| Page 22 |
|
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:
#311 - Religious science - Sep 09, 2007, 12:31 PM
#312 - What's the catch with BetterHuman.org? - Sep 09, 2007, 12:37 PM
#313 - Wrestling with G.O.D. - Sep 09, 2007, 12:39 PM
#314 - Are atheists mean and hateful? - Sep 09, 2007, 12:50 PM
#315 - Generous kudos - Sep 09, 2007, 12:51 PM
#316 - Is all of religion evil? - Sep 09, 2007, 12:57 PM
#317 - Confusion - Sep 09, 2007, 01:02 PM
#318 - Mean mission - Sep 09, 2007, 01:04 PM
#319 - Malevolent design - Sep 09, 2007, 01:29 PM
#320 - Bifurcating tolerance - Sep 09, 2007, 01:32 PM
#321 - Agenda - Oct 05, 2007, 03:46 PM
#322 - Famous atheists - Oct 05, 2007, 03:58 PM
#323 - Right to abuse - Oct 05, 2007, 04:15 PM
#324 - Faith overrules - Oct 05, 2007, 04:20 PM
#325 - The pursuit of simplicity - Oct 05, 2007, 04:23 PM
#326 - Unstoppable Intelligent Design - Oct 05, 2007, 04:29 PM
#327 - Heretical musings - Oct 05, 2007, 04:36 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
|
#310 - Pathetic masses - September 09, 2007, 12:28 PM |
Mr. Watchand wrote:
> I am a philosophical Daoist (Taoist) and I agree with your mission
I'm not sure if you've read our mission statement, but you may need to understand our perspectives are in opposition. Even if you dismiss the ethereal/religious elements of Taoism, your 'philosophical' Taoist perspective is still largely mystical, spiritual, and poetic, not scientific. From my research, even your toned-down philosophical Taoism still finds inspiration in the ancient texts, Tao Te Ching, and Zhuangzi; not a healthy start for a true reality perspective.
There may be many relevant idioms that you could argue as a defense for Taoism, but like all religions, there are always 'some' redeeming merits mixed in the deeply muddled pool of poetry and fantasy. These few valid points alone, however, cannot justify the whole. It must be appreciated that everything that isn't valid by the Scientific Method 'must' be discarded in order for the rest to qualify for a reality perspective; and when applying this rationale to Taoism, doesn't leave much remaining.
> of educating and enlightening the pathetic masses of so called humans
A most unfortunate disposition my friend. I don't believe being a victim of religion makes anybody pathetic, any more than your particular flavor of philosophical mystical beliefs makes you pathetic. These people simply suffer from a lack of education, and that's why BetterHuman.org exists, to fill that void of missing knowledge.
> I would be glad to receive any further information that you can provide me.
I think you may find our website and book, Meme, to be very educational.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#311 - Religious science - September 09, 2007, 12:31 PM |
Mr. Rideant wrote:
> I just thought it ironic that the founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, firmly believed in the Bible. In fact nearly all of the founders of modern science firmly believed in the Bible. It is universally accepted (even by atheist historians) that it was out of the belief in a logical God that science was born. The philosophy was that the universe was created by a rational/ orderly creator, therefor we should be able to understand it and learn about it.
> I am not using this as a basis for any sort of argument for theism, I just thought that it would be appropriate to point out the irony that atheists keep on insisting that the Bible is anti-science yet it was belief in the Bible that led to the birth of science.
I am well aware of the religious roots to science. This is the course of evolution of everything, small steps from one form to another. It wasn't even too long ago that a religious perspective was completely saturated into the minds of all humans; and it was the rather serendipitous endeavors of the church to expand upon their understanding of their god that led them to initiate the organized discipline of science. Their motivations were to purify and justify what they believed, stemming the tide of alternate fantasy that endlessly surfaced from the ubiquitous heretics. Ultimately though, the churches wanted to use science to retain control of their followers by having 'proof' of their version of fantasy. Unbeknownst to them, the birth of science was also the beginning of their own demise for not only could they disprove heretical beliefs but the same tools could be applied to discredit their own beliefs, which eventually led to need for the crushing religious oppression of science; but not the death of it.
Science survived because of its inherent reality-foundation, making it consistent, accurately transferable, and plausible. As science grew in notoriety, so too did its complexity, leading to the creation of the Scientific Method tool. This instant in time however, didn't immediately expose all the inevitable fallout of using this tool, as evidenced by your astute point that the originator and many purveyors of it themselves were religious to some degree. I will point out though that advocates of the Scientific Method typically had their own non-contemporary versions of a god, a clear demonstration of the dissonance introduced into their perspectives by the Scientific Method. It is only after many more generations of the strict application of the Scientific Method (and the quite obvious illegitimacy of the churches) that we are beginning to appreciate the full potential of science to completely quash the fantasy of religion. The very tool created to support religion will eventually be religion's downfall (this is the same pattern that will play out with humankind creating technology for selfish purposes, because we will eventual lose control of that technology).
I personally do not find it ironic that religion spawned its own demise, for I believe that religion is probably the 'only' way that science could ever have surfaced. For lack of an alternative, religions have served as the primordial education system of humanity for eons, it alone representing the sum of human knowledge. What better place to begin from with a new discipline that is hungry for knowledge, than the only education system in existence at the time: religion. Evolutionarily speaking, it was 'inevitable' that religion spawned science because science requires a minimum plateau of a foundation to even manifest, and only religion can approximate that foundation.
Science will continue its logical ascent to the top of perspectives, and it will be inevitable that mythology finds itself cast aside by an enlightened human species. I just hope it happens before massively lethal technology falls into the hands of the ethereally insane.
Thanks for the submission,
Sean Sinjin
|
#312 - What's the catch with BetterHuman.org? - September 09, 2007, 12:37 PM |
Mr. Barkpol wrote:
> Stoked to see the site. Can't believe there's actually more people out there in touch with reality.
Fantastic. I hope you can do your part to challenge religious people within your realm of influence into thinking twice about their convictions.
> I'm hoping there are no catches with this like with scientology as i'd like to become a member judging from the information i've read.
I assure you, there's not a catch to be found here. I offer everything for free, and I have no concept of membership. You are already part of the human race, and that's the 'club' I would suggest we all find value in.
> i think the world would be an amazing place if every thought like this. religion segregates society an forces people to judge themselves and others by the wrong means.
So very true my friend.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
|
#313 - Wrestling with G.O.D. - September 09, 2007, 12:39 PM |
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> Sorry to burden you with a lengthy essay,
Not a problem, my friend, but forgive me if I skip over portions that I feel we've addressed in multiplicity.
> You appear (to me) rock certain of the finality of your cogitations. As if you had achieved 100% understanding. You appear to have integrated your world view into a definitive picture of REALITY.
This is most untrue. I believe you are confusing my zeal for condemning the ethereal for undue conviction of my reality perspective. They are two completely different things. Yes, my opposition to the notion of ethereal is practically 100%, but that does not extend to my confidence level in my 'reality' perspective. There could be many, many things wrong with my version of reality, and I acknowledge that. This acknowledgement, however, doesn't grant breathing room for the ethereal.
> I feel we shouldn't limit ourselves to seeing things from the bottom up, as in affirming that the concrete is basic and real, and that the abstractions we actually LIVE IN are the product of the material world and brain.
Then we utilize profoundly different philosophical foundations. I leverage the Scientific Method, you leverage the unknowable.
> When you deprecate the "ethereal," you risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. Consider that all the religious mumbo jumbo, fakery, quackery, hocus pocus, etc. might be a fraudulent imitation, modeled after something real and genuine. Why put it down as "ethereal?" I like to call it the ABSTRACT;
Call it what you wish my friend, the underlying meme is still an approach at justifying unjustifiable fantasy. Ultimately, if there was something real and genuine about it, it wouldn't find itself relegated to 'ethereal' or 'abstract' in the first place.
> We don't have to deny matter, we just look in the other direction too, TOP - DOWN, from the abstract to the concrete. EXACTLY as we know that the mind is rooted and dependent on the brain, (down-up materialism) we look from Awareness down and see that the brain is dependent on mind. (Idealism)
The top-down methodology you are applying (awareness dependent on mind) actually 'supports' my argument because you have found the root causation of 'awareness' to be 'physically' supported. How does this top-down method remotely add credibility to notions of the ethereal (or abstract), for which there is no 'down' from the 'top'?
> To start with, were it not for awareness and perception, the universe would rumble on unperceived, unacknowledged, blind and unconscious.
True.
> For all practical purposes, it would be as if nothing existed.
False. This is a human egocentric interpretation of existence, demonstrated by "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make any sound?". Trust me, the tree makes a sound whether we're there or not.
> Secondly, the whole universe is but information REALIZED, manifested through mathematical vibrations.
That's one theory.
> THE ABSTRACT PRODUCES AND VALIDATES THE CONCRETE, (when seen top-down)
By this logic, if you look top-down at a house, are you saying that the house produced the bricks? Of course not. A top-down perspective does not change the underlying relationship of the concrete 'producing' the abstract. Abstractions are 'always' built upon the concrete no matter which direction (top, bottom) you look at it from.
> It seems obvious (to me) that "the material" that you put so much stock in, would be unknown and unobserved; valueless without the conscience and awareness that you deem so insignificant.
Our relatively late-coming awareness of material is not required for this material to have ever had value in its universal roles. How does our ability to observe the universe add 'value' to it? The value of 'anything' is only a relative measure from within the context in which it is being discussed, however, there is no 'intrinsic' value to anything.
> My only complaint is that you seem rigid in, and unwarrantedly sure of the conclusions and understandings you have reached, as if you figured that after all your intellectual labor your creation was finished and you found it "good."
That wasn't subtle at all...
> It might be said that you have reached well founded conclusions through clearer and more thorough thought than others, and that might be correct. It is just that I can't conceive of a finished and satisfactory "world view," specially knowing that all the preceding ones, including those by Newton and Einstein, have been progressive approximations.
I do not have a finished world view (please read my foreword excerpt once again). Again, don't confuse my opposition to the ethereal to be in any way a totalitarian qualification for my theories of reality, any more than your disbelief in the Tooth Fairy can justify other portions of your perspective.
> I mention my age again, as an example of how it is possible to avoid rigidity and evolve one's thinking, unless one falls into the trap of defending one's ideas instead of discussing and comparing them without fear of appearing to be "wishy-washy."
You're very delicate in your approach to constructive criticism my friend (of this, I could learn from, I'm sure). I hope you can believe me when I say that I am open to discussing my ideas, and I have a weblog full of these discussions. What usually fails to manifest is 'evidence' that contradicts my perspective. I have met with much heart-felt resistance, emotional platitudes, irrational opinions, ethereal threats, mass rejection, and paradoxical unanswerables, but I haven't been served real, true, meritable, quantifiable, deterministic 'evidence' that has forced me to change my perspective.
Please take into consideration that my perspective has evolved over decades of strict focus, I have also easily met with 'thousands' of challenges and I can safely say that my perspective is now quite seasoned, balanced, and solid, if I'm to give a selfish assessment of it. You would be hard-pressed to invent a new argument for which I haven't previously encountered and overcome. It's not that I believe I'm correct in everything, it's that there's nothing 'more' compelling that I'm aware of; but, if something 'more' compelling and convincing surfaces, I promise, I'll be ready to adapt.
> Within the last year my political and cosmological opinions have changed quite a bit. I would like for you to be able to say yours have changed, even if it be just a little bit.
I'm sorry my friend. I just haven't found any compelling reason to accommodate what I consider the supernatural (which encapsulates your prior definition of 'abstract'). In fact, in over two years of ceaseless debates with ethereal advocates, I believe I have encountered all reasonable (and definitely all unreasonable) arguments that could support the ethereal, and have found nothing but human 'desire' to be the underlying foundation for it. In my mind, the door to the ethereal has been shut; the door to reality, however, is still gaping, and wide open to improvement.
Sometimes it's hard to know which door you are going through, but be certain that if you believe that you can find immortal consciousness by going through the 'reality' door, then you've just unwittingly gone through the ethereal door.
> It boggles the mind to realize just how much more than we know or can imagine is possible, in the physical, and its abstract correlates, not to mention realms or levels or dimensions of which we have no inkling.
You're opening the ethereal door, my friend. You're G.O.D. instinct is seeking a place to exercise its unbounded musings, especially since it is prevented (by definition) from entering the reality door.
> Maybe I should give up wondering at all and just relax
My friend, thusfar we've exerted quite an enormous effort wrangling with the fiercely dynamic prowess of your G.O.D., which is made all that much more formidable by your combined intelligence, and wisdom. With all this exercising that we've accomplished, is it now possible for you to see the instinctual root to all this pursuit of 'non-material' abstractions (aka fantasy)? I believe I have accommodated your G.O.D.'s musings down an many tangents as practical in the effort to demonstrate that even outside of the context of an organized religion, that the prolific nature of the G.O.D. instinct will aptly and tirelessly pursue justification, leveraging 'any' tool at its disposal, even science, logic, math, repetition, history, paradoxes, etc., etc. It is an unstoppable maddening drive that cannot be satiated because it attempts to complete an impossible circle: immortal consciousness. This is the very center of all ethereal addiction my friend, and the 'only' cure is abstinence. Take these pursuits, put them aside, and live life, or you will literally go insane.
I would encourage you to please try to understand the G.O.D. instinct, why it exists, and what it does to our species, and to the individual. A thorough understanding of why it projects these ethereal pursuits into your head may very well serve to cure the suffering it imposes.
> I've been wondering why there is something instead of nothing since I was a little boy, and now you are convincing me that this basic question of existence is unknowable and unanswerable, and so why bother...?
I do not wish to discourage these pursuits, I merely wish to stymie the ethereal fallout of said pursuits.
> Is your valiant effort to explain things with blether just as vain?
Again, it's not the pursuit that's at fault, it's when the motivation changes from finding answers, to finding answers that are laced with the supernatural.
> Do we have to relinquish the explanation of the origin of the big bang to science fiction and the mystics after all? Or if we leave the most basic question of all unanswered and untouchable, why bother with the succeeding derivative events? Or are we to conclude it might have been some kind of "god" after all? Goddammit!!!
Gods are for people that do not know how to say, "I don't know". Learn to say these words, my friend; there is peace of mind within them.
Your friend,
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}
|
#314 - Are atheists mean and hateful? - September 09, 2007, 12:50 PM |
Mr. Heopalt wrote:
> why do all so called belivers think we atheist are mean and hateful?
Quite simply, they've been taught to think so. In fact, one of the more obscure dictionary definitions of atheist is equivalent to 'immorality'. It's quite effective for religions to teach that atheism is an evil perspective in order to prevent their followers from exploring this alternative.
Yet, sadly, there are very well-known atheists that 'are' mean and hateful, that extend effort to belittle, chastise, and ridicule the religious. These people are bullies, and unfortunately atheism tends to suffer as a whole because of the actions of a misguided few. To that end, I'd also like to reiterate my long-standing point that atheism alone does not define a person's disposition, any more than the color of one's shirt. It is one's overlying 'philosophy' (what they choose to write on the shirt) that defines the nature of their character, not their perception of the structure of the universe.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#315 - Generous kudos - September 09, 2007, 12:51 PM |
Mr. Wodpale wrote:
> I wrote you on 12-28-06 and ran into the copy, which you had not answered
Apologies my friend, it may be that your email was spaminated. I'll do my best to answer your original letter now.
> I am in the process of writing a book about almost all the things you cover in your web site. I have only perused your site but I do this quickly and well and am impressed with it. I will continue to study it.
Thank you my friend.
> In what country are you located?
I'm afraid that I must retain a modicum of privacy for non-relevant personal information.
> Since we are doing the same thing and since I'm impressed with your site I'd like to speak with you personally.
Again, the only conduit that I'll allow is the BetterHuman.org forum. Apologies for remaining at arms length. I hope you understand that this is an unavoidable consequence of protecting myself from the potentially dangerous repercussions of my work.
> I'd like to know why you have chosen to be an atheist instead of an agnostic
For the same reasons you are not agnostic about the Easter Bunny
> and why you say you can prove there is not a god. I do not believe in the god of any of the 'holy' books but how can I prove that there is no god anywhere? This seems impossible to me.
The common problem with the concept of 'proving' there isn't a God usually falls on the definition of 'proof', not the enactment of it. This why I've carefully defined proof within the context of the Scientific Method. If you haven't already, please review my Scientific Method case studies under the 'Proof' section of the BetterHuman.org website.
> let me comment on your book which I now have as a part of my gigantic elibrary. I have scanned it and find that it covers more subject matter than I have ever observed in any book or set of articles covering any view of religion.... You have done a superlative, exhaustive, totally outstanding, tireless job on your book and your website. I could not have a higher respect for the truly awsome jobs you have done. Thank you.
Great! Thank you so much.
> I should tell you now that we do not agree about conspiracy theories (which was 3/4 of 'Zeitgeist') or left-wing politics ("Articles of Reason").
I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, I just attempt to take all possibilities into account and then try to weigh them appropriately. I'm not saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but I'm not saying it wasn't either.
> Would you mind to share your educational background with me?
Again, apologies for remaining somewhat anonymous. You see, Sean Sinjin is just a pseudonym, a euphemism for an ideal, not a real person. To attach parameters that are irrelevant to our mission would be meaningless as Sean Sinjin is the culmination of many minds.
> If you would be willing to do so, you could help me a great deal by telling me what you have found to be the reaction of people as to the idea of the love of god, as taught in the Bible contrasted with the total lack of love as expressed, especially in the Old Testament, but also in the New testament, as well as in nature and in human history (wars, genocides, etc.).
Very few religious people attempt to reconcile the preposterous contradictions that permeate the Bible for this would be the very act of defying their god. They're not remotely mentally equipped to question the erratic behaviors of their god, and so they heavily leverage 'faith' (denial) to overlook these contradictions.
> Do you think I should be expecting death threats and threats of bodily harm?
This is extremely rare, but a real danger. I would advise you to pursue the same degree of anonymity that I have pursued, in order to secure yourself from this type of irrational backlash.
Hope I was helpful,
Sean Sinjin
|
#316 - Is all of religion evil? - September 09, 2007, 12:57 PM |
Mr. Vayenti wrote:
Hi, and thanks for writing,
> To begin, I'd like to say that I agree with nearly everything you have on your site. I am glad to see that there is someone out there that shares my views (I thought I was alone).
Great! And thanks for taking the time to let me know (assuming of course that you were implying atheism). I hope you find it valuable to share your perspective with others so that they too can begin to see reality.
> However, throughout the site you seem to feel VERY strongly against religion. I understand that religion may interrupt some people's pursuit of happiness (eg making premarital sex and homosexuality taboo), but there are a lot of religious folk out there that don't actually harm anyone. Along with that, they seem to have found a nice, comfortable level of religion that helps them cope with some of life's problems. So my question is: Do you believe that everyone should pursue this "BetterHuman.org" philosophy on life? Even these people who do no harm and are comfortable with life with their religion?
Great question my friend, and let me start by stating that religions are very broad, in that they encompass a much larger social apparatus than merely the mythological. This is due to the attempt of religions to extend the inherent 'familiarity' of our instinctual morality and sociality, over to the mythological elements, thereby 'boxing' these concepts together. By presenting morality, sociality, and mythology as one-in-the-same, mythology appears to be instinctually supported and pious feeling, making it difficult to perceive them as separate from each other (e.g., religion claims to own morality instead of just utilizing it)
Now, when BetterHuman.org assails religion, it is entirely focused upon the 'mythological' elements, and not the parts of religion that were stolen from our instincts. In the BetterHuman.org philosophies, love is still valid, as is justice, communion with your fellow humans, etc. There is a lot of overlap between the BetterHuman.org philosophies and the 'culture' trapped within religion. Yet, even most of these cultural elements embedded in religion have been severely twisted by mythological skewing such that when the mythology is removed, it's easy to see how this twisting only served to strengthen the religions. For example, there is no logical reason to hate homosexuals (though this instinctual reaction is fostered to the followers so they can indulge guilt-free in this innate prejudice), nor to not enjoy premarital sex (which forces people to get married sooner, resulting in children sooner, increasing the population of a religion), or masturbation (they don't want you to relieve yourself of the need to have sex because they know you will have to get married to find this powerful outlet), or to have moral aversion to first-trimester abortion (don't terminate potential future followers), etc. These instinctual levers have been perverted by religions into forms that are nonsensical.
It's not that we here at BetterHuman.org want to wipe out everything that falls under the guise of 'religion', we simply wish to remove 'all' mythological elements from the perspective of humanity. There is only one function of modern-day mythology and that is to manipulate people; that's it. By erasing this facet of statute fantasy from the scope of humanity, we will liberate 'billions' from artificially-induced indentured servitude to 'nothing'. Not to mention that virtually 'all' of the perceived benefits of participating in a religion can be had outside the context of a religious manifold, especially since most of the appeal of religions tends to be the social aspect anyway, and there are an infinite number of alternative non-fantasy outlets for this need.
Now, you made the argument that some people can harmlessly indulge in religion without hurting themselves or others, and it makes them happy, but this fails in recognizing the oblivious mental harm they do to themselves. Your same argument can be made to justify the worshipping of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or more accurately, abusing heroin. Let me ask you, can you provide a sound rationale for allowing someone to continue believing in Santa Claus, or to continue abusing heroin, even if they outwardly didn't appear to be hurting anyone? Of course not. It would be sadistic and cruel to allow someone to sashay through life lost in the dream of 'Santa Claus'. I do hope you would find the moral certitude to explain to a Santa Claus believer that it is only a myth so that they could begin the process of healing (That process being, in order: withdrawal, mourning, resentment to those that lied to them, recovery, maturity, and finally happiness based in reality).
Like all addictive drugs, it is my firm belief that there's no 'safe' level of indulgence in mythology because its very nature is to become all-consuming in perspective; nobody 'half' believes in their god. Because of this, humanity must eventually evolve to a consensus that religion needs to be outlawed, in order to finally seal the door on this ultimate of pyramid schemes that preys (prays?) upon the innocent, young, desperate, naïve, rejected, greedy, and loving; in other words: everyone.
To your point again, if these people perhaps relied upon these beliefs to find relief from their suffering, then I venture that they could find equal, if not more effective relief through reality-based means (therapy, communion, etc.). Reality can provide 'all' the same comforts that religions may claim to, and more, I promise. Most of my support for this argument stems from the fact that everyone has 'doubt' in their faith anyway, reducing whatever all-encompassing and complete closure one may proclaim to have achieved via their faith, down to an exercise in shallow denial and convincing oneself of something that cannot be proven (e.g., Loved ones are now in heaven, or God will enact revenge for me, etc.). There's no resolution of angst in that.
Do I propose that the BetterHuman.org tenets are the only solution? Of course not. I am but one person that had to look deeply into my mind to try to see the truth, and then deeply into my heart to find a solution. The tenets are my absolute 'best' attempt to outline an answer to the dilemma of religion. It contains flaws that I cannot see, of this I am sure, but the tenets are not meant to be 'cast in stone' and followed 'literally' for thousands of years; they need to be fine-tuned, augmented, reverted, etc., to whatever form will successfully suppress the influence of the religious/ethereal meme-viruses that plague our planet, and also liberate humanity from as much undue servitude and unjust oppression as possible. The tenets attempt to unlock 'freedom', in its truest form. Any variation to the tenets that further this goal will be a most welcome revision.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
|
#317 - Confusion - September 09, 2007, 01:02 PM |
Mr. Persola wrote:
> Hey man. How you doin? I actually clicked on the link to your website since im quite interested in what people have to say about god , religion etc.
Fantastic.
> I donno whether anyone from pakistan's every written to you before so let this be a first if that's the case.
You may very well be the first, my friend.
> I was actually raised in a muslim family..not a very strict one though the education system indeed did stress a lot on religion. Now im nineteen, confused about everything.
Trust me, I know 'exactly' how you feel. I went through a lot of turmoil when I was very young, trying to make sense out of so much confusion. So many perspectives, so many people screaming "I'm right, you're wrong", but nobody's saying the same thing. It was quite traumatic.
All I will suggest is for you to try very hard to always seek the motivations behind anything you hear (not just religious). This skill becomes much sharper as you gain more experience in life, but the key is to never accept anything as absolute 'fact'; never. This critical skill will give you the flexibility to 'adjust' your perspective to new information that you will constantly come across as you become older and wiser. If I had to choose only one thing to teach, it would be 'incredulity'.
> However., one thing that im sure about is that I don't believe in religion.
Considering the degree of religious influence you've probably had in your upbringing, this is a phenomenal perspective accomplishment. You have a keen mind my friend.
Peace,
Sean Sinjin
|
#318 - Mean mission - September 09, 2007, 01:04 PM |
In response to a prior letter from Mr. Blodlaw, I wrote:
Apologies for forwarding you to my Contact us page as a response to your prior email, but your prior email's content was within the context of 'frequently repeated' emails that I receive from many religious people, and for the sake of efficiency I was forced to conduct you to once again explore the answers that I have already given to so many others before you. However, this latest email from you has a more directly antagonistic tone so I'd like to indulge this conversation with you.
> As I go through life, I marvel at the people at the extremes. how do they get like that. You and I are at the opposite ends of those extremes.
I will concede that on a scale of religiosity, I am at the extreme 'non' end. How I got there is a lifelong story of the pursuit of truth. I have many anecdotal recounts of this journey in my weblog should it interest you to discover my particular path.
> I actually tried atheism for a day, when i was 22 and struggling, just to see what its like and, yes even because I couldn't see the God I had believed in for all those years.
My good friend, becoming an atheist for a day is like building a city in a day. There is a 'mountain' of information that is required to consolidate a 'true' atheistic perspective, not merely the desire to be so. Switching to atheism, is nothing like switching religions.
> You're not much of an extreme atheist. If you were, you wouldn't send me to a page of canned responses any more than i would send you to a theology page.
I never claimed to be an extreme atheist, and I don't want to be. I'm just trying to educate people away from mythology, and my sending you to the canned responses page was an efficiency I necessarily pursue when applicable. But, as we'll see below, this point is moot since your ultimate goal was really to chastise and belittle me. You may be surprised but I actually 'welcome' this kind of derogatory feedback because upon 'immortalization' of said dialogue in my weblog, it will serve as a very effective tool to demonstrate the blind hatred and prejudice that a religious perspective endorses.
> If you are an atheist at all, you're no good at it.
I'll admit I've never been told that one before. At least you're unique in this aspect.
> Anyway, back to really extremists.. I marvel at their dedicated mastery of reason. Their explanation of good and evil, and their ultimate attainment of
I'm having a hard time being convinced that you have an example of this. Forgive my interpretation, but what you're really trying to say here is that I shouldn't allow myself to think that I'm making any significant impact, but what you're unwittingly telling me is that I 'am' making an impact, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> well I know who loved me. because i responded like a fanatic to see if the invisible one was telling the truth.
If a fanatic isn't your preferred portrayal, which is? Why wouldn't your normal persona suffice? How many personas do you utilize to incite responses from others?
> You're kind of stupid if you're applying the scientific principles, and logic. I thought i was in for some fine tuning of intellect and reasoning.
With a little open-mindedness, you just might discover it here. Can I compel you to keep reading our literature, specifically the weblog and Meme? There's much more under the hood than your initial assessment, I promise.
> good luck. Or don't you have any of that in your scheme either?
Luck is nothing more than unpredictable fate.
> whatever. rock on?
Over time I've been upping the ante for the inclusion of submissions as weblog entries by increasing the difficulty level for emotionally-discharging religious people to actually make contact. I did this initially by asking them to first read the weblog, then by adding the canned responses page, and then finally a 'false' email link that begs them to kindly peruse the canned responses once again. You, my friend, were so determined to verbally assault me, that you persevered through all these steps and even fraudulently portrayed yourself as a question submitter, just to have the opportunity to 'tell me off'. Mission accomplished, as long as your mission was to purge your ego, demonstrate your viciousness, and be completely ineffectual overall, because the reality is, that's all you've accomplished.
Again, thanks for expressing your views; a fantastic contribution to our mission.
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 22.318, 22.323}
|
#319 - Malevolent design - September 09, 2007, 01:29 PM |
Mr. Bathpour wrote back:
> Please click this link to read the first chapter of my friend Matt's new book
This is a great angle against Intelligent Design, thanks! I hope my readers view this on an empty stomach...
Regards
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 5.63, 22.319}
#320 - Bifurcating tolerance - September 09, 2007, 01:32 PM
Mr. Cosdaw wrote:
> Just found your website...I am an absolute atheist,no time for tolerating or respecting anybody's brainless religious beliefs or 'spirituality' (WHatever that is)
I agree with not tolerating 'religions', but I hope you find some degree of tolerance for the 'individuals' that are infected with this most sinister of mental illnesses (yes, I mean religion). It may help to understand that their minds are poisoned with a very cruel disease, and if you show them love and compassion, mixed with trying to educate them about reality, you just may create another wonderful atheist, rather than an enemy.
> What surprises me is the vehemence with which believersHAVE to defend themselves and protect their selfish idea that 'God is with me,so I'm alright'
They believe they're going to be punished in exceedingly tortuous ways if they don't. They don't have the option of 'not' defending their beliefs. Again, it's not their fault.
Take care,
Sean Sinjin
|
#321 - Agenda - October 05, 2007, 03:46 PM |
Mr. Daskvelo wrote back:
> But indeed you HAVE addressed me personally and for that I appreciate.
My pleasure
> And as for the agenda you say I have, all human actions in this world are done toward some end- so yes sure I do, and so do you of course do you not?
Do not confuse the words 'purpose' and 'agenda' my friend. Agenda, in the context I delivered it, was meant to expose your deceptive approach at weakening the core "nothing exists without proof" principle of the Scientific Method. You tried to convince me of the err of this principle by attempting to leverage its shortcomings in a scientific context. And though your tactic had merit, it wasn't your purpose to demonstrate the scientific fallout of this principle, it was to find a foothold for your ethereal position (a very popular tool of Intelligent Design advocates by the way). This is conventionally referred to as an 'agenda' because your motivations differ from your words. However, please do not consider my response in any way a criticism of your approach, I merely wish to bring your obvious intellectual prowess to the forefront.
> I apologize to you since, you have clarified that you DO define a right and wrong, a better and worse. Fine.
No apology necessary, I assure you.
> But you admit that they are subjective terms. As a scientist, you must thus realize that subjective terms have no place in any scientific analysis of the world, unless they can be defined by a widely accepted criterion, or frame of reference.
Of course. Their only practical application tends to be in the framework of a human perspective; opinion, if you will. Forgive me for perhaps wildly elaborating on your point, but surely you understand that the philosophies of BetterHuman.org greatly extend beyond the scientific sphere and well into humanistic realms. Our reality perspective is 'grounded' in the Scientific Method, but quite obviously it is necessary to complement this foundation with a social structure that placates the human factor that the Scientific Method avoids. We are much more than cold science.
> So my point was that your criterion of good and bad are based on your own perceptions, which you DID indeed suggest are based on an instinct inherent in us from 'Mother Nature' (a pantheistic phrase by the way), Well that's rather vague and falsifiable.
Please elaborate on how this is vague or falsifiable.
In regard to a prior contributor's words:
> It goes beyond merely "helping" people in need, but actually loving them - even if they hate you. Man, it's so profound.
I had responded with:
"On the surface, the intent of your letter could be interpreted as an attempt to teach me about generosity of spirit, even in the face of contempt, but the underlying tone of your letter was obviously condescending and patronizing and therefore reduces your motivation from its superficial altruism, to that of mere mockery. Very bizarre representation of this generosity you're purporting the virtues of. "
To which you stated:
> I see no sign of patronization in his words about love and whatnot. If anything maybe a little hippie-ism, but nothing condescending.
My good friend, you are using another agenda-laced technique called 'quote-mining', which is the attempt to skew opinion by selectively showing limited portions of a dialogue (7.95 in this case). I will accept that I did not present enough of that original letter to fully demonstrate the submitter's breadth of contempt for me, but there is enough material there to justify my reaction. Here are the lines preceding your above excerpt that you so neatly precluded:
> "It's quite amusing that your book's title actually spells: "Me Me!". "
"That did work out well, though it sincerely wasn't intended. "
> "I'm not suggesting that you're all a bunch selfish people, "
"Yes you are exactly. However, your observations were quite valid. "
In the subsequent letter, he even confesses to this:
> "Maybe it was implied, but it was not my intention."
A self-contradicting statement at best.
So you see my friend, his position was self-admittedly condescending, for which I hold no malice or judgment for him, I merely 'exposed' his agenda.
> YOU are the only one who seemed to see that, YOUR perception was the only frame of reference used, YOU decreed that he was condescending
If you fail to see the condescending intent of his quip "Me Me", then we are at an impasse.
> "Condescending" is initially another subjective term, and this is evident by reading your correspondences. Many (and I) have said to you that you seem thus, and you have told many the same.
And will probably be accused of many times more, I'm sure.
> Yes friend you are condescending by the standards of most, though by your own, you perceive the opposite.
By the standards of most, I assure you I'm much worse than condescending, but I think you're beginning to recognize that I rarely conduct myself within the confines of what 'most' would dictate; especially when it comes to breaking down meaningless social barriers that only serve to protect the agenda of ethereal addicts. If this is to be defined as condescending in your mind, then I most graciously accept the title.
To your second point, I try very hard not to be intentionally condescending, which is sometimes difficult for readers to discern when I'm trying to educate someone and they take offence. But, it's my firm belief that it's the intent that defines a violation, not the interpretation; and my intent has always been to improve another's knowledge, not to callously patronize the individual.
> If your aim is to reach the religious masses, then you should tailor your style to accomodate THEIR standards of etiquette not your own, that is simple salesmanship.
My good friend, you present me with an impossible challenge, for the only way to cater to their standards of etiquette is to tolerate their perspective, which out of respect for them, I simply cannot do, no more than you can 'respect' someone's wishes to inject heroin. The very act of challenging someone's beliefs is 'defined' by their beliefs to be insulting, condescending, immoral, heretical, ignorant, antagonistic, arrogant, evil, and corrupt, and so I am literally 'cornered' by their eons-evolved defensive meme-armament that 'forces' me to appear 'offensive' in their interpretation of my motivations. There is no 'salesman' in the world that can congenially sell atheism to the religious. No sir, the disease of 'faith' must be fought with a firm stance, logic, and education, while demonstrating respect for the individual, despite their lack of reciprocation or appreciation.
Be certain that if you choose to define 'respect' to mean accommodating people's misguided beliefs, then you truly do not understand what it means to respect your fellow humans.
With sincere respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.309, 22.321}
|
#322 - Famous atheists - October 05, 2007, 03:58 PM |
Mr. Veecap wrote back:
> What is your take on the tone, tenor, and message of Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in their books?
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about their material to give a fair opinion. It hasn't been a huge motivation for me to familiarize or affiliate myself with other established atheists, for no other reason than a lack of time. Some day I hope to indulge these pursuits.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.303, 22.322}
#323 - Right to abuse - October 05, 2007, 04:15 PM
Mr. Blodlaw wrote back:
> Are you Korean? Sinjin sounds sort of Korean.
Sean Sinjin is a pseudonym and is not a real person, it is merely an ideal, and as such has no meaningful ethnicity.
> Actually, the only think i regret in writing to you the last time was using the word "stupid." Sorry.
Very gracious of you. I sincerely appreciate that.
In regard to my prior statement:
"Mission accomplished, as long as your mission was to purge your ego, demonstrate your viciousness, and be completely ineffectual overall, because the reality is, that's all you've accomplished."
> purge my ego? sheesh i get used and abused by lots of people. So what?
{All letters from this contributor: 22.318, 22.323}
My unfortunate friend, does that then grant you the right to abuse others?
> What viciousness. I wouldn't accuse you of any of that.
Insinuating that someone is stupid with the intent to be insulting, is vicious, by definition. Your comfort level with this type of verbal assault does not diminish or alter your intent to wound.
> Accomplishing nothing, I failed. Big deal.
Perhaps you can outline the motivations of your prior correspondence to me?
> From a scientific perspective, you have proved you haven't found God and you want everyone to know it. Is that true? Is it? In that case you have found the truth.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are using the term 'truth' as if it were a personal plateau, not a universal one. There is one, and only one, 'truth' (and lots and lots of misinterpretations of that truth). Science is the best tool we have for discovering this one and only truth that we 'all' exist within.
> One great thing about atheism.... you don't have to deal with spirits telling you to bust off from this sortie. or maybe you do, but are they embodied? answer that one.
We share the same moral foundation my friend, you just understand these instinctual influences by projecting them into an abstract ethereal entity. I assure you though, I similarly feel the full weight of a 'conscience'.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 22.318, 22.323}
|
#324 - Faith overrules - October 05, 2007, 04:20 PM |
Ms. Timecrate wrote back:
> I like the so-called "Canned Responses" page. It addresses the main things that religious folks hurl at me whenever I offer my own point of view, so I'll now direct people to BetterHuman.org
That page has saved me plenty of work.
> I'm curious, do you know if there are many people who actually use the address provided by that huge link? It's hilarious to me, only someone who won't actually read the page will use that link!
It's made a considerable difference in the quantity of irate religious feedback, though some ethereal addicts are so furious that they'll persevere through any challenge necessary to get to voice their distaste of BetterHuman.org (which ultimately backfires).
> It's my personal experience that even the sweetest, calmest theists can lash out at you when they are challenged. Example: My grandmother is a gem, it's rare to find someone who's as kind as she is. I adore her to pieces and I'm certain she loves me... but dang, she'll get MAD at me if I express a view contrary to what she holds true (that is, where religion is concerned). She must see my contradictory views as an attack.. or maybe a failure, I'm not too sure. The anger inspired by an argument over something so touchy as religion isn't easily forgotten, and that can be pretty harmful to a familial relationship (or any other type of relationship, for that matter). Even though I haven't broached the subject(s) of religion/atheism in a while, there still seems to be some kind of lingering resentment. It's almost like she thinks I'm putting her down, or setting myself against her. I know she still loves me despite having such a radically different outlook, but there *is* a bit of damage, and it seems irreparable. And it's all because of blindness induced by religion.
This is a sad situation indeed my friend. I've spent years trying to find a gentle way to help ethereal addicts cross the moat separating them from reality, but the second anyone tries to draw them out of their castle of faith, their drawbridge goes up, and all their marksmen take aim from every corner. Religion is one of the most potent and contagious diseases this planet has ever known, and incurable for most individuals, including your grandmother. I do hope you can fundamentally repair your relationship with your grandmother over time, but you now probably understand the full power of 'faith', such that faith even overrules the bond of family.
> I suppose what I want to say to the person who put the question to you is, there is no such thing as a harmless believer. There's always some kind of hostility exhibited whenever you contradict her/him, and there's very likely going to be some degree of damage to your relationship with the person.
Well said, and this is probably the most prolific example of some of the fallout of the 'harmless believer'.
> At least, that's my experience. I hope I was able to communicate my thoughts clearly.
Absolutely.
> Thank you for continuing to run this website!
And thank you for helping me with our mission. It's your selfless pursuit of helping others to see reality that represents what I consider to be the greatest contribution you can make to your fellow humans. You make a fine BetterHuman.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.19, 3.37, 6.84, 9.133, 22.324}
|
#325 - The pursuit of simplicity - October 05, 2007, 04:23 PM |
Mr. Sanben wrote back:
> 1. Which is really less probable: the complex universe and its inhabitants, (just think of the advent of gender to ensure birth, as one of thousands of examples) A) came about by chance and mutations, B) was created by a superior being? I am not talking about religion or scientific proof, just probability.
I know from your perspective it would seem that a superior being makes the most sense, but this is largely an assumption drawn upon the instinctual reaction to these notions, and the instincts 'like' simple, familiar answers. Unfortunately though, the instincts are not always correct, as in this situation. If you would take the time to read my free ebook Meme, and learn the process of evolution, you may come to understand how evolution works (which is nothing like you currently think you understand about it), and you'll also realize how much sense it does make. My book will also teach you about the nature of instincts, the G.O.D. instinct in particular.
> Why did the mutations result in order, rather than chaos?
Also explained in Meme in great detail, though in summary: most mutations are negative, resulting in the death of the entity, but once in a while a mutation is beneficial, which 'helps' the entity to survive, and this mutation is passed on to the entity's offspring, who then pass it on to their offspring, and so on, until virtually every entity has this positive mutation. Bad mutations die out, good mutations spread; this is how order manifests from chaos.
> there are laws such as gravity that hardly came about accidentally.
Nobody is trying to say that gravity came about by accident. Gravity is not explained by the process of evolution.
> 2. The newspaper O Seculo reported on the unexplained events at Fatima on October 13, 1917. If as sceptics say, only those present saw these events and were hallucinating, why did they all see the same spinning of the sun? They were not told what to expect. They could not have hallucinated having their clothes all dry instantly. These events occurred too long ago to be credible now for non-believers, but they occurred nonetheless.
And how can 'you' be certain? I can today go into a store and buy a newspaper that claims aliens have abducted 50 people, and all 50 people are willing to swear that this event occurred. Please understand my friend, there is nothing more abused than the power of the 'written' word (e.g. the Bible full of fables taught as fact). Something incredible happens when words are written down; it's almost as if these words are given 'automatic' credibility, based upon a misguided belief that there exists some unseen governing force that is supposed to verify the authenticity of all reading material. Well my friend, this governing force simply does not exist. It is possible for 'anybody' to write 'anything' with no verification whatsoever. So, please forgive me if I continue to discount the credibility of the written 'hearsay' example above, as nothing more than 'hearsay'.
> You do believe that Hammurabi existed, but the only proof is documents as in the above, not Science.
I think you're beginning to understand now that the credibility of the source is the determining factor of the credibility of the contents. Not all documents are created equal my friend.
> I too have a problem with organised religions and their consequences. But this is no reason to conclude that chance happenings are the explanation for the world.
Our opposition to religion is tangential to our real mission, which is to disprove the existence of a god. However, our endorsement of the theory of evolution has 'nothing' to do with the impiety of religion whatsoever. Even if religion was not evil (an oxymoron), the theory of evolution would still be as valid. In other words, we're not running to the theory of evolution because religion is a failure, we're pursuing it because it's the best theory we have.
> All atheists believe in "nature", but : why are things natural, why does H20 combine to make a substance that the earth, plants, and living beings need for Survival. How come our bodies developed melanin, otherwise light from a star would kill everyone?
My friend, all your questions are answered in Meme. You will learn a great deal from this resource. Education my friend, this is the path to wisdom, and out of ethereal addiction.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.308, 22.325}
|
#326 - Unstoppable Intelligent Design - October 05, 2007, 04:29 PM |
Ms. Beankite wrote:
> I have looked at your site, and I am a christian. I'm not here to say mean or useless things about your site(that would be a waste of not only your time, but mine too)
Indeed it would be.
> One reason I have never believed in evolution, or any scientific reasoning for how our earth came to be, is because I didn't understand where it all started. I mean, all these chemicals came together to create one big earth... where did the chemicals come from?
This is a 'huge' question my friend, but I do answer it in my free ebook Meme, which you can download from the BetterHuman.org literature page. Your question does not have a simple answer, and it may take you a very long time to fully understand all the material in the book, but that is the nature of the universe: complexity. Whatever you do though, please don't give up trying to understand it. The journey is quite difficult and often counter-intuitive, which is why it also took me so very long to transition from a mythology perspective to a reality perspective, but I didn't have anything like 'Meme' to guide my education.
I tried my best to make Meme 'readable' by most so please give it a try. If you have any questions about it at all, please don't hesitate to ask.
> In the short movie called "the watchmaker" it quoates "everything has to have a creater", there has to be a beginging to things.
{Watch it HERE}
A very disappointing and ill-informed video; very typical Intelligent Design religious propaganda. In fact, the narrator even states "the doctors from Oxford say cells came by chance...what's wrong with their thinking to have such odd notions"; which translates into "those highly educated people can't know better than me". Ask yourself, do you believe you are more knowledgeable than doctors from Oxford that have spent their lives studying and understanding the nature of things? A lot of religious people do, if for no other reason than they were taught to believe so.
It is the nature of humans to seek simplicity, and to dismiss things they don't understand, and this is why Intelligent Design is so appealing, because it's 'simple'. But, it's provably wrong, and unfortunately the right answer is very complicated so most people do not spend the necessary time and effort to learn it. For example, to compare the step-by-step process of evolution, to the random assembly of a watch, is very misinformed. Evolution is not the process of putting together millions of random pieces to form a complex object, it's actually much simpler than that, but it takes a book to explain all the steps, which is why I wrote my book, Meme. Please consider reading it to understand this wonderful process.
> and I was curious where you believed where and how it all begain? Where did the materials that created the earth come from if there wasnt a creater?
The Big Bang was the start of everything. A mindless blob that exploded, creating the universe we live in. It was no more of a conscious or planned event than a meteor strike. What happened before the Big Bang? Impossible to know, and probably will forever remain unanswerable. This is just something we must accept. Mother Nature never promised us all the answers.
Hope I was helpful,
Sean Sinjin
|
#327 - Heretical musings - October 05, 2007, 04:36 PM |
Mr. Clowtrack wrote back:
> I just wanted to make certain that you have received this email so I am sending it to you again just in case. It is my intention to pulverize you with the scientific knowledge of Personality, leaving you absolutely no room whatsoever to hide from and evade my aguments. I shall be demanding a specific answer to these arguments by leaving you no room whatsoever to pick and choose excerps from my writings that will enable you to be evasive. I will not relent due to your deceitfulness and lack of humility.
I believe I've unintentionally caused you great turmoil my friend, and for this I apologize. Let's see how I can justify my previous dismissal of your fantasy perspective with more clarity.
> I had not intended to pursue this debate because I did not want to cause you any unnecessary mental anguish.
Have no fear my friend. My mental state is quite secure.
> But having seen your audacity to publicize my arguments, it tells me that you really seem to lack mental penetration, to be so bold as to challenge me further.
Hmm...I'm not sure why 'bold' seems appropriate, unless of course you consider your perspective to be simply unquestionable in soundness. If so, then I think you will continue to perceive me as bold because I will most likely not submit to your quite irrational conjectures about the nature of the universe.
> I am left with no alternative but to emphatically expose you to reality.
My friend, I hope you recognize the serious 'discrediting' of any information flow when it is accompanied by 'emphatic' emotions. Also, your attempt to 'bully' me into submission will be most ineffective.
> You did not dare to answer my arguments directly, by evading all mention of Personality
You will have to forgive me my friend, but your extremely lengthy arguments were quite puzzling at best, were severely disjointed, and were impossible to rationalize with logic. I seriously couldn't make any sense out of it. The best I could gather is that you surmise that 'personality' is the most primitive organizing force in the universe, which of course, is meaningless; a clear demonstration of the insanity of an ethereal addict's severely corrupted mind.
I know my assessment of your ideas will be received as quite objectionable to you, but I feel it my duty to be direct and honest, and if you take offence to this, again, I firmly apologize. It is not my intent to insult you.
> , and yet you still have the audacity to publicize my arguments, in such a way, as though you had refuted my knowledge.
Again, I don't think your ideas make any sense whatsoever. It may be a failing in my ability to decipher your rationalizations, but I'm finding it difficult to believe that there are portions of your theory that could be elucidated upon in a manner that may vindicate your ideas. More likely, you've extended the idealistic ruminations of your instinctually-founded emotional platitudes (aka, the G.O.D. instinct), and fabricated your own highly convoluted and subjective interrelationships apparatus in your head, combining completely unrelated thoughts and emotions into a smattering of nonsensical connections. In other words, you've created your own boundless, rule-less religion, with no application of logic or science whatsoever. This, my friend, is why I dismiss your ideas, because, as with other religions, there's no value for demonstrating the validity of the ideas presented.
> This is inexcusable and leaves me no choice but to be confrontational, when I had in fact decided to be lenient.
You are fulfilling the same manifest destiny of all discussions I've held with ethereal addicts: if at first I don't respond to unjustified assuredness, then beat me down with aggression.
Now, on to your argument, in entirety:
> My arguments all showed very clearly that there is only One Person in existence. I demonstrated that God is this Person. Every human being can relate to an entity that we identify as a Person. This is not some mythological, ethereal, supernatural entity. I explained that Personal law is ( The expression of what is true). I also explained that since everything in this universe functions by the law of Gravity, that the two laws naturally contradict one another. Now, the Person associated with your physical body is aware of His own identity. He is aware that it is a false claim to identify His manner of behaviour with the behaviour of all others. In other words it is a falsehood, an offence against His law, to claim that His character behaves like other members of society when all members of society are in fact unconscious and He is not.
> Everything in this world behaves unconsciously. This includes every human being. The Person associated with your body is aware that His character is distinct from, and does not behave like any other. Identifying that Person's way of behaviour with other members of society is a falsehood, a crime against Personal authority.
> There is no excuse for any human being in the pretence that Personality behaves like others. It is a lie! The Person associated with you is aware of His own identity and manner of behaviour, just like He knows His own character and manner to be associated with all other Humans and it is only a matter of time before He compels one and all into obedience. Pretending that Personality and others are identical is soon to be annihilated. Personality and others are not the same and do not behave as such.
> You seem to have lacked the insight as to the FORCE you are contending with here, when I should have thought that it was obvious. Let me assure you that it is invincible!
I have decided to incorporate the above material into the BetterHuman.org weblog so that it can bear the scrutiny of all my readers, which hopefully satisfies your need to present your ideas in full. Personally, and respectfully, it remains my opinion that you are more insane than most ethereal addicts, again due to the extreme degree of internalized heretical commitment you hold to your perspective that most religious people lack. Most religious people just 'go with the flow', whereas you are 'madly' striking forth into your own domain of ethereal insanity.
Please believe me that I respect you as a person my friend, but I simply will not be able to extend this respect to your unique understanding of the universe because your perspective is completely devoid of discernible redemption.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 21.307, 22.327}