shortcomings and all those things that make up the human being.
Despite our congruency on the evil nature of religion, you are failing to recognize that religion and the mythological creatures they purport are intrinsically connected. They have propagated this 'God' notion for centuries, even to beyond their own control. It still remains mythology however, no different than Zeus of Greek mythology, or Ra of Egyptian mythology, etc.
> Once again, though, you are looking to men to show you God, instead of asking Him to show you Himself. There's a lot of lies going around about Jesus. Rumors etc. But they aren't based in truth. Its all just gossip.
Gossip indeed.
> I got mine (proof) in my living room at home. And the proof was beyond any shadow of a doubt and no one could ever ever ever tell me he doesn't exist. I KNOW he does.
Would you care to share your proof? If you could provide solid proof, you may shift the tide of this debate in your favor..
> I'm sorry that you equate him with a myth. He is a real person. And he is so awesome. So loving. So forgiving.
My friend, it is all mythology, and you've been trapped in its confines. I am so sorry to have to tell you this, and I am not saying this to be rude or insulting for I only speak from a position of empathy and love for my fellow humans; but...you are insane, and if there was 'anything' else I thought I could do that would help you, I would, I promise.
> I will tell you this, for those of us who have really honestly truly experienced his presence, his love, his power, you could never in your best attempt show us to be wrong.
I'm more than aware that it is impossible to reverse the damage done to ethereal addicts, virtually impossible to get them to let go of their faith narcotic. I've tried for many years, and with only a couple successes, and even those were quite traumatic to the addicts. Ethereal addiction is the most powerful addiction known to man, far beyond the power of cocaine, heroin, etc.; and far more destructive.
> letter sent to you was to rebuke your activities. But I separate your activities from you the person. Normally I concentrate on being the best Christian I can be, trying to behave as Jesus would have me behave, but I fall sadly short of that. The one thing though that I can say, is that even if I make a mistake, I can admit it. Can you say the same?
Thank you for this sincere confession, which is an excellent example of integrity and mutual respect. I apologize for being surprised at this because I should have had more 'faith' in your value for mutual respect in the first place. Now, I believe you are asking me to apologize in turn for some prior statement of mine that you misinterpreted to be mockery, but as I've explained, I sincerely wasn't mocking you. If there's some other statement of mine that was 'personally' disrespectful to you (not your religion), I'd be more than willing to apologize.
> Usually those that meet me can tell there's something different about me. They see the love and the sincerity of my attempt to be loving and caring and kind. As I said your site made me angry. Just as it would make anyone angry to see someone they adore slandered and battered on an internet forum.
Absolutely I agree, my site has generated a phenomenal backlash from 'many' angry people such as yourself, as you would witness if you took the time to read the BetterHuman.org weblog. What is happening is that the religious meme-virus senses danger and is lashing out at me with fantastic energy. You, my poor friend, are the unwitting host that the virus is manipulating in order to achieve its reproductive/defense goals, and you are quite oblivious to this. What the virus doesn't realize though is that I completely understand its mechanics of guilt/fear/hope/intimidation manipulation as its form of propagating itself, and as such I am immune to its actions. The virus isn't intelligent/evolved enough to be able to successfully infect me.
In regard to my statement:
"for further reference, if you do not wish to have your submissions published, then it would be in your best interest to refrain from submitting material."
You wrote:
> You have no legal justification for that. You can say that til your hearts content, friend, but without my express written legal consent, which you were notified that you did not have, you are not legally able to publish one word. And if you do, then prepare to be sued. You see, I am a paralegal, so I know thats hogwash.
How sad that your dialogue has once again disintegrated to threats. Please, again, in the future, do 'not' submit material that you do not wish to be published. 'Everything' submitted becomes our property and may be published; there will be no exceptions.
> The hurt inside, the empty void in your soul that no matter how much you lash out at that creator, it is never enough. It is for that emptiness of soul that spend countless hours and countless words trying to convince not only yourself, but others that you somehow have it all figured out, and have it all together. We both know that isn't true.
A most respectful ditto.
> And exactly which part of this letter was warm and genuine? I don't see anything warm about it.
You choose not to perceive it. Perhaps you should peruse our correspondence once again?
> choose to hang on to your "vile sinister" bitternesses toward God and blame him for "church driven-injustices" when hes not even a part of most of it
Again, and I want this to be absolutely perfectly clear, I am 'not' bitter whatsoever toward your mythological entity because bitterness toward something that doesn't exist, makes 'no' sense. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are so adamant with this incorrect perspective. Do you think I'm bitter at Zeus on Mount Olympus because I don't believe he exists? Am I angry at Santa Claus because he is also fantasy? Seriously, please 'try' to understand that I simply do not believe in your fantasy creature, and that is all there is to it. There's no anger or bitterness, or even emptiness, any more than you suffer an emptiness because there aren't any unicorns.
> then we shall see when that Judgement Day comes, who was right and who was wrong.
Back to intimidation manipulation. Your meme-virus is going to be exhausted after working so hard to infect me.
> And which part of your responses were warm or genuine? You preach harmony, and yet you are invested in strife. You lash out at every christian who questions you.
I do not intentionally lash out at people (though they often perceive it as such), I only try to passively educate them (with an altruistic motivation). Of course your religious meme-virus twists this into an 'attack', and perhaps I 'am' attacking the religious meme-virus, but to cast me in a hostile light makes no more sense than calling a medical doctor 'evil' when he prescribes antibiotics to treat an illness. The doctor has the sick person's (the host) best interests at heart, and I do as well for you.
> You mock them, hold them to what you believe is open shame?
Can you demonstrate where I mock people, and hold them open to shame?
> Where is this personal morality of yours?
For this answer, please read the BetterHuman.org tenets.
> If you believe your morality is correct and you believe it so whole heartedly, why don't we see the fruits of your labor?
We do, and there are people all over the world that have announced their commitment to our philosophies, some ready to dedicate all of their time to this cause. It's quite heart-warming to know that I am reaching people wanting to choose a direction that isn't founded in fantasy and denial, but rather 'reality', and love and respect for their fellow humans.
> Why don't we see this harmony in your words, in your presentation. All I see is endless dribble and babble that portrays your bitterness.
Correct, all 'you' see is what you want to see, and I cannot do anything about that. Of course, you do realize that you are here by choice, and that you can leave at any time. My friend, I wish you could see how obvious it is that the only reason you keep coming back to us is that we challenge your faith, and that is why your meme-virus is forcing you to bully and chastise us for our philosophies. I truly wish you could get past your fear of us and begin to try to understand us. Despite what you think we are, we are your most fundamentally your friends who want nothing but what's best for you, much more so than your mythological entities can ever be.
> IF you really believe your position is valid, why do you spend untold hours and endless web pages attempting to prove it and persuade your point. If you really believe it, it doesn't need any justification. Just explanation.
This is a confusing statement, especially since the entire BetterHuman.org website does exactly that, 'explain'. A lot of people have valid questions and I do my best to answer them. You're point that our philosophies shouldn't need any justification is a very 'faith'-based perspective, which we don't subscribe to. We have no value for blind faith, we need evidence and logic-based theory to substantiate our perspective. So, it is very necessary to always 'justify' our position, otherwise we just become another 'faith'.
> And if you, sir, are wrong about the time of the end and I am right, what will you do then?
I can't give you an answer because it would be the same as if I asked you what you would do if the Tooth Fairy decided today was the end of humankind. The question is nonsensical from a reality perspective.
> There was very little respect in your responses. But thanks anyway.
My friend, the only reason you didn't see any respect, is that you chose not to perceive it, but it was there. This is due to your diminished value for the 'human' respect I was demonstrating to you, which was overshadowed by your fury at my lack of respect for your 'faith'. I think if you try a little harder, you should be able to see that I have shown 'you' continuous and sincere respect throughout the entirety of our correspondence.
I would like to ask you, besides venting your rage, what would you like to accomplish with our dialogue? You are intelligent enough to understand the futility of attempting to quash my atheistic efforts, or to intimidate me with further fear/shame manipulation, so is there anything more to your presence here than ethereal threats, ceaseless belittlement, and insincere gestures of concern for my well-being?
With much human respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.208, 16.209}
|
#210 - Isolating the ethereal high - July 01, 2006, 01:53 PM |
Mr. Kickline wrote:
> I do not believe that any time any person has a religious experience or feels something spiritual, etc., that the person must be hallucinating (I, for instance, have never been under any influence of alcohol or drugs, yet I still have such mystical musings) - and certainly, billions around the world cannot all hallucinate in LSD fashion en masse like
I don't believe 'hallucinate' is the word I would choose (as in 'sensing' things that aren't there); I believe the correct term would be 'delusional' (as in 'believing' in things that aren't there). There are few chemical drugs that are as capable of producing the intensity of a delusional state that equals the one perpetually suffered by religious people. Religion is so potent at inducing a state of delusional insanity, that the victims wholeheartedly believe they will live forever, and that some mythological ethereal being rules the universe. This ethereal 'high' effect is actually 'exacerbated' by the fact that it is self-reinforcing when executed en masse, building up a 'resonance' among its constituents, if you will.
> Most realize that their belief (or non-belief) should not be thought of as immutable proven fact.
I'll disagree with your statement. Do you consider your god to be a theory? Most religious people believe their perspective to be immutable fact, whereas an atheist perspective generally limits itself to strong theories.
> this. I know you have said (as has Dawkins, for instance) that religions are memes and spread like viruses. I've always found it curious how absolute materialists like Dawkins (and you, I assume?) can attribute such qualities to non-organic, abstract ideas.
Materialism (one of many classes of atheism) does not preclude abstract concepts, only supernatural ones (the primary difference being that supernatural abstractions are typically manifested from emotional extrapolation, instead of logical deduction). A meme-virus is simply a negative idea that transfers from person to person. To say that since an 'idea' has no physical presence, it therefore cannot have any 'properties', doesn't make sense since the only thing that defines the existence of anything 'is' its measurable properties, and the influence of an 'idea' is easily measurable. I don't see how this is any stretch of the imagination for you since you assign 'many' properties to your abstract ethereal entity (your god) for which there is no physical presence. In fact, your god is an excellent example of a meme-virus. You, and all faith-oriented people, however, only are aware of the presentation layer of the virus (your god), not the entire sinister entity that it is.
Also, what you may not understand is that a 'meme' actually does have a physical presence, it's just very difficult to precisely define because it can take many forms. For example, a 'thought' in someone's head is borne upon the very exacting chemical and electrical activity in the brain. Passing this 'thought' on to another person is the act of converting this brain activity into muscular activity (the mouth) which sends an encoded sound message (speech) to the receiver (ear) where it is decoded back into brain activity. The entire existence of a 'meme' is completely dependent upon the physical arrangement of all the atoms that form it (a human memory), including those used to transfer it around (the air). There is nothing 'ethereal' about a meme.
> And, if so, how did the virus begin?
There is a very lengthy answer to this question. My Glack excerpt from Meme can describe the origins of the religious meme-virus to you.
> I won't bring up the old-hat complaint that you can't prove something doesn't exist.
It definitely is a popular tactic of the religious, but the truth is, you cannot simply 'state' that something absolutely exists and then throw it out there for others to 'disprove'. This approach leads us to a universe filled with unicorns, Tooth Fairies, Earian gods, and whatever else we wish to manifest into existence, with all of their credibility hiding behind the 'cannot prove I don't exist' clause. This is a nonsensical approach to defining the universe.
Using the principles of the scientific method, and Occam's razor, the exact amount of proof needed to disprove something, is precisely the same as the amount of proof that exists 'for' said thing. Only the 'evidence' that supports the existence of a 'thing' needs to be disproved, not the thing itself. If there's no remaining evidence that hasn't been disproved, then by definition, that 'thing' most likely doesn't exist. 'Faith' is not evidence; millions of people believing in something is not evidence; hearsay is not evidence; religious books are not evidence.
> But after digging through works of philosophy, I keep finding a way around it: don't prove a negative, prove the impossibility of the positive. Show that God cannot possibly exist - scientifically, not via philosophical or semantic tricks.
Again, it will be impossible to use science to disprove the existence of your god, because science only works on things that 'do' exist. Science is incompatible with the world of fantasy. It would be the same as asking what the precise weight of the rock was that you picked up in your dream last night. You will never get the tools of science into your imagination.
> For me, faith is not a crutch to alleviate fear of dying, it's the little question inside that reminds me how little humankind is TRULY sure of in this universe, and the possibility of something divine out there.
Which is a cleverly disguised admittance of your fear of death. My friend, you may never come to understand the fundamental connection between 'fear' and 'faith'.
> I just want you to consider the great leap you take from your excellent foundation of science to the destruction of theology, and most of all the unshakable sureness that you are right in doing so.
I am no less or more sure than you. Can you take your own advice into consideration?
> I join you in rejecting the literal, traditional monotheistic religions. But a God that is greater than the world's hatred, bigotry and violence - I'm not at all sure of it, but I take the risk of faith.
In the context of a meme-virus, you're merely purifying the ethereal high by removing the obvious tentacles of religious tyranny. An intelligent surgery, but you've still got the heart of the virus in your head, that being a belief in the supernatural, which only serves to cover your fear of mortality, trust me.
> Feel free to challenge any point I made and best wishes to you all!
Thank you my friend, for sharing your very congenial and intelligent thoughts with us. Again, most of your points are addressed in the BetterHuman.org weblog and I would encourage you to explore these entries because I believe you are intelligent enough to be appropriately objective and will gain much from the material there.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#211 - Big daddy in the sky - August 22, 2006, 07:33 AM |
Mr. Earnblie wote:
> A refreshing perspective. I've been living a happy secular life for years and am pleased by the ideas and concepts of your website.
Awesome! Always nice to hear that there's like-minded people out there. It's sad that there are not more people that can leave their religious shell.
> Religion and religious people are downright scary. Here in the bible belt, where I live, it is truly amazing how many people are morally bi-polor. Prostelyzing in the daylight, and buying lottery tickets, drinking and druggin, in the shadows. Then they go insane trying to mediate the schism this produces in their lives.
I know this all too well. Very obsessive-compulsive behavior. Most people do not understand the role of our morality instincts in driving our need to be pious, and the unfortunate clashing of our more selfish instincts against this piety. And the internal struggle is magnified ten-thousandfold when those instincts are misinterpreted to be of divine origin. Seems like a lot of unnecessary suffering.
> I feel bad for them. They need to let god/daddy/mommy in the sky, go. Let them go.
I hope you find it worth your time to try to help them with such, in a gently caring way. One of the things I try to teach here is how to perceive them, and it boils down to an 'addicted victim'. Once you 'truly' see them this way, the need to 'confront' them goes out the door, and all that is left is a teacher/student scenario. If we can show them that kindness and morality exist on our side, then they will be able to consider the transition more readily.
> On a global scale, the results of religous fanatcism are downright destructive. All the recent centurys of scientific and civil advancement at risk because of beliefs no one can prove.
Can you point to a time in history where the above didn't hold true?
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.211, 16.213}
|
#212 - Self-defining purpose - August 26, 2006, 09:38 AM |
Mr. Tallyvan wrote
> THANKS FOR HELPING THE HUMAN RACE TO UNDERSTAND HIMSELF.
I know of no greater pleasure.
> PLEASE COULD YOU HELP ME TO DEVELOP MYSELF?
My friend, all I can do is be a guide, for only you truly know what is in your mind and heart. Only you can determine what can make you happy, purposeful, and content with life. In my book, Meme, the last third of the book is dedicated to helping you take a look at yourself and attempts to help you find your way.
Of course this is completely different than a religious perspective, because religion 'gives' you purpose for you (worshipping fantasy). But, in a reality perspective, there is no predetermined purpose, we simply just exist. It is up to you to find out what gets you out of bed in the morning, and what makes you happy, and how you can accomplish all of this without hurting anybody, including yourself.
I would encourage you to read the entire BetterHuman.org weblog as it contains many contributions touching on this very topic, and it may help you to reach your goals.
Best of luck,
Sean Sinjin
|
#213 - The pursuit of spirituality - August 26, 2006, 10:03 AM |
Mr. Earnblie wrote back:
> bet you get a prodigious amount of hate mail from the "occupents of the shell".
Definitely, but I consider it more 'fear' mail, than hate, since for the most part, these people are very threatened by what BetterHuman.org represents, and though they project rage, it's really only to cover their fear of losing their faith because of our influence. I have much pity for them because it's only a matter of time before atheism becomes the norm, and religious people will unavoidably suffer terrible confusion and anguish.
> when I mention my agnosticism, I am responded to with sorrow and often disgust.
It's a very common 'shame manipulation' tactic employed by virtually all religions. It's meant to coerce you towards their 'light'. It should be quite easy to identify when someone is using these types of shame/guilt tactics against you and therefore it should become easy not to be drawn down to their level of communication. Always treat them with respect, dignity, and maturity, and they'll immediately realize how ineffective their obvious manipulations are.
> Make no mistake, I am amazed at the miracle and beauty on this planet, and believe in a higher power, but this is a personal "religion" and I am not concerned with recruting other people to my belief. Spirtuality is too important to be governed by ancient laws and beliefs.
I know that you perceive that your beliefs are akin to mine, but the above statement places us as nearly apart as if you pursued a more common religion. You see, it's not the religions themselves that I believe are the problem, it's the belief in the existence of 'ethereal' entities in our universe, as you've indicated with your 'faith' in a 'higher power'. I am trying to teach that there is no 'higher power', only physics, and blind mindless energy that pours through and arranges all the particles in our universe.
I think it is very important for you to read the entirety of the BetterHuman.org weblog, and my book, Meme, because these resources can dutifully separate 'reality' from 'mythology' for you, even the lingering ethereal concepts such as your 'higher power'.
> I look forward to communicating with you in the future. I feel like you are a brother.
I would like to extend that sentiment to include 'all' our brothers and sisters on this planet, no matter what they believe, or how much they believe they hate us.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.211, 16.213}
|
#214 - The dream of God - September 09, 2006, 08:48 AM |
Mr. Sumbliss wrote back:
> I'm writing again to tell you about an experience I had with a religious person in my very christian homeland (Greece). I have finally defeated the religion meme and consider myself a full atheist and not an agnostic as I
Congratulations my friend. What a fantastic admission. I remember that feeling well; liberating, empowering, and even somewhat terrifying.
> An anxiolytic for the existential crisis humanity suffers from.
Well said
> existence of god. He argued that everything needs a creator and therefore that creator must be god.... I told him that this logic would spawn infinite meta-creators and surprisingly he didn't deny it! Still though, he thinks we should only worship the lowest creator (some kind of hierarchy). The manifestations of the religion meme can't stop impressing me.
It's just like in a dream isn't it? It's impossible to completely encircle the notion of a god with logic, for the meme-virus respects no rules and simply 'adapts' to any and every situation; changing forms to become anything conceivable to avoid annihilation; an inextinguishable candle. If anything, its persistence is strong evidence for an instinctual foundation (the G.O.D.)
> I understand that your free time is limited but if it is possible I would like to contact you via msn messenger or IRC for a real time chat.
My friend, thank you so much for the kind words, but I'm afraid this will simply be impossible. I hope you understand.
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.191, 16.214, 16.216, 17.243}
|
#215 - Mother Earth - September 09, 2006, 09:16 AM |
In regard to our first tenet:
"Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they personally define it, but only if this pursuit does not negatively affect anyone, including themselves."
Mr. Quiltup wrote:
> "...as it does not negatively affect anyone, including themselves, or the Earth.
I couldn't agree more and I believe that your suggestion is already largely encapsulated by the tenet in essence. It's hard to imagine hurting the Earth without hurting one's self. However, it is a fantastic thing to remind people of and I have updated the tenet's explanatory blurb to identify this most noble of p/maternal duties we hold for our home.
Again, thanks for the fantastic suggestion.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.215, 20.285}
#216 - Contrasting gravity theories - September 16, 2006, 10:47 AM
Mr. Sumbliss wrote back:
> I also have some other questions about your bether theory (and it's possible relevance to spacetime foam concept),
I've done some quick research on foam theory and I think there are a few similar apexes, such as a minimum size to a discrete unit of bether (a Planck length in foam theory), and bether theory also subscribes to virtual particles being created and annihilated, which is nothing more than the effects of a wave-ridden bether (like the ocean's surface, which is also used to describe foam theory). But there are many differences, foam theory seems to imply a discrete physical nature to timeflow (I may be misunderstanding this), whereas bether theory suggests that time is abstract, a culminating product of other bether effects (stretching, twisting, etc.), and different points of observation from within varying states of bether will produce the time perturbations witnessed. In our model, time is only an observed measurement of 'change'. I've also read of a foam theory variation where gravity is the effect of this foam flowing into matter, which is quite counter to our gravity model of stretched bether, causing an elastic repulsion to push particles together.
Please feel free to ask me about anything.
> all those people who criticize it harshly sadden me,
I believe it's the natural cycle of anything new. I really don't take it personally because in most cases these people don't even read the theory and are just blindly turning it away. There could be a recipe for cookies in my theory and they would never know it. Such is human nature.
Thanks again for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.191, 16.214, 16.216, 17.243}
#217 - Spooky special effects - October 08, 2006, 05:34 PM
Ms. Mailpalm had asked me to comment on the image found at www.fyebridge.com. This image is a beautiful painting that was altered by a computer to appear as a 'negative', not unlike the images produced by a camera's film negatives.
With some very simple software, this image can be corrected at the click of a button. The corrected image can be found at this LINK
I will reserve further comment on the painting as I believe you were focusing on its agitating emotional projection due to the odd nature of the colors.
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 8.107, 8.114, 9.122, 9.135, 10.145, 16.217}
#218 - Separating atheism from communism - November 04, 2006, 09:48 AM
Mr. Inkspool wrote:
> Bet you love humanity just as much as Lenin and Mao!
I'm not sure if you understand what communism means, my friend, but BetterHuman.org is not remotely communist. To become better educated about what we represent, please read: 6.85
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
#219 - What defines 'extremist'? - November 11, 2006, 06:42 PM
Mr. Mapledark wrote back:
> I've directed a number of people to visit BetterHuman.org and practically everyone is learning a great deal about themselves until they get to the tenets and things start to break down.
Correct, most people will start to see some of the points I've made, and if I stopped at that, then they would bounce the information around for a couple days, and promptly forget about it, fully resuming their ethereal addiction in due course. This does nothing to contribute to the BetterHuman.org mission. It's only when the religious meme-virus is confronted with 'termination' that the full depths of their ethereal addiction surfaces.
As you've pointed out, I'll agree that historically the tenets have been quite vague and perhaps overstated in their portrayal of said oppression, leaving a wide gap in possible interpretations that has led me into numerous heated debates to try to defend them. Because of these interactions, however, I have been able to re-word the tenets considerably in the attempt to fine-tune their exact meaning; in particular those pertaining to religion-oppression.
Could I ask you to please read the tenets in their current incarnation and tell me if you still feel that their presentation wields an inappropriate form that misses the middle ground I seek (where the oppression of religion remains, and yet sheds as much potentially perceived evil possible)? Remember though, I'm not trying to placate the religious mindset, for they simply will not tolerate any religious oppression whatsoever, but I am trying to resist appearing fascist, and instead trying to depict the intended altruistic motivation; a very difficult thing to do given the nature of my audience.
> to BetterHuman.org. He was fine with all of it but became completely side-tracked by the word 'oppression' and couldn't get past it. He's convinced that your intent is that he actively 'oppress' his religious friends and family. He now considers you to be an extremist - akin to religious extremists. The bottom line is that the tenets are an obstacle to getting folks aligned with BetterHuman.org. Personally, I think morality is a combination of instinct, societal law, and parental influence - if I'm right about that are the tenets even necessary?
Yes, the tenets are very necessary, and challenging, especially the ones that seem to purport what seems to be an 'unjust' oppression of religion, but what I think is important to identify here is that the people whom would typically take offence to the tenets, 'are' ethereal addicts and obviously would find them offensive. They would cite that this violates what they believe should be their personal freedoms, but their reaction has absolutely nothing to do with the notion of limiting their freedoms, it has only to do with their fear of losing access to their drug which up until they read my words, they believed was untouchable. Yet, in the same breath, these same people would immediately and hypocritically support the oppression of illicit chemical abuse. You may find it interesting to ask these revolted people if they believe we should legalize heroin.
You see, the 'logic' for oppressing religion isn't flawed, harsh, or even oppressive to the 'people', for even the ethereal addicts themselves support 'oppression' as a remedy for society's addictions, it's the perception that religion 'isn't a problem' that is flawed. 'Faith' just happens to be religious people's narcotic of choice and they justify its persistence using the same tools of denial and misinformation that any conventional narcotics junkie would use. Anybody that reads the BetterHuman.org website and states, "Yes, he makes some good points, and I've learned a lot", and then is immediately turned off by the notion of religious intolerance, hasn't learned a single thing from my site.
Also, the notion of 'extremist' inherently means to be 'senseless' and implies danger, threat, or hatred, so by this definition our opposition to religion is anything but extremist in nature. Religion is a drug, and the minute one 'truly' understands that, then no longer does the oppression of religion seem lewd, radical, or extreme; instead it becomes 'exactly' the same degree of altruism as what the oppression of chemical drug abuse attempts to be. Would 'anybody' say that oppressing illicit narcotics is 'extremist'? Of course not.
The gap that needs to be covered here isn't to step back from the absolutely inevitable necessity to suppress religion (which can only happen after many painless baby-steps), but it's to expose religion for the virtual narcotic that it really is. The difficult truth is, legal oppression of organized religion is one of the most critical elements (accompanied by a strata of education) needed to stop the perpetual cycle of mythological insanity that has eternally victimized all of humanity; period; and we have to progress in that direction. Tolerance of religion is the 'opposite' direction. It may seem harsh to the addicts, but that harshness is a reflection of the astounding depths of the addiction, not the nature of the oppression.
When I started this website, it was just me, and slowly I have made many friends that have always seen, or have learned to see religion for the 1000-lb gorilla of devastation it is, whom also are coming to understand the steps required to forever end humanity's slavery to fantasy, and I consider this an ongoing success. Of course there will be a vast majority of people that are turned away from my site but that was predicted from the start, and as much as I wish I could appeal to them, it would be counter-productive for me to make philosophical concessions solely to appease their religious meme-virus. That would quite literally be making a 'deal with the Devil'.
> ...in his mind you've put it in writing and there's no ambiguity: get out there and oppress your friends and family for the greater good of ridding the world of religious tyranny.
Your friend was correct, there is no ambiguity. The cure to religion requires education, and prevention, there is no other way. However, you're valuable comments indebt me with the duty of further improving our representation. To address the starkness of BetterHuman.org's utilization of the word 'oppression', I have further clarified on the website that this oppression applies only to the existence and propagation of 'religions', and not to religious 'people', akin to how modern society makes it illegal to sell illicit narcotics, yet the addict is treated as a victim that needs assistance.
Realistically, however, our tenets will always perpetually fall short of what could be considered 'consumable' by religious people, and there's nothing I can do about that. I apologize wholeheartedly for failing yet to find a way to reach out to your friend, and others like them, in a progressive manner, but they will simply not give up their drug, and will hate (fear) BetterHuman.org's mission all the way to the bitter end.
As challenging and controversial BetterHuman.org may be, please understand that I'm not trying to be popular, politically correct, revered, or marketable, because I didn't set out on this journey to be loved by all__I am only trying to show the unbearable truth so that humanity can free itself from the madness of mythology. And even if that ultimately means that you and I are the only ones that ever see the truth...well my brother, at least 'we' made it.
Integrity can be a rough ride.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 7.101, 8.111, 16.219, 16.221, 19.273}
#220 - Closure - November 20, 2006, 09:22 PM
Mr. Floatlap wrote:
> I briefly skimmed over the Meme outline you have on BetterHuman.org, and what really caught my eye was at the very end: the explanation of G.O.D. I was a Christian for the great majority of my life, but after having recently (within the past 2 years) forfeited my delusions for reality, I have become happier than ever before!
Fantastic! You have a powerful mind my friend. Congratulations on curing yourself of the religious meme-virus. I hope you will find it important throughout your life to help others achieve this liberation from religious insanity.
> I came across your theory about G.O.D. and I found myself submerged in a deep level of understanding that I've sought out for the past few years. That intrinsic gut feeling - that ethereal presence of God that always makes itself heard when you find yourself torn between logic and desire - I have felt it more often than is comforting for an individual who renounces God. So, naturally, your note on G.O.D. allowed for me to take a long-overdue sigh of relief.
I know exactly what you speak of my brother. It took me years to understand the physiology behind the psychology. It wasn't until I took an anthropology course and learned how the larynx evolved (memes driving biological evolution), that I was able to extend this knowledge to discover the G.O.D. For me as well, it granted final closure.
A pleasure,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.220, 19.276}
#221 - Recentering - November 20, 2006, 09:25 PM
Mr. Mapledark wrote back:
> It's probably futile and idealistic but I'd like to think that every religious person has the ability to climb out of their cocoon
I believe in my heart that it is also possible, but it requires a serious sacrifice of time and energy to coax someone along that path, especially since they will fight you the entire way. I have been following some of your external Internet posts and your hard work and repeated mention of BetterHuman.org are both exemplary and flattering. The only thing I could suggest is perhaps to extend your argument to appeal to their emotional tethers. Draw them in with examples of atheistic love and morality, and attempt to dissuade their fears of a godless reality. This I believe will make your position most effective.
> full-blown reality check. I won't bang my head against the wall indefinitely, but I need to feel like I gave it good try (satiate the altruism instinct) before giving up and letting them continue to waste their precious lives and resources living a destructive lie.
Any effort you exert in this direction is always useful, even if it ultimately only fine-tunes your ability to communicate. What you are doing is exactly the most effective difference anyone can make in the pursuit of educating others about reality so keep up the good work!
> I did revisit the tenets portion of the website and you've made a HUGE improvement in this area - very well done, indeed.
{All letters from this contributor: 15.191, 16.214, 16.216, 17.243}
{All letters from this contributor: 8.107, 8.114, 9.122, 9.135, 10.145, 16.217}
{All letters from this contributor: 7.101, 8.111, 16.219, 16.221, 19.273}
{All letters from this contributor: 16.220, 19.276}
{All letters from this contributor: 7.101, 8.111, 16.219, 16.221, 19.273}
Thank you so much. It's been a difficult course, and it continues to be.
> tenets will continue to be the biggest source of 'issues' people have with BetterHuman.org - even atheists and free thinkers...
Sure, nobody wants to rock the boat, but they don't realize that it's always been sunk. It's time we bailed it out.
> However if you / we can't even get those who agree with us about religion aligned with BetterHuman.org's tenets then how do we align those religionists who need our help and are questioning their 'faith'?
I think we are talking about three different camps of people here: 1) the religious, 2) the passive atheist, and 3) the progressive atheist (us). Category 3 is by far the smallest because it requires the most energy and sacrifice. I have probably spent just as much time trying to appeal to passive atheists as I have to the religious. Passive atheists still need to ask a lot of important questions before they can see the value of becoming a progressive atheist.
> He was well on his way to coming on-board but he got tripped-up on the tenets
In order for the tenets to seem remotely reasonable to a religious person, they would have to absorb the majority of the weblog. Exposure to the tenets without a proper reality education will only agitate the religious meme-virus, forcing the host to withdraw. This may be my fault because I have often reorganized the website, failing to understand the importance of guiding one's visit to my site through the proper sequence of reading.
> can't seem to reel him back in...I fear he may end up going the wrong way and I'll have a hard time not feeling responsible if he does.
Of course, you should never burden yourself with guilt for the decisions that other people make. I've had friends 'refuse' to even open the covers of my book for the fear of what they may read inside. You are not to blame for their resistance to reality.
> Thanks again, Sean, for everything you do including keeping open communications with idealistic weenies like me who like to believe we can make a dent in religion's blood-drenched armor.
We're all weenies on this rock my friend, and we both keep banging our heads against the same wall, because it's the right thing to do.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 7.101, 8.111, 16.219, 16.221, 19.273}
|
#222 - Kudos for Meme - November 22, 2006, 11:03 PM |
Mr. Paldawn wrote:
> I'm about half way through your book, Meme, and I can't stop thinking about how thankful I am to have picked it up.
Fantastic, and I am most grateful you took the time to let me know how you feel. Though, if it's not too much trouble, could you once again contact me with your thoughts once you have completed Meme? It's a very dynamic piece and I think you'll find that the last third of it takes a direction that most people will at least find emotionally challenging.
> Your friend somehow through the cosmos,
Take care my brother,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.222, 16.223}
|
#223 - Sean Sinjin the recluse - November 26, 2006, 05:36 PM |
Mr. Paldawn wrote back:
> I completed your book tonight and I must say, you are brilliant and your writing has left an everlasting imprint on my "gray matter" :)
Awesome. Words simply aren't adequate to express how happy I am to hear this.
> I don't know where you live, but if it's anywhere near San Francisco, I would love to sit down and pick your brain some more.
Please believe me that I'm not remotely suspicious of your motives, but as a draconian rule, I'm afraid I have to go to extended lengths to secure myself and those I love from a religiously-motivated fanatic reprisal. This precludes publicizing my whereabouts, or exposing my more personal information, even to those like yourself that I could easily trust. There are some very dangerous people out there that have a keen interest in doing me harm and I simply cannot take chances that they get hold of some information that leads them to me. The 'grapevine' is unbelievably efficient. I'm so sorry, and I hope I didn't offend you.
As for picking my brain, please feel free to ask me anything, or especially to contribute your undoubtedly insightful thoughts, via BetterHuman.org. I'd be very happy to discuss anything you deem of interest.
> This past year has been amazing for me. I've gone from an inconceivable low (I was heavily into methamphetamine for a better part of 2005 and into 2006 so you're bit about chemical addiction was right on) to what now seems an incredible natural high. I've never felt better my entire life. Just last month I went through, what I consider, a complete transformation back to the real "me" I knew existed all along
What an awesome transformation my friend. You must have a lot of pride and dignity (which helps you distinguish 'low' from 'high') to be able to climb that mountain. I hope you've filled the holes of 'desire' left by the withdrawal from the drugs, with a multitude of fun and sustainable alternatives. Quitting drugs is the first step, having something better to replace it with that you love, is the second. This often means finding a new social circle, rediscovering your healthier passions (exercise, hobbies, education, etc.), physically relocating to break those drug connections, or when unavoidably confronted with temptation, finding extreme pleasure, pride, and power in being able to say 'no'. Turn 'no' into your fix, and your G.O.D. will be right there to give you a healthy pat on the back, and you will feel 'whole', and 'in control'; there is no greater high than that.
> I know I have an incredible ability to help create the 'perfect Culture Machine' and I would love to help you spread your ideas as well as mine! Simply put, the truth is all there is, and I feel it's our duty as the "knowers" to be the teachers of the "unknowing." What can I do to help you?
My brother, there are millions of ways to help (e.g. start a website like mine, voting for the right leaders, not giving money to religiously-based functions, etc.), but by far the most effective is to exercise your newfound perspective within your realm of influence. You probably know many people that are lost in this world filled with deadly and wasteful addictions (drugs, religions, etc.) Become an example to them. Show them how happy and proud you've become by standing tall against addiction. Show them how to accomplish that for themselves by helping them to understand the biology behind their addictions and what it takes to escape the cycle, and onto a more fulfilling life.
You may have noticed from the above that I precluded the option to 'join' me, and that was intentional. From the beginning, I've only ever wanted independent and strong people to evolve out of my writing, not 'followers', and I'm quite certain you understand the value of that. The best way to answer your question 'What can I do to help you?', is to change the question to 'What can I do to help my brothers and sisters?' I think you'll find that there's no greater reward than opening someone's eyes to the truth, and watching them flourish because of it. Read the weblog for the many examples of people that have made fantastic transitions in perspective in order to understand how effective even just one person can be, and then become that person. The Culture Machine will roar into effect along your heels.
Thanks again. It was a sincere pleasure to make your acquaintance,
Sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.222, 16.223}
|
#224 - Understanding the weighted vote system - November 26, 2006, 05:49 PM |
Mr. Stimred wrote:
> I must say you have really gone to a lot of work coming up with a philosophically intriguing paradigm! Wow. This is elaborate and you have some real analytical talent.
Thank you so much for the flattering comments my friend. It's been a colossal undertaking and when I get kudos from someone like you, it makes all the effort worthwhile
> Case in point. Was it Hume that suggested votes should go to the landed aristocracy? He certainly had a rationale for that idea (landowners had the best education and most leisure), but it wasn't fair because it was precisely the political system that kept the poor poor and not owning land.
Exactly, and this is the most common misperception of my voting structure tenet, that it models your example above. It does not. The most overlooked facet of my proposed weighted-vote meritdemocracy is the 'empathy' factor. This critical parameter is what will be the 'rectifier' that counters the tyrannizing pursuits of the powerful. In a nutshell, the theory is that the more empathic one is, the more influence they will be granted in governance (either by increased voting strength or by increased eligibility for leadership roles), and therefore, the lesser apt will not be overlooked. It is very important not to disregard the importance of this empathy factor when differentiating the meritdemocracy from aristocracy-driven politics.
> Why, I would ask with Robert Hutchins (1952) should we settle for "virtually" educating the populus, when everyone deserves to receive the type of education that would prepare them all to think independently and have full political responsibility.
I don't believe that has much merit because of the widely varying degrees of people's learning potential. Not everyone can be educated to your proposed 'baseline'.
> While I agree that children should be taught to evaluate the credibility of legacy documents
I believe they need to be taught basic incredulity skills, and the scientific method in general. This would much better equip them for any kind of deception, not merely religious.
> them. We are far away from that anymore. I think a good liberal education in the Western tradition (that is, for children in the West) will undoubtedly lead them to embrace a multiplicity of possibile interpretations of any given event.
I don't believe this is healthy, from the point of view that having competing fantasy and science perspectives can only serve to confuse and dilute understanding of the one and only reality. Reality is a very difficult perspective to acquire, and any religiosity whatsoever will only serve to stunt this intellectual growth.
> Furthermore, a healthily multicultural education (not at all incompatible with a liberal Western education, in my view) will go plenty of distance to give children a meta-understanding of respective religious viewpoints without marginalizing all non-atheists, as your version would seem to do
Fantasy is fantasy my friend. I'm not opposed to theological education (that is, the study of religions as opposed to indulging in them), but I am opposed to the 'partaking' in a diversity of religions as I believe you are suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong) to attempt to provide the various exposures to these religions. The reason I believe this is dangerous can best be expressed with a narcotics analogy: would you allow children to try cocaine, heroin, etc. in the effort to educate them about their options? Of course not; so my logic isn't in question, it's just the perception that 'religion is harmless' is.
Also, I'm in no way attempting to marginalize religious people, any more than one would marginalize a drug addict, though quite obviously I can understand how they might feel marginalized. Ultimately this is an unavoidable consequence of trying to help them to understand and correct their affliction. We do not see them as less valuable, we see them as victims.
> the Chinese government, of course). She records the way students of one tribe ridiculed those of another tribe for having a "less-evolved" religious system
I do hope that wasn't meant to parallel what we are trying to do here at BetterHuman.org. We want to appeal to religious people and show them that morality, purpose, love, and happiness exist in a non-ethereal perspective. Any comparisons to us 'ridiculing the less-evolved' is very unjustified my friend; we are the complete opposite. Ethereal addiction is a 'very' serious problem, a tragedy of epic proportions. Ridiculing the victims of this sinister and ancient mental illness is unforgivably ignorant and cruel.
> If all democracies are limited (and I agree they are), all ideologies are capable of leading to untold human suffering if unchecked by conflicting ideologies. That would be my one reason to want to keep even religious discourse (including, "shall I pray for you?" etc.) free to live or die, despite the dangers specific to it.
I'll disagree with your approach as it applies to religion, but I'll agree as it applies to retaining a multiplicity of governance ideologies. As for trying to retain religions for the purpose of contrast however, the point is moot, because a global atheistic perspective is simply inevitable; the information age will provide the foundation for it, and lasting peace will demand it. In the not-so-distant future, everyone in our entire species is going to pull or be pushed through this very painful evolutionary step to arrive at the other side, where misinformation is punished, and religious intolerance parallels current narcotics oppression.
Mark these words.
> Sorry to be lengthy.
It's only lengthy if it's non-productive. Yours, however, has been a most valuable read. Thank you.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin