I'd be willing to accept that I insufficiently defined the BetterHuman.org portrayal and utilization of oppression. No fault of yours.

In regard to my statement:

"It's one of our core beliefs that 'just' is defined by the moral instincts, and is a consistent and definable term. We are not robots that can have their minds wiped and programmed from scratch"

You wrote:

> I think it is entirely possible to circumvent natural moralities

I absolutely agree with you. My point was to define the 'baseline' instinctual morality that is neither subjective nor malleable, albeit, they are usurpable.

> myself a neurologist, I would argue that those natural compulsions we have oft called morality no longer exist in the warped minds of say, Al-Qaeda.

I disagree. They're version of morality still primarily extends from the base instincts, but the wiring (learning) between their instincts and intelligence has been grossly skewed (beyond recognition to most of us) into a form that seems almost the antithesis, but, rest assured, they truly believe they are acting in noble and moral ways, ultimately stimulating those precise instincts. Please read near the end of this weblog entry 15.193

> It seems strange to suggest that governments can be 'varyingly totalitarian', as it is certainly a contradiction in terms; however, I think the point is still valid. The point being: at the heart of every government lies a desire to control that, with little exception, overrides more compassionate notions. I would like to believe that fledgling democracies would be, at least in some cases, contradictory to this idea. Truly believing so would likely be naïve.

Due to its mathematical tendency to empower the average person over the gifted and empathic, it's my opinion that traditional democracy inherently suffers from 'stunted leadership' problems, leading to amateur administration of the masses, and the inevitable invasive draconian measures needed to retain control over the resultant dissent. Tenet 25 of the BetterHuman.org tenets outlines a controversial form of democracy (called a meritdemocracy) that attempts to address the shortcomings of contemporary democracies.

In regard to my statement:

"This translates into, 'I don't care about others'."

You wrote:

> I disagree. Certainly I sympathize with their plight and wish they could find more constructive means by which to express themselves and wish they would stop causing self-harm. That said, I think to allow people to continue in whatever path they choose, no matter how absurd, is to respect their identity as an individual, thinking being.

My friend, would you apply this same logic to your child? Would you let your child engage in self-destructive behaviors? Of course not. So, even you don't believe in your statement above because you conveniently only apply it to 'strangers'. The only thing that distinguishes your child from a stranger is the degree of your concern for them, therefore, it is 'exactly' because you don't 'care' enough about that other person that you'd justify allowing them to continue their self-destructive behavior, citing your above 'hand-washing' logic.

Now, please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to demonize you personally, for this hand-washing is something we 'all' do; we are all guilty of turning a blind-eye to opportunities to help our fellow humans. I was perhaps a little overzealous in my prior response when I undeniably assigned the 'responsibility' for someone else's self-inflicted disintegration onto others. That's my empathic instinct overruling logic. In the spirit of being accurate, let me more precisely state we should promote the 'ideal' of responsibility for others (regardless of familiarity), and to treat everyone like your brother or sister, but, always within the limits of 'choice', as in, you can always choose to deny helping another.

My focus with your statement above isn't to chastise the decisive refraining from constructive interference in other's lives, it is to expose the real motivation obscured by the popularly-adopted 'respect others rights to self-destruct' caveat, and that truth is: we're lazy, we're denialists, and selfish, and we really don't want to make any sacrifices when someone else can't get their life together. Life's hard enough without having to carry the weight of a stranger. I certainly don't expect people to run out and start trying to save other people from self-destruction but I do want people to speak the truth about 'why' they won't do it. All I'm trying to accomplish here is the admittance that this disregard is selfishly motivated, and not the proclaimed 'respect for others choices'.

Why is it so important that we speak the truth about not caring much about others, instead of inventing convenient 'respect their rights to self-destruct' moral certitudes? Because, when you create this artificial 'respect' barrier, it takes hold as a popular excuse for many people 'not' to help others, and eventually it becomes an unspoken rule (better known as 'political correctness') that you 'can't' and 'shouldn't' help, even if you wanted to. This insincere display of 'respect for others', actually only serves to macro-dynamically block the people that need help, from the people that 'are' willing to help. Your convenient excuse to not help others, actually hurts them in the big picture.

Tell the truth: you don't care much about strangers, and that's why you wouldn't interfere with their self-destructive behaviors. There's nothing wrong with that, it just sounds like something callous and cold-hearted because the dogma of 'political correctness' says it is, which is nonsense. You are not intrinsically indebted with the duty to help others so don't feel guilty if you don't want to help, however, don't inadvertently 'hurt' them either by creating an obstructive artificial 'respect' barrier that really only serves to placate your guilty conscience.

> I have friends who engage in self-destructive behaviors (i.e. alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and self-mutilation) that I actively discourage, because I care about them.

My point exactly

> But I make sure that I make no effort to inhibit them from making the choice themselves, also because I care about them.

I would argue that you are indeed doing your best to oppose your friend's activities within the realistic scope of your power to do so, which ultimately means that you really have no degree of 'tolerance' whatsoever for their self-destructive behaviors. The fact that you are physically incapable of curtailing their ability to continue doing said behaviors should not be mistaken as your 'tolerance' for their freedom to choose their demise, simply because in your mind you do 'not' tolerate it, you 'suffer' it. If you genuinely respected their rights to choose their path, you wouldn't outwardly oppose any of their pursuits in any way, verbal or otherwise.

> At this point I'm not really arguing, as I believe you feel similarly.

Largely, but I think there's a fundamental difference in our perception of responsibility for our fellow humans. That's not to say you are necessarily obligated to concern yourself with others, for that is entirely your choice, it's just my prerogative to expose to you how your manufactured rationale for disengaging from others can have sweeping repercussions that inhibit those that 'can' and 'will' help them. Take for example, what I'm trying to accomplish with BetterHuman.org: with your sweeping statement that we should 'respect another's choice to self-destruct', you'd effectively completely neutralize my ability to help people see the truth about the tyranny of religious mythology.

But my friend, before you get too upset with me for what must seem like a berating, you should know that if I came across a self-destructive stranger, I too would only go so far as to point them in the right direction and then continue on with my life. One can only make so many sacrifices of time and energy before losing their identity, and with what sacrifices for my fellow humans I am willing to make, I choose to focus the bulk of it through BetterHuman.org; it's all I can give at this time in my life. That being said, however, I would never placate my inaction-borne guilt by stating that we're 'not supposed' to help others, leveraging a bastardization of what 'mutual respect' might entail.

> I am attempting to formulate my own ideas on how such a government would have to operate. Perhaps by providing me with potentially relevant weblogs,

I have consolidated much weblog and extra-site material into the BetterHuman.org tenets. Please give them a read.

In regard to my statement:

"Please feel free to assert your astute scrutiny upon the remainder of BetterHuman.org, my friend, I greatly value your feedback."

You wrote:

> I feel as though the word 'asute' is used at my expense. Though it likely is not, if it were, I'd probably deserve it.

It was both sincere, and a double-edged sword, but please believe me my friend when I say that it was merely intended as a challenge for you to fulfill your obvious potential, and not to diminish your character.

With respect,

Sean Sinjin

My friend, this may seem to be true from your perspective simply because you cannot imagine a reality without a pending immortality; but be most certain that a great deal of your thoughts and actions are mitigated by the carrot of immortality hanging in front of you. To demonstrate, do you have the ability to look up at your god and scream, "As proof of my love for you, my lord, I deny my right of passage into heaven!" Of course you can't, for that would completely defeat the purpose of your life. It's impossible for you to willingly reject immortality, and therefore, it is something you 'need' because you 'do' want to live forever.

I suppose an argument can be made that even if your god didn't offer immortality, you might still believe in it, but (and please don't take offense to this, it's honestly a parallel analogy from my perspective) that hypothetical argument has as much value as arguing whether Santa Claus would still deliver presents if he didn't have any reindeer; there simply is no answer.

You god is 'defined' as being one with immortality, and as such they can be considered inseparable, and any hypothetical variations of your god's definition (e.g., no immortality) are quite moot in the light of their invalidity when contrasted to the ubiquitously-adopted version. This ultimately forces the concept of God to actually be synonymous with 'immortality', meaning that they are the same thing. So, in conclusion, your belief in God 'is' due to the fact that, as demonstrated above, you 'need' immortality.

> It is because I have seen and heard the glory of God.

My friend, the above is nothing more than poetry unless you substantiate it. Can you elaborate?

> I worship God because I want to not because he or anyone else forces me to.

'Force' is a tricky word when used as above. You're implying that you are operating of your own free will, and that nobody is perhaps, physically, coercing you. However, there are many degrees of 'force'. One of the most easily overlooked and yet formidable forms of force is 'passive intimidation'. An example of this would be if someone told you they were going to punish you if you act/inact in a certain way. This effectively draws a 'line in the sand' that has consequences for being crossed and now it is left to you to decide whether to cross that line or not.

It sure seems like you have 'free-will' in the above situation, but what if the line you're not supposed to cross is the 'you will go to hell for betraying God' line? Again, it's your decision to cross the line or not, so on the surface it may appear to be within your 'free-will' to choose, but what I'm trying to expose here is that even 'passive intimidation' of this demonstrated form, is also a powerful form of 'force'. It's a little slippery in that you may 'believe' you have a choice, but there really isn't a choice whatsoever, for you would never cross the line. The fact that you believe you 'can' if you really really wanted to, doesn't change the fact that you never will, and effectively your choice has been reduced to staying where you are, which has the same net result of being 'forced'.

My friend, it's the threat of ethereal punishment, and the narcotic allure of immortality, that 'forces' you to believe in your god. You lost your 'free-will' to choose the moment you believed in the ethereal consequences for not complying, and it may take a lifetime for you to understand this unfortunate truth.

> I became a Christian because I wanted to there was no brain washing involved.

The term 'brain washing' is an often-exercised negative slant on what is really 'education'. From each other's perspective, we could easily accuse the other of being 'brain-washed', but this does nothing to constructively bridge the gap between us. Instead, I hope you will find it relevant that I too was once like you, deeply immersed in ethereal-addiction, and a most adamant proponent of it. I have been exactly where you are; but, over time, I continued to acquire knowledge that could not fit in the religious perspective, and eventually, for me, that mythological world popped out of existence, and I finally saw it for the dream it was.

I am awake now, and have been for many years, and I have learned the cold, hard truth: we are all going to die an eternal death some day, and there's nothing that can be done about it. It sounds harsh, painful, even terrifying, but trust me, confronting death is the beginning of life, and once you defeat that monster, your world can finally become the heaven you so desperately seek.

My friend, I have seen from your eyes, and then woke from that dream. Now, I will ask you to draw up the great courage necessary to see reality through my eyes. Please, take the time to read the entirety of the weblog so that you too can benefit from the many similar conversations that have already taken place.

> I have one question for you: Who says what is wrong and right? I ask because you have predetermined idea of what is wrong and what is right.

This question I have answered many times in the weblog, and that is: our morality is defined by the moral instincts that Mother Nature has endowed us with. These instincts allow us to band together in great numbers, leveraging the naturally selective function of 'strength in numbers'. 'Right' and 'wrong' are programmed into our instincts, and are immutable (albeit, they are also unfortunately overridable). Again, please review the weblog; I believe you will gain much from that exposure.

> To help speed the process up if you say "What ever dose not harm someone else?" I will respond like this "Who determines what is harmful to others?"

I believe a decision by consensus of the governing body (proposed in the BetterHuman.org tenets) could go a long way to altruistically defining these lines. It's a seemingly subjective line to draw, but I think there's a simple test that can draw a clear definition: don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself; and if you are going to control others, be certain that this motivation is altruistically and intellectually founded with the single goal of improving the quality of life for the most people possible. That's about as clear as it gets, and I welcome any challenge or improvement to this definition.

Again, thanks for your very valuable and respectable feedback.

With respect,

Sean Sinjin

You don't understand my bether theory very well my friend. Allow me to explain: when I state that bether is frictionless, it is in the context of a particle moving through it; similar to a small loop in a rope that you can 'roll' from one end of the rope to the other, simulating how it would move frictionlessly through bether. To experience 'friction' would entail multiple particles moving 'against' one another, not against open bether itself. The concept of 'friction' can only be used in the context of particles against particles.

> therefore nothing could hold it. you would hace to aplly a PERFECTLY perpendicular force to it and then MAYBE youd be able to compress it at the point where you apllied the pressure, but other than that you would have no other way of controlling.

It is extremely difficult to manipulate bether (such as creating particles, or gravity/magnetism fields, etc.) because our only control over bether is via already existing particles. For us to try to control open bether would be very difficult because all particles (our hands, our tools, etc.) just move through it like a wave moves through water. We can't scoop bether. It may be beneficial for you to read the bether theory a few more times until the concept sits better in your mind. It seems simplistic, but it's deceptively elaborate.

> Besides Eintsein already proved that matter (particles in you article) is simply captured energy 10,000,000,000,000,000J/kg infact E=MC squared

My friend, I'm not sure how this is supposed to conflict with my bether theory because all that this formula shows is the energy equivalent of a given mass, which is entirely compatible with bether. Particles are simply loops in bether, and, like a spring, they contain the energy that was used to create the loop. A perfect unfolding of this loop (by a collision with its anti-matter equivalent), would unleash the entirety of its energy, which is easily calculated by Einstein's famous formula.

> FYI airbags dont "randomly" expand, all the forces that acted to compress then, thus causing creases, etc... and a lot of other forces act to make it appear randon, there are just so many forces constuctivly and estructivly interfrering with each other that it only appears random to us.

I couldn't agree with you more, and if you had visited my glossary, you'd see that I've defined 'random' accordingly as:

"Random - No such thing; or, virtually impossible to predict"

...which precisely matches your point above.

> Im just reading through your site and noticing stuff like (not exact quotes but like) "Science can't explain magnetism, but my book can"

Well my friend, that's why exact quotes 'are' important, otherwise it's easy to twist important details out of their intended meaning. For example, science can't explain magnetism, which is true; they can measure it, predict it, and utilize it, but they can't explain it. However, the second part of your "quote" is entirely your fabrication because I never once said I 'can' explain magnetism. I have a 'theory', that 'tries' to explain it, but that's a million miles away from stating that I 'can' conclusively explain it. Please, before you make any further presumptions about the degree of my convictions, read the foreword excerpt from the very first page in my book, and pay special attention to where I clearly indicate that this book is a work of 'fiction' (a story), and that I truly believe there is no such thing as an absolute 'fact'. This should clear up any further misperceptions that I am overstepping my authority.

> and then stuff like "Religion was made mostly for the purpose of explaining the unesplainable" Uh hyppocracy I think so.

My very passionate friend, it's not religion's element of attempting to 'explain the unexplainable' that I'm attacking. The pursuit of knowledge is always a noble pursuit, if not one fraught with peril.

> To me this just looks like another "science-has-yet-again-disproved-religion-so-I'm-gonna-make-a-website-about-how-I-also-don't-belive-in-God" websites man.

Actually, it's more of a "science-can-now-explain-most-of-what-you-want-to-know-so-don't-be-afraid-of-reality-and-free-yourself-from-mythological-insanity" site.

> Youve got some interesting stuff and all but still you're right you can't disprove anyhting but you cant prove anything either.

In the context of science, no, nothing can be proven. In the context of a god, I can't disprove it exists to you, but I can help you disprove it to yourself. That's all I can promise.

> I hate 1 sided websites where people have arguments with themselves (and of course win with their premise), I don't think theology was quite what you were meant for my friend.

You're one-sided argument has been duly noted.

Please take care,

Sean Sinjin