| Page 21 |
|
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:
#293 - Didn't prove a thing - Jul 22, 2007, 01:22 PM
#294 - BetterHuman nonsense - Jul 22, 2007, 01:25 PM
#295 - Fellowship of atheists - Jul 22, 2007, 01:31 PM
#296 - Big questions - Jul 22, 2007, 01:34 PM
#297 - Antitheism - Jul 22, 2007, 01:41 PM
#298 - Helping by hurting - Jul 22, 2007, 01:43 PM
#299 - Judgment day for BetterrHuman.org - Jul 22, 2007, 01:49 PM
#300 - Shame shame - Jul 22, 2007, 01:52 PM
#301 - Is religion not just about making yourself happy? - Jul 22, 2007, 02:03 PM
#302 - Scripted existence - Aug 14, 2007, 03:33 PM
#303 - Grammar - Aug 14, 2007, 03:45 PM
#304 - Zeitgeist - Aug 14, 2007, 03:47 PM
#305 - Youth, and atheism - Aug 14, 2007, 03:52 PM
#306 - Proof of God...or proof of conviction? - Aug 14, 2007, 03:56 PM
#307 - Blasphemous insanity - Aug 14, 2007, 04:00 PM
#308 - Misperceived anger - Sep 09, 2007, 12:08 PM
#309 - Tell me but don't tell me - Sep 09, 2007, 12:20 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
|
#292 - God of gaps - July 22, 2007, 01:11 PM |
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> You say:* the impossible concept of absolute knowledge *I like this statement as much as I like any statement. It is what I've been saying all along.
Very counter-intuitive concept for most.
> I don't argue *against *the scientific method. I think it has served humanity well.... I agree it is the best thing we have for the territory it covers, I just think there is a lot more going on than what can be measured and replicated. (or is my saying that there is more territory than what can be covered by the scientific method equivalent to appealing to the "God of the gaps" to explain things?)
You read my mind. The 'God of gaps' is the direct manifestation of our biological inability to tolerate a lack of the aforementioned 'absolute knowledge'.
> He (Buddha) is *not* my authority figure. No one is, with the possible exception of JS Bach.
Interesting choice.
> We have a serious disagreement on the authority thing... I don't claim that my own authority is better or is going to make me "right," but that *I am*, in the ultimate analysis, *responsible* for whatever actions and results my conclusions and beliefs
Much better wording on this round. I can accept the above.
> Woluld you believe that when I was in WWII I carefully avoided shooting anyone?
I absolutely believe you. What a tragedy any war is, pitting innocent people against one another to fight a battle of propaganda-driven ideologies on behalf of leaders that don't take risks themselves.
> Wouldn't it be nice for xstians to be a little critical of authority?
Precisely; that's the common missing element that defines the religious.
> This all leads to the, to me, basic subject of our automatism vs. free will. If we are all robots then all our ponderings and discussions are simply an automatic unfolding and evolving of memes with only whatever intrinsic worth evolution has accidentally programmed into them. I do not see much room for free will within our capabilities,
Excellent perspective, that being one of we are but pawns in a greater unfolding of the universe, and that the greater directive is more the H-Freak's (from Meme) persistence and evolution.
> though it seems to me we are *potentially*completely free. I think all we can do is to decide to follow the stimuli that cause us to reflect before we act and to attempt to escape from necessity.
I believe you are confusing 'impulse' behavior with 'fate' behavior, falsely introducing the notion that we might 'pre-empt' our impulses (with reflection) and therefore sidestep fate and actually make a true 'choice'. This fails in understanding that, as far as fate is concerned, there is no distinction between impulse and 'chosen' behavior, because despite the greater complexity of parameters that may make up a conscious decision versus an impulsive one, this decision still falls entirely within 'fate's' plan. It would be impossible to demonstrate, but if we could go back in time and force you through the same scenario again and again, you would also make the same conscious decision over and over and over. It is the combination of parameters of a given scenario that form your decisions, not anything that can be construed as 'free will'.
> I *would* like an understanding (and possession of) creativity, spontaneity and originality.
At all times, our brains have millions of 'memes' that are poised like loaded springs. When triggered, either by environmental suggestion, or purposeful brain-storming, it is possible to inject these memes into our consciousness in a fashion that is suggestive of randomness, or at least creative (where did that idea come from? etc.) These ideas didn't come out of thin air, they just came out of recession from within your brain because they were triggered to do so. It's the same notion as having a large number of dice in a bucket, with different words on all faces of all of them. Creativity is analogized by grabbing a handful of these dice, and rolling them to see what words pop up. Once these disjointed words appear, the attempt can be made to impose some form of relationship between them (a story), and voila, a spontaneous new idea is born.
The important thing to recognize here is that the dice already exist in our brains, and creativity is nothing more than mixing them up to see what pops out. There is nothing 'truly' random about it.
> It pleases me to see you also are skeptical of authority, though I *don't like** *the idea of needing "big brother" even if we do. I hope that my equating your requirement for authority to my xstian daughter's need for the same, shocks you a bit
Not at all. I couldn't agree more either. Virtually everyone 'wants' some form of authority to adhere to, but many times people will experience disappointment with existing authority so they eventually come to believe that their own personal authority is more sound than that which is greater than theirs (which happens quite often these days). However, the simple 'belief' that one is a better authority, does nothing to make it true. Leadership is one of the few things that Mother Nature built into us as an instinct, but unfortunately, leadership is a very complicated skill that in today's world far exceeds Mother Nature's intent (raising a family). To draw a contrast, very few people will challenge the expertise of a medical doctor when they make a diagnosis. This is due to the fact that most people have no skills in the medical field, and they are naturally quite 'blind' to the paradigm as a whole. Their trust in doctors is almost implicit. This doesn't mean that some doctors aren't horrible doctors, but most people assume that doctors as a whole are all excellent.
The same doesn't hold true for leadership. We all have inherent leadership instincts that convince us that we know what we are talking about when we criticize our leaders. The almighty human ego steps into the face of strong intelligent leadership and plows forth with ignorance, for no other reason than our instincts tell us we are right to do so. Nobody would even think of doing this to a doctor because the disparity between skillsets are so great, but even when that disparity of skillsets is present between oneself and strong leadership, it is easily ignored and 'I can run this ship better' attitude prevails.
Now, please forgive me if I sound like I am chastising your mentality directly, I am not, in fact, I do speak more of myself than anyone specifically. I am the first to admit my powerful resentment toward authority, but I also recognize (as I'm sure you do too) that these systems exist as they currently do in order to accommodate the 'lowest common denominator'. The motivation of leadership tends to cater to those that would otherwise be left behind, and this is altruistic, and forgivable, if not horribly oppressive and stifling for those with a much greater capacity.
> You seem to credit the self proclaimed caveman priests and gangsters for civilization. Not too savory a beginning... followed by tyrants and satraps. Maybe we would be happier without them, in our little caves with posies growing out in front.
I just recently heard a story of some island nation that consisted of a small population that mostly subsisted off the ocean, and lived in humble shacks. A foreign company opened an assembly factory there and hired some of the locals to do the labor. The problem the company had was that after a month or two, many of the workers quit. Upon investigating the reasons, the company discovered that many of these people felt they made enough money in 2 months to last them a lifetime (they didn't really have any expenses because they lived off the land), and so they effectively 'retired' and went back to their humble way of life. This wasn't good for the company, so they brainstormed about how to get their people to come back to work and what they came up with was rather ingenious, if not very sad. They decided to send them all 'catalogs'. That's right, they used the allure of possessions to invoke their greed instincts, and turn them into unwitting slaves once again because they were helpless to the charms of the goods they could own.
I promise you, those people were much happier before they were corrupted by greed. Tyranny knows no boundaries when it comes to perverting humanity.
Personally, I would 'love' to live in a cave.
> comparison to xstianity. It *orders *us to love spontaneously. It *makes*humanity behave "properly," just as you say Authority has done for us. We are forced, kicking and screaming, due to our xstian flawed, perverse and worthless nature, into *proper* civilized beings. Hmm.
See if this understanding makes sense: Long ago, before the tyrants were running the show and we lived as hunter-gatherers in small non-speaking groups; we were 'already' loving each other, already acting moral and empathic. Once we learned to speak, and the tyrants learned to control us, they started professing control over what we were already doing. They'd see people acting good, and then say 'sky entity wants you to do that', as if their commands were responsible for that action in the first place. The problem is, people start making these associations that the sky entity 'is' actually responsible for these actions, and eventually people forgot that with or without ethereal threat, they'd still act the way they're acting anyway. Religion doesn't 'define' or 'coerce' human behavior, it merely 'claims' to in order to increase the perceived value of religion, thereby increasing the collection plate earnings. Simple. And this is why religious people have such a hard time accepting that morality exists outside of a religious manifold, because they've been told all their life that it can only come from religion.
> I think my objective in these discussions has shifted to seeing if I can elicit a little flexibility from you, as I haven't seen you budge one single Plank length from your original ideas. Is it possible for your "system" to be so close to completeness and perfection that, though you claim the contrary, it seems to be cast in concrete?
On this aspect of inflexibility, I am most guilty, and please be certain that I am often reminded of this fact by many others as well. I would like to say in my defense however, that internally I honestly do try to weigh my position appropriately, but once I've chosen a position, I will pursue it with zeal. This has a lot to do with my understanding of humanity and how difficult it is to transfer memes. I write with conviction, hoping to sway those that only recognize conviction, but I'll always be the first to say that the whole truth cannot ever be known. However, knowing about myself, and my firm writing style that reflects the same personality, I was forced long ago to write a disclaimer that sweepingly applies to everything I write, and it can be found in my foreword excerpt from Meme on the website.
> It pleases me that my thinking is still flexible at 81, though I am starting to worry about what I am going to be or do when I grow up.
The eternal light of youth shines from within you my friend. I do hope I can learn to be outwardly flexible by the time I have walked this Earth for those many years.
Be well,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
|
#293 - Didn't prove a thing - July 22, 2007, 01:22 PM |
Mr. Railglance wrote:
> i didn't really think that you could prove God doesn't exist.. and you proved that you can't.
Almost my friend, it's more that 'you' proved I cannot disprove God to 'you', which is not the same as my 'logically' disproving God, which I 'have' accomplished. You see, you've chosen to disregard my proof, not because of its merits, but because it doesn't serve your ethereal addiction. This is the same logic employed by drug addicts that their addiction is harmless and justifiable, and yet their rationale is completely lacking in any reasonable validation.
Please feel free to continue deceiving yourself with notions of immortality; you most certainly aren't alone. There are billions of people as equally terrified of life, and death, as you are, and are just as willing to submit to fantasy in order not to have to confront reality.
> my faith has increased
No offence intended, my friend, but I sincerely doubt that. Your response to my website demonstrates quite the opposite. If I didn't challenge your faith, then you wouldn't have felt the need to verbally thumb your nose at me.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#294 - BetterHuman nonsense - July 22, 2007, 01:25 PM |
Ms. Thorland wrote:
> first off you're absolutely ridiculous. and yes i am sending you an email telling you how stupid are.
I'm listening.
> and how dare you tell me when i can or cannot email you with my opinion.
I did not do any such thing my friend. All I asked was that you please read my responses to prior submissions that may be similar to your own. You obviously didn't care to exercise this efficiency since you have repeated a great number of statements and questions that I've already address in multiplicity. Do you honestly believe that you were the very first religious person to be offended by my work?
> are you afraid of the truth or what people have to say.
I think I've finally decided to give a name to statements like these. Let's try 'reciprocal denial'; meaning that one 'says' what they need to 'listen to'.
> oh yeah you're real cool how can you possibly compare christianity to worshipping a freeking rabbit?!?
Because it is 'exactly' the same thing, no matter what you believe to be otherwise.
> i don't know about you but i DON'T WORSHIP A RABBIT!
I'm afraid you do my friend, you just give it a different name.
> so if you're going to compare christianity actually compare it to something remotely like it.
Ok, how about Zeus and his group of gods? Is that close enough? How about Ra of the Egyptian gods? Is this mythology comparison more accurate?
> god wants us to be individuals, ourselves, unique. but he wants us to live with the morals and goodness he did.
I assure you that I lead a fully moral, individual life, without the need for a god to oversee me.
> get it right before you go making a stupid website claiming god is a drug. if god is a drug then relationships in general are a drug because you can be addicted to a boyfriend or girlfriend just as much as you can be "addicted" to god. so why don't you make a website about that?!?
Excellent point, and I'm so glad you brought it up because it opens up the distinction between 'addictions', and 'instinctual pursuits'. 'Addictions', as I've utilized the term here on BetterHuman.org is exclusively meant to describe aspirations or behaviors that are detrimental to the addict. This definition of course precludes any 'reasonably' healthy indulgences (such as enjoying a boyfriend or girlfriend). So, you see, 'addiction' does not mean the same as being fond of something, as you've implied.
> oh yeah right i remember. because your so afraid of the actual truth so you don't do it.
Again, this is reciprocal denial.
> you explain to me how i came to be and how i can be such a complex creature with a mind and a concious and then maybe i'll actually consider this crap you've created.
I cannot do this for you because of...
> and don't you DARE tell me evolution or the big boom or whatever bull you might say because that stuff is a complete and utter waste of an idea. how stupid do you think i am?
No offense madam, but you've completely closed me out, and all I can see of you is this huge presence with clawed tentacles and razor-sharp teeth, all tightly wrapped around this confused and scared innocent girl that has spent her entire life growing into a very small box of perspective.
I swear I can help you to see the truth, but the first step is yours, and my website and free book Meme can open reality up for you. Please don't be scared of what I have assembled here, because as much as you hate me and fear me my work, I only want to help you and others like you. I have already been 'exactly' where you are, very religious, and I found my way out. You can too.
> and i honestly could care less if you think i'm ignorant or stupid.....
Please believe me when I say I do not think you are stupid.
You are not stupid!
You are a victim of circumstance; a victim of the oldest, most prevalent, and most evil form of pyramid scheme that has ever existed: religion. I have nothing but respect for you, and my sole purpose with BetterHuman.org is to 'help' you.
> newsflash buddy this is nothing new to christians so don't flatter yourself thinking you've got to me or anyone else. grow up, read a book, and really think about that crap you write about. you're the ignorant one and i pray for you and the hope that you realize your ignorance.
My good friend, there is much fear underlying your words, and I apologize for stoking the fires of doubt in your mind; but the sickness you have is most addictive and contagious and I'm forced to continue trying to eradicate this mental illness of mythology. Again, please read more of BetterHuman.org to better understand our purpose.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#295 - Fellowship of atheists - July 22, 2007, 01:31 PM |
Mr. Pagype wrote:
> Keep up the good work! The power among Atheists is very strong and our dedication to the betterment of all humankind is equally as strong.
It's good to know I am not alone. I do wish that atheism had a stronger voice, but alas, without the allure of an addictive 'high' like religions offer, it's difficult for us to invoke 'passion' and 'comradery' around a central focal point. Being an atheist is much akin to 'not' doing drugs. It's difficult to imagine people forming a collective momentum on something they don't do, especially when it's virtually impossible to monetize.
> Atheists are worldly, open minded individuals that never pass judgment on others based on race, creed, gender or sexual orientation...
I'm afraid I'll have to adamantly disagree with you on this point, my friend. Atheism does nothing to define an individual's character, those are personal choices made irrespective of perspective. There are just as many prejudice and ignorant atheists as there are religious ones so I'm keen on not overdoing the piety angle of atheism. However, atheism is a fantastic foundation for individuals that wish to become incredible and altruistic human beings, should they choose to become so.
> unlike the religious followers and the doctrines they are guided by. This type of hate and injustice is not the way of an Atheist...we believe in all of you and the power that you inherently possess and the gifts that you and only you give to our world.
This would be fantastic if everyone pursued this ideal, but again, it is not a characteristic of atheism that would motivate this desire, it would be our altruistic instinct that Mother Nature granted us millions of years ago.
> Instead these teachings instruct us to do just because you are told and in with direction and out of fear from the power above.
Better known as religious fascism
> Live for today and for each other and see no more wars, global misunderstandings and genocides.
Beautifully spoken, and I would like to add that this destiny can only be realized with a much more concerted effort by governing bodies to facilitate modern science education.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#296 - Big questions - July 22, 2007, 01:34 PM |
Mr. Bodeglare wrote back:
> I have followed betterhuman.org ever since my serenditipitous discovery of the site shortly after its inception. Since then I have perused the site in its entirety to include every weblog entry. I have also read (and then re-read the more convoluted portions of) Meme.
I am flattered that you found the material compelling enough to follow in entirety.
> I'm not a scientist, but the congruity of your theories regarding bether, gravity, and magnetism seems plausible to me.
Fantastic.
> But I was wondering if you could elaborate on your attitudes towards people as slaves to their employers and the government. You mention it occasionally in passing and I hope you'll explain what you mean so I can better understand where you're coming from. As a soldier, I am a cog in the proverbial US military-industrial complex and I'd like to hear what you have to say about the employer/employee relationship.
A monstrous and very important question. I made a valiant attempt to answer this question in a brief reply but that briefness quickly gave way to pages and pages, and I started to realize that there is an entire essay at work here. So, please forgive me in not answering this question at this time. I will, over the coming months (hopefully not much longer), give my best effort to compile a thorough response and when I have it available online, I will notify you.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.85, 21.296}
|
#297 - Antitheism - July 22, 2007, 01:41 PM |
Ms. Tagred wrote:
> What is the difference between an antitheist and an atheist? Or is there a difference? The literature I have read says they are different but after reading your mission and tenets they sound one in the same.
I don't believe there is a difference in essence, though people may argue the degree of commitment to 'non-belief' varies between these words. I'm inclined to suggest that antitheism is more pronounced or aggressive than atheism, but that is entirely my subjective preference (to me, 'anti' carries more antagonism).
Hope I was helpful.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#298 - Helping by hurting - July 22, 2007, 01:43 PM |
Ms. Grapall wrote:
> You guys are so wrong so so so wrong don't worry God will take care ofyou in the end and despite what you are doing he still loves you.He willbring justice upon the unjust.
I know in your mind that you wield words of great power, but what you may not realize, my friend, is that your threat of ethereal punishment will serve two purposes for me: 1) emails like this actually 'further' my strength and commitment towards eradicating the insanity of religion, and 2) your ethereal threats will be immortalized forever here on my weblog as a clear demonstration of the blind prejudice and condemnation your religion endorses towards those that don't share your beliefs.
Thank you for helping many others see why religion is evil.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#299 - Judgment day for BetterrHuman.org - July 22, 2007, 01:49 PM |
Ms. Lengerry wrote:
> LET'S SEE IF YOU WILL STILL SAY THERE IS NO GOD ON JUDGEMENT DAY--IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO KNOW WHERE ALL OF YOUR HELP COMES FROM. I PRAY GOD WILL TOUCH YOUR HEART SO THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT HIM AND KNOW THAT THERE IS A TRUE A LIVING GOD, WHO'S JUST WAITING ON YOU. GOD BLESS YOU. A WOMAN OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Incredible passion my friend, but I'm afraid it was all for nothing. I would elaborate why, but since you ignored everything on my 'contact us' page and instead just attempted to 'scream' your affliction upon us, I think it makes more sense for you to necessarily revisit that web page if you'd care to hear my response to many other people's similar discourse as yours.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#300 - Shame shame - July 22, 2007, 01:52 PM |
Ms. Bendclasp wrote:
> You said that one of the common misassumptions about science is that Albert Einstein believed In God. I presume from this that you are saying that Einstein DID NOT believe in God? If so, I urge you to simply read a few of his quotes,( which i have provided below ) in which he talks of God and his greatness. The belief of Einstein in God is a fact. Trying to claim otherwise will not make what you say true.
Thank you for you feedback my friend, but I have already addressed this topic in great detail in the following weblog entry: 19.264. Please give it a read to learn my response.
> I hope that one day you are able to find your inner peace once more, and I pray that God forgives you and all those victims as yourself.
Not to mock you, but from an atheist perspective this translates into:
"By camouflaging my intentions with a false presentation of well-wishing, I will attempt to shame-manipulate you into once again becoming addicted to the narcotic of fantasy, because it increases 'my' ethereal high to do so. And I hope that once you have allowed yourself to slip into fantasy, that it will sedate and distract you from the need to liberate other ethereal addicts from their drug"
> Albert Einstein Quotes : "The more I study science, the more I believe in God."
The 'only' reference to this quote I have found on the Internet is on QuoteDB.com, without a source or date. You'll have to forgive my skepticism in accepting this as an Einstein quote without stronger evidence.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#301 - Is religion not just about making yourself happy? - July 22, 2007, 02:03 PM |
Ms. Soundift wrote:
> I'm not writing to convict you or even to criticize your website. I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings.
I wholeheartedly agree, 'unless' those opinions inflict harm upon others, which is why 'faith' is exempt from this tolerance because I don't believe anything is more dangerous than a belief in fantasy.
> Take away religion and look at relationship. It is true that Christianity has become so hypocritical and "religious" leaders have lost alot of integrity so I don't exactly have a lable over me (e.g. Christian...Catholic...) But hear me out....What I have is a personal relationship with Christ. One that is real and life-transforming. I assure you it is not something I have fabricated just to give me comfort, I have already considered that. Living a life of integrity and having a relationship with Jesus is (in my opinion) a lot harder and more challenging than living to just make yourself happy.
I entirely disagree, you have it much easier than atheists. For you, you have the immediate gratification of knowing that all your good deeds are being monitored and your reward accumulated (immortality). Atheists don't have anything nearly as glamorous to motivate us into piety. All we have is the random chance that someone will thank us for our altruistic actions, or barring that, accepting the weak pulse of pleasure deep down in our instinctual brains that tell us we are doing the right thing.
Also, I'd like to point out that your understanding of Jesus is that he is nothing more than a moniker of morality for you, and external symbol of what is already internally and instinctually yours. What you believe to be pleasure from knowing your god is watching you, is actually your instinctual brain rewarding you for being a good and decent human being. We experience the same good 'feelings', you and I, but our understanding of where that feeling stems from differs.
The final point I'd like to make is that you are also living your life to 'just make yourself happy', as you would accuse us of limiting ourselves to. Despite your perhaps noble actions that benefit others, you perform them in the pursuit of your own pleasurable rewards that you believe come from external forces, but that doesn't change the fact that they really come from your instincts, and that they are inherently selfish in origin, no matter who else benefits.
We are exactly the same creature, my friend; and you hold no more moral gravity than I.
> Know that this relationship is not something you can research or know about unless you have experienced it firsthand.
Oh, but I have experience it firsthand...I have indeed. You may do well to educate yourself somewhat with the content of BetterHuman.org. I believe you will gain much insight into your own perspective as well.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#302 - Scripted existence - August 14, 2007, 03:33 PM |
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> PLEASE RIMIND ME OF WHAT THE H FREAK IS!
It's a euphemism for the collective consciousness of all of humanity
> What are we to think of David Hume's (I believe) statement that you can want something but you can't make yourself want to want something successfully?
That is a perfect parallel to the notion of lacking free will. People tend to confuse wanting something for 'choosing' to want something, but there really is no choice behind what one 'wants'
> It really must be possible to get people to want to want something, or else how could governments and organizations (INSTITUTIONS) get them to buy everything and go kill each other, etc.?
You're not using the terminology correctly my friend. It is possible to get people to 'want' something, which is what you were really stating above, but that happens by 'enticing' them with a reward, despite even that the risk of loss may be great for pursuit of that reward. Now, if after offering every possible reward/threat/etc. conceivable to that person and they 'still' do not want to pursue it, then this is where the statement 'want to want' comes into effect, essentially stating that there is no way to coerce people to want to do things if there are no more reward/threat/etc. conditions to offer. The double 'want' is redundant because any trick you may apply to get them to 'want to want', will equally apply to the singular want.
> You might as well believe the proverbial hundred typewriting monkeys will produce all the works of Shakespeare if given eternity, theory as to say that creativity ONLY originates (exclusively) from "chance," though much of it (but not all of it) can probably be explained by the parallel processing power of the subconscious.
The erroneous notions of chance aside, I wasn't implying that creativity was random, though in retrospect, I regret not clarifying my theory to include that our individual creative tendencies are extremely biased by our personalities and experiences. These 'ideas' still may seem random, but of course there are patterns and biases that emerge to define the scope of any person's creative manifestations.
> theoretical possibility of safely setting off our own little "Big Bangs." It seems to me, as if a "mother universe" had imprinted (at least) a simple formula from which the laws off chaos, systems and information theory, etc. could be derived and manifested, or expressed, to make possible everything, including intelligence and awareness, out of a simple three, four, or more, dimensional appearance/?creation? and expansion (explosion) of energy/existence. There must be a source of energy, probably in a higher or different type of dimension and/or reality. What causes these "pops" into sudden space and time? Where, if anywhere, do they come from? originate?
You are speaking in terms of science fiction my friend, to which I cannot give any meaningful answer. Some questions may remain forever unanswerable.
> You seem to be a cynic as to even the slightest possibility of achieving free will
I don't believe 'cynic' would be the appropriate term to describe me here, any more than one is a cynic for interpreting a map differently than others.
> paradoxically, by recognizing, accepting and pondering or reflecting on its impossibility, sort of like focusing on our blind spot, you do seem to think there is some kind of overall fate working itself out. I wonder if we could find a way to explore this interesting aspect of things.
It's not a paradox whatsoever, for example, watching a movie yields the exact same results every single time. The movie is programmed to deliver the visual, sounds, emotion, music, etc. in precisely the same way each time it is played. As such is the universe, and our roles within it. The universe is one big movie with our roles pre-ordained, 'including' the perception that we have free will. I don't understand why you suggest that the notion of 'fate' introduces a paradox against free will?
> As a little digression, I just think we should give just as much value to both CORRELATES and recognize that in lieu of free will, we can "polarize" towards objectives. chosen after proper "reflection" (conscious deliberate, maybe systematic processing of information) Once you are commit ed to an objective, or goal, you can consciously execute the actions necessary for its realization. This, it seems to me, is a conscious alternative or interface, between the concept of free will and the inevitable determinism. You at least have to try to find freedom in or through determinism.
It doesn't matter if you are aware of the decision or not my friend, your choice is the product of perhaps an infinite number of parameters (both internal and external), and they are all connected. It would be impossible to define (choose) an alternate path for energies to flow upon without violating the law of conservation of energy. The illusion of consciousness remains an illusion, and your massive brain is a tightly-organized system of chemical and electrical impulses that 'react' in exacting atomically-derived processes that strictly adhere to the laws of physics. Roll back time 5 minutes, and you'd make the same conscious decisions again. Roll back 5 minutes again, and still you'd make the same decisions. No matter how many times you roll back time, you will make the exact same decisions every single time. There's no free will in that.
> Everything is a paradox anyway, starting with the basic paradox that there is just no where for anything to come from, making it impossible for there ever to be anything, yet here be EVERYTHING!"
I don't think this is a paradox because it makes an unfounded assumption that everything came from somewhere, which is unknowable.
> I think you agree there is not much hope for any kind of immortality for our pitiful selves. My only (vague) hope, is that there be some guidance to be found in some ancient and contemporary traditions, and maybe meditate or drug ourselves into union with some higher, vaster, longer lasting level of awareness.
You speak of 'religion' my friend; the very art of emotion-perverted interpretations of reality. You will not find meaningful guidance in fantasy-laced perspectives. I have tried many forms of meditation and other physical exercises (e.g. yoga), and found that there were sincere benefits to those exercises, but not for the ethereal reasons that the purveyors would claim. I'll be blunt: death comes to us all. Unstoppable. Unavoidable. Non-negotiable. Any pursuit of trying to deny, circumvent, or emolliate this reality, is simply a waste of time that would be better spent pursuing happiness.
> My only hope is the existence of higher, vaster, longer lasting levels of awareness, and the possibility of merging your consciousness in a common pool, or something like that. I do not think you are vain enough to think ours is the pinnacle of the awareness trillions of galaxies are capable of producing. If not "higher," there must exist countless "vaster, longer lasting" awarenesses within our own little "big bang," within a multiverse.
Even if these other consciousnesses exist, we are not a part of it, at least not in any capacity that is meaningful to the notion of our continued existence beyond death. And the idea that we can 'merge' into an alien consciousness, is unsubstantiated fantasy on par with the concept of 'heaven' (aka, the misleading ruminations of your G.O.D. instinct).
> If I am thinking or even if I am (merely) a thought, I AM OF THE ABSTRACT REALM, I exist as the abstract correlate to what is going on in my concrete brain, Whatever "I" turn out to be, I AM (POTENTIALLY) JUST AS CAPABLE OF (RECIPROCALLY) INFLUENCING "MY" BRAIN and, as my brain is capable of influencing "me." (whatever "I" turn out to be) We can simply choose what seems to us the most "enlightened" objectives, and remain as conscious as possible of our objectives without getting "lost" and forgetting the objective, in doing the minutia and routine of running things.
Well my friend, if fate has decided that you must believe you have free will, far be it for me to stifle that belief.
Always a pleasure,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
|
#303 - Grammar - August 14, 2007, 03:45 PM |
Mr. Veecap wrote:
> You might want to tidy up the grammar on the following from your opening web page. "We do not worship anything, with except perhaps the pursuit of happiness."
I'm not sure that there's anything grammatically wrong with my statement. The comma is intentional to indicate pause, suggesting that the second part was an afterthought. I suppose 'perhaps' would typically be surrounded by commas but I believe that would overcomplicate and obfuscate my intended delivery. Could there be something else I'm missing? How would you write it?
... next letter
> Your comma is fine; it's the word "with" that seems to cause a stumble in reading. I would suggest, ""We do not worship anything, except perhaps the pursuit of happiness."
Done.
> Anyhow, I'm not trying to be picky. I'm looking over your material on the website and am quite impressed. Do you dovetail with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, etc.?
Despite the caliber of his work, I believe Dawkins to be much too aggressive and intentionally insulting in his mantra to really be compelling to the religious. Harris has done some excellent work but I don't have enough personal exposure to formulate a fair opinion.
Though I probably share a number of basic principles with these authors, I do not see myself as either competing or affiliating with them. BetterHuman.org is the sole entity that I strive to fulfill.
Thanks again for the suggestion,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.303, 22.322}
|
#304 - Zeitgeist - August 14, 2007, 03:47 PM |
Mr. Banechart wrote:
> Hey Sean, You just might take intrest of this... http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
A fantastic piece. Excellent food for thought. Thank you for this great find. I do recommend that people watch this video, but with a grain of salt. As compelling and seemingly authentic this video suggests itself to be, it employs many of the same emotional propaganda tactics that religions, governments, etc. use to manipulate opinion. And despite that I had previously already drawn many of the same conclusions as the authors of this movie, and how much I would love to embrace and capitalize on its message to further my own; in good conscience, I cannot without personally verifying the monumental claims it makes, which may forever remain impossible.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
#305 - Youth, and atheism - August 14, 2007, 03:52 PM
Ms. Gleeset wrote:
> Dear Betterhuman.com, I'm thirteen, and I am looking into atheism. I just wanted to thank you, for the website. It was amazingly informing, and very helpful to me.
Awesome my young friend. I wish I could put into words just how much that means to me.
> I'm still unsure about everything. Right now, I'm more of an agnostic. I don't know anyone personally, to relate to, as an aspiring agnostic. But, I'm leaning towards atheism. I was wondering, if you could give me any advice, something to hang onto. So, I know I'm going in the right direction.
I think the most important advice I could possibly offer is: be an individual. It sounds simple, but it's one of the most difficult skills there is to acquire. Being an individual requires you to think for yourself, about everything. Question 'everything' (yes, even what I write). What makes this ability so hard to practice is that you will have to resist an 'enormous' amount of social pressure to blindly conform; everyone from your friends, to your teachers, your parents, religions, society in general, the law, etc. Practically everyone and everything wants to tell you how and what to think. We humans constantly manipulate each other with a multitude of emotional head-games; everything from taunts ("you're a chicken if you don't do it..."), to guilt trips ("If you loved me, you would..."), to ego manipulation ("wouldn't you fight for our country's national pride?"), to terror ("you will burn in hell").
Don't be a victim that trades their whole life chasing the ridiculous notion of immortality, or spends their entire life as an employee so they can buy expensive items that don't mean anything, or buy into the non-stop propaganda and advertising campaigning about how wonderful we all are, etc. Always look for the motivations behind anything that you hear/see/read, from anyone and everyone. Don't take anything at face value. Nothing.
Be an individual. Question everything. Think for yourself.
Now I know this may come across as cynical, but it's really not, it's simply an essential skill to protect you from the many traps in this world; but please don't become a cynic, it's not worth it. It's easy to view the world as a constantly depressing letdown of disgusting human behavior, if you let it; but the world can also be the most wonderful place in the universe, if you choose to see the things that make it that way. Focus on friends, family, adventure, exercise, keeping it real, helping others, and anything else that makes you happy, for this is the only 'real' life worth living, and the best life possible.
Most sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
|
#306 - Proof of God...or proof of conviction? - August 14, 2007, 03:56 PM |
Ms. Libyord wrote:
> i just wanted to tell you from the start that i am a christian and that i would like to show you that i can PROVE that their is a God and that it is possible to have a realationship with Him.
I eagerly await your proof, though the first thing I would request of you is to define the term 'proof', as you've used it.
> that being said i have a question for you that i would like you to answer for me.is there evil in this world?
BetterHuman.org defines the term 'evil' to be something like, "The sum effect of humankind's desire to knowingly perform selfish acts that may hurt another". In other words, 'evil', is just a word describing the fallout that sometimes results from pursuing the careless ambitions of our more selfish instincts. We are all 'good' and 'evil' at the same time. What evil is 'not', however, is a 'force' that permeates the universe, nor is it an embodiment that can be assigned a name (Lucifer?). Evil only really exists as a product of human concsiousness and perception, and has no meaning outside of the context of humanity.
So in answer to your question, as long as there are living humans, then yes, the potential for evil to manifest from their selfish desires does exist.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#307 - Blasphemous insanity - August 14, 2007, 04:00 PM |
Mr. Clowtrack wrote:
> I am not a very well educated man accademically but I have been blessed with a knowledge which I care to draw to your attention even though I am aware that it is not yet time for its irrefutable profundity to be embraced. I am convinced that you genuinely believe that human beings can apply the scientific method to all observable entities.
Many people attempt to separate the notion of their god from the paradigm of science, but this is a misunderstanding of the nature of science. True, it is one of the basic suppositions of the Scientific Method that something 'cannot' exist if it is in no way observable and has no influence upon our universe, yet, even with this caveat, your god should technically still fall within the scope of the Scientific Method, simply because even by your definition of a god, it theoretically 'does' have influence in our universe, rendering it observable, and therefore it should be easy to apply the Scientific Method against the notion of your god. As you may have read in our 'Proof' section, we have already done this and found your god to be incredibly unlikely to be true. I'm afraid your god is not exempt from the Scientific Method, my friend.
> But ignorant concepts about what God is like, or how He behaves, have come about purely as the result of the human brain still been in a state of immaturity, not because God does not exist. The fact that so many human beings still adhere to these traditional concepts of God is not because the human brain has not yet reached mautrity, it has! But rather, because reliable knowledge of God excludes the sphere of Gravity and can only be attained from within One object, which means that humanity awaits, in complete ignorance of God, until that One has reached its fruition and the Truth can be revealed. Apart from this One there are no others who can apply the scientific method to Personality, ... Let me demonstrate! I shall begin with a definition of God by stating what He is not. God in no way resembles the traditional depictions of Him. He is not Almighty, He is not supernatural, He is not the Lord of this universe, He is not perfect, but this universe does indeed exist because of Him. ... How and why I happen to know God will, I am sure, become self evident as I proceed. God is a unique being. This uniqueness is precisely what makes Him imperfect. Because God has no reference or relation His character has an unfortunate flaw. It is due to this flaw that God has had need for this universe to come into existence. He planned for this universe to have the very characteristics which he lacks, hence relatives. God is unique and he alone possesses knowledge. This universe, been the exact opposite of God, has an abundance of relatives but is unconscious and ignorant in nature. ... Every living thing in this world is subject and bound to the laws of physics. Everything, that is, except One. One thing alone represents what belongs to God, Personality! It is this One thing alone that God has had the right to reveal Himself to throughout history. Only from within this One thing has there ever been the ability to obey the law of Personlity and that law is simply ( the expression of what is true ). Personal law and the law of Gravity contradict one another simply because one is conscious and the other unconscious. ... God's plan to perfect Himself by sharing in relationships has almost reached fruition. Because I am such a simple man my brain cannot begin to comprehend the wonders of what he has done with evolution and creation. But men like yourself will soon be able to trully marvel at this remarkable Being and give to Him the PRAISE that is due. I am certain that now you understand your own limitations!
Please believe me when I say that I do not mean to offend you, but the above diatribe reveals to me that you are utterly and completely insane, in the literal sense (not derogatory). Most mythology advocates tend to subscribe to the mass-hysteria, their affliction driven by basic instinctual impetus to 'commune' with their fellow humans, and if their fellow humans believe in a god, so will they. And though their insanity is just as debilitating as yours, and quite possibly as lethal, theirs may also be reversible by the same means it came about, 'communion', For example, it's conceivable that constant expressions of love from an atheistic pool of people could eventually compel a religious person to surrender their convictions toward the ethereal.
You, my friend, are a different sort. Because of your self-purported 'knowledge', you have been able to construct such an elaborate meme-defense system, that it places you out of reach of conventional 'reverse brain-washing' tactics. Indeed, you have isolated your affliction/addiction from even the religions that gave birth to it; a profound heretic.
Make no mistake, you have the capacity to see reality, of this I am sure, but the degree of your commitment in denying it has exponentially exacerbated the degree of this recovery beyond what most would have the will to endure the withdrawal symptoms of. However, if you'd consider expanding your mind, then the first step is reading my book, Meme, which you can download for free from BetterHuman.org. I promise it can teach you many things that will necessitate a re-evaluation of your perspective.
...next letter
> How are you? I do hope that you received my previous email regarding my 'unique understanding of life'.
Patience my friend...
> If you did receive it then I suspect it came as quite a shock to the nervous system. I have no idea how you are coping at this moment.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my internal response to your letter was very much the same as my response to the vast myriad of other submissions I've received from people claiming their own theories for the nature of their god. You have in no way presented me with anything less mythological than any other ethereal perspective.
> It was not my intention to cause you anxiety though I suspect this may have been inevitable.
Thank you for the concern, but I assure you, I remain unaffected.
> As I said, I know that the evidence I have provided is irrefutable and so I cannot expect a reply from you. I just had to show you that in spite of your tremendous learning and integrity you are only permitted to know about the material world and so remain in complete ignorance about Personality.
My good friend, I don't believe you understand what the difference between 'evidence' and 'conjecture' is. You have provided zero real 'evidence'; but you have introduced much wild speculation with no underlying support for said conjecture. Your statements aren't 'facts', you just 'claim' them to be facts, which isn't remotely the same thing. You are exercising blind 'faith' towards your very own religion.
> I have much admiration for your selfless endeavour to educate human beings in accordance with the facts and I have never heard a better philosophy or ideology than yours in light of what human beings do know about the world.
Thank you for this compliment, and I don't want to be disrespectful, but upon closer inspection you would find that certain portions of our philosophies directly oppose your beliefs. You may wish to recant on judgment until you've acquired a better understanding of our ultimate mission here at BetterHuman.org.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.307, 22.327}
|
#308 - Misperceived anger - September 09, 2007, 12:08 PM |
Mr. Sanben wrote:
> It is obvious that you have a problem with religion and its consequences as a result your anger leads you to deny a creator.
No my friend, it is because there is no creator that I am nonplussed with the pyramid scheme of religion that preys upon the innocent.
> Your only point is that God cannot be proved using the Scientific method. You must first prove that Science can provide all answers.
You do not understand the Scientific Method my friend. It does not provide 'any' answers; it only provides 'probabilities'. According to the Scientific Method, there is 'almost' no chance of there being a god, but this isn't the same as saying there is 'zero' chance. It also says that there is a 'good' chance that the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang theory can provide us with a more meaningful and realistic understanding of our universe, but this isn't the same as saying that these theories are 'absolutely correct'.
You will only find 'direction' from the Scientific Method, not answers.
> As you know, the most distinguished Scientists have been proved wrong, such as Einstein's steady state Universe.
And this was accomplished because of....the Scientific Method. Yes, even scientists can be disproven with the Scientific Method.
> You dismiss hearsay, but if you looked more closely, you will find accounts by independent sources of spiritual revelations witnessed by thousands who could not have been aware of what was about to happen, eliminating mass hallucination.
My friend, the above is 'also' just more hearsay unless you indicate a specific event.
> The only thing biologists can say about the complexity of DNA and the cell is: "This is the way it COULD have happened, give us more time".
Exactly. We don't have all the answers, and that is part of the experience of living in a reality perspective; the acceptance that some questions will never be answered. However, the mere absence of scientific information is not 'proof' of an ethereal answer, any more than not being able to reach the end of a rainbow proves that Leprechauns exist.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.308, 22.325}
|
#309 - Tell me but don't tell me - September 09, 2007, 12:20 PM |
Mr. Daskvelo wrote:
> I have a question for you which may have been addressed in your book, I do not know. I dont plan to read that any more than you would read mine on this matter had I written one ;)
Well my friend, some of your very lengthy questions (apologies for omitting them since they've been addressed previously in the weblog) were essentially arguments for intelligent design, or as I like to refer to it, the cart-before-the-horse theory. There are many entries in my weblog that deal with this (you can find links on my Contact Us page), and more directly, I do indeed have an answer for you, but as you've indicated above, you won't read my free book, Meme, and as such I will be unable to provide you with the answers. In fact, for many of the numerous questions that you have asked that I did not address, you will find their answers in Meme.
> I have seen you take many of the arguments of people and turn them into some sort of seemingly "lab rat" analysis of that persons character. This is an example from your page:
> SOMEONE SAID: The main reason that people claim to not believe in an afterlife is that they think that the idea is a naïve and or wishful thinking But disbelief in an afterlife could have the same intellectual status. It could be the hopeful wish that there might be no accountability to anyone after we die,
> YOU RESPONDED: Very interesting. This really exposes a great deal of your perspective in how you constantly focus on judgment. Atheists, however, do not have the concept of ethereal judgment, and so it never even enters our mind that we are 'avoiding' judgment with eternal death. We don't even perceive ethereal judgment when we are alive so how can it possibly motivate our perception of eternal death?
> Here you have answered his statement with a seemingly condescending analysis of his psychology (as if you are a shrink) rather than analyzing his point at all. U could have simply said: "I can assure you that is not true of ME as an atheist, nor do I promote that train of thought any more than the former" and that would have been a respectable and meaningful response. Surely you knew what he was talking about.
Yes, my friend, I knew exactly what he was talking about, which is why I answered him at a 'motivational' level, rather than at his 'perception' level. He needed to understand the fallacious root of his perspective. Unfortunately, the alternative answer you've suggested is not something I could have said because it ultimately validates their perspective, which is that last thing I'm trying to accomplish.
Also, I was in no way whatsoever condescending, you're just choosing to interpret it that way. Do not confuse my 'exposing' his misperceptions for being disrespectful. Educating people of their flawed understandings is often a road paved with tripped egos, and cries of disrespect abound, but like a teacher tries to help a student, so too do I attempt to clear the fog of confusion imbued by religion. But, if you don't appreciate my style, you're definitely not alone.
> He meant that: You say "people wish for a happy afterlife and so affirm that there IS one with no supporting evidence" He says "people wish AGAINST an UNHAPPY afterlife and so affirm there is NOT one with no supporting evidence" Both are correct by the same logic
Logically, they are mutually supportive, but they both rely on the existence of the afterlife to validate the logic. Your statements above are the same as saying that 'galgitrons have wings so they can fly', and then this must also imply 'galgitrons without wings cannot fly'. Sounds pretty rational doesn't it? Except that nobody's ever seen a galgitron.
Also, you speak of these two statements as if they were the only scenarios possible. What about 'atheists do not believe in the afterlife because there is no evidence'?
> Rather than taking an unbiased view on it (as you claim to do) Your bias is that you affirm that there is nothing ethereal, why Even SCIENCE does not affirm that!!
Incorrect my friend, the Scientific Method asserts that 'nothing' exists, unless there is evidence to support it. The observation of complexity does indeed indicate something unusual, perhaps intelligence, but this 'interpretation' is merely the 'start' of the scientific process, 'not' the end of it. Once the theory that an 'intelligence' must've been responsible for said observation, it is the duty of the theorist to 'justify' that interpretation by accumulating real 'evidence' to support that the intelligence exists. Without further evidence, then the theory that an intelligence created something, is no less valid than saying the Easter Bunny created it.
> The highest moral code of a pure scientist is to accept that there are things unseen, and unmeasureable as yet.
I do not deny this. But, does my admission of this in any way add support to your ethereal argument? If so, then does it not also equally support Leprechaun theory?
> As for information which is "Tangible" (perceptible by senses or technological means) "..very credible, but leaving room for the possibility that there may be errors or omissions in the observations. ( e.g. optical illusions, technical glitches in observation equipment, etc.)" You have forgotten the other factor that we leave room for other than discrepancies with our equipment, that is, Flaws in the Theory...
My friend, if I understand your motivations here, you keep circling back to the notion that the Scientific Method needs to relinquish its hold on the basic assumption that 'nothing' exists without evidence, but this caveat forms the very 'essence' of the Scientific Method. Without this fundamental principle, it would be possible to create a universe filled with demons, fairies, leprechauns, etc, and have it 'all' supported by the tools of logic and science. You're very apt at discovering the critical attributes that provide the foundation to the Scientific Method, but if you think you can subtly suggest relinquishing this hold, then I don't think you understand just how obvious your agenda is.
> You have based your views on the foundation that you accept and vehemently affirm that all things ethereal do not exist
Incorrect. Please read my foreword excerpt which clearly states that I do not believe in absolutes. Everything I believe is assigned a probability, which is evaluated by the Scientific Method. I never believe anything to be 100% or 0%.
> You hold to that there is no definition of wrong or right or good and evil,
Incorrect. I just define these terms without ethereal qualities.
> There is No definition of better or worse, but your site is named better human.
When did I claim there's no definition of better or worse?
> So what criterion do you use to declare certain humans better (by your perception)?
A BetterHuman is someone that has increased (relative to themselves) their ability to seek happiness in reality. It has nothing to do with being better than another person.
> and what makes your perception worthy of being applied to all mankind?
I 'believe' that ours is better than any ethereally founded perception, simply because the BetterHuman perspective removes a great deal of wasteful and resource-intensive 'junk' memes from our meme pool. It also 'centers' people to focus on what really matters: finding happiness. Since better quality of life is essentially 'defined' by the degree of happiness one experiences, it seems a logical conclusion that a reality perception that focuses on the healthy and non-deluded attainment of such, should be the most effective system to accomplish that pursuit.
> Your theory supposedly is that humans who forget religion will be HAPPIER.
You've made quite a few erroneous assumptions my friend, this being no exception. Removing religion is but one small piece of the puzzle. The BetterHuman.org website, and my free book, Meme, details all the pieces I could think of to complete the picture.
> Not necessarily BETTER, which is undefined except by the human ego (is it not?)
I disagree that ego alone defines better, but 'better' is definitely a subjective term.
> This suggests that you HAVE indeed applied your ego into your quest, and as you know, doing that makes for serious error.
That would be yet another grand assumption my friend, but again, erroneous. I don't believe ego forms the impetus to my work. Please give some merit to the possibility that altruism and logic contribute significantly to my motivations.
> Does better human refer to Happier human? Then name it THAT (happierhuman.com).
There are many ways that the perception of one's 'happiness' can be increased (drug abuse, ethereal abuse, etc.), but aren't necessarily 'better'.
> If there is no right or wrong, then why should my goal be the betterment of civilization?
In the context of the human equation, right or wrong are instinctually defined and surface culturally as morals. I will be unable to address the remainder of your very long diatribe my friend, because you've made the incorrect assumption that we don't believe in humanistic right or wrong.
Again, apologies for paring down so much material from your very long letter. I know this must be disappointing considering how much time you must have invested in it, but I do not have the luxury of time to repeat discussions already covered by the website or Meme. If you wish to correspond in the future, you may find it more efficient to be very concise, more familiar with the BetterHuman.org paradigm, and original in the material you submit.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.309, 22.321}