| Page 3 |
|
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:
#27 - How incorrect assumptions can generate false logic - Aug 07, 2005, 10:14 PM
#28 - Why do even very intelligent people still fall prey to religion? - Aug 07, 2005, 10:30 PM
#29 - Is BetterHuman.org's stand against religion driven by rage? - Aug 14, 2005, 02:20 PM
#30 - Does a reality perspective still require faith? - Aug 14, 2005, 02:37 PM
#31 - The role of genetics in our need for ethereal entities - Aug 14, 2005, 02:58 PM
#32 - Another round with the religious right... - Aug 14, 2005, 03:15 PM
#33 - Secularism and BetterHuman.org - Aug 14, 2005, 03:37 PM
#36 - Why is a reality perspective better than a religious one? - Aug 22, 2005, 09:00 PM
#37 - Is there magic in the world? - Aug 22, 2005, 09:08 PM
#38 - Breaking out the G.O.D. - Aug 22, 2005, 09:20 PM
#39 - How to die fearlessly - Aug 28, 2005, 02:51 PM
#40 - Why is BetterHuman.org trying to explain everything? - Aug 28, 2005, 03:07 PM
#41 - Does BetterHuman.org claim to have all the facts? - Aug 28, 2005, 03:18 PM
#42 - Education versus religion - Aug 28, 2005, 03:39 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
|
#26 - Is BetterHuman.org just repackaging the sales pitch of religion? - August 07, 2005, 09:30 PM |
Ms. Overpool wrote:
> I can not think of a time in human evolutionary history when it would have been advantageous to abandon everything we believed about our environment and our social companions when such beliefs had served us well in our life thus far.
Agreed with your specific point above, but I do not ask religious people to abandon everything. I merely ask them to relinquish their hold on the ethereal elements. In reality, this will have a very small impact upon the values and activities in their lives, only their motivations may change. Unfortunately, because people believe religion sows social order, it has proven difficult to demonstrate that virtually the entire remainder of social order and morality will remain unaffected and equally applicable in a non-ethereal perspective.
> you are appealing to the same search for meaning that draws people to other religions. Even though you try hard not to
Forgive me, but this is incorrect. I absolutely 'am' appealing to people's search for meaning because that is exactly what I am trying to give them a solution to. I went through my personal search for meaning and I finally found it, which is why I wrote Meme so that people can benefit from my journey out of ethereal addiction, into reality. I want others to know that the search for meaning and purpose cannot be answered by religion, it can only be answered by understanding yourself and accepting the limits of reality.
> you are most likley gaining a victory on the same grounds that Christians use to convince their followers that Judaism or Islam are wrong and hollow.
All of these philosophies are competing to provide answers to humankind's most fundamental questions, and in this context, yes, BetterHuman.org is attempting the same. It would be impossible to extricate BetterHuman.org from this competition and still be able to fulfill this mission. Though we do not relish engaging in confrontation, it is impossible to purport a reality perspective without defiling (even passively) opposing perspectives.
> they will be doing so because you have convinced them to have faith in you and in your beliefs- and faith is a very maladaptive and dangerous way to try and topple religion.
Admittedly, the 'entire' truth will always remain elusive to our ego-premised perspectives, and I'm sure that BetterHuman.org also suffers a degree of this handicap of the human mind. However, I will justify our perspective and non-tolerance of religions in that BetterHuman.org is much 'closer' to the truth than any religion can ever be because we utilize evidence instead of faith as a foundation, plus our philosophy is designed to quickly adapt to new 'facts', and ultimately we serve to liberate our members from tyranny instead of manipulate them as religions do. These attributes alone vindicate and make tolerable any as-yet-unrevealed shortcomings our perspective may suffer.
> Please don't put this e-mail on your weblog
I'm so very sorry, but I must insist upon utilizing the content here, for a few reasons: Your points were very well presented and intelligent and they will benefit many readers to come, you will remain anonymous, and you were fully aware of my caveat regarding posting contributing emails on my weblog. Please, if you submit in the future, understand that I may post anything you send. I receive a phenomenal amount of email and I do not have the luxury of time to engage in one-on-one conversations so my time must be utilized to the benefit of BetterHuman.org and its readers.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.26, 3.30, 3.38}
|
#27 - How incorrect assumptions can generate false logic - August 07, 2005, 10:14 PM |
Mr. Bardnorth wrote:
> I would like to point out that it is possible through mathematics to prove that something does not exist.
The world of religion rarely lends itself to the tools of a mathematical logical dissertation
> The reason that a logical proof cannot be offered to disprove the existence of God is that God really does exist.
Your same logic can be applied in reverse, my friend. The reason that a logical proof cannot be offered to 'prove' the existence of God is that God does 'not' exist.
> Evolution supposes that humans evolved from some material that was left here after the big bang. It requires more faith to believe that this material came from nothing rather than to believe that it came from something or someone.
My book, Meme, explains in great detail how matter was formed in the Big Bang. I'm afraid your assumptions are incomplete, my friend.
> There has to be a cause to generate the effect of the big bang.
Again, explained in my book
> (An associate who) wrote my college Physics book did much to insinuate at the end of the book that there is just too much out there to explain without relying on some sort of higher power.
This was a merely a result of their exasperation in attempting to understand all of reality from only a subset of information. Unfortunately, science cannot provide all the answers. This present shortcoming alone, however, does not necessarily imply that a higher power must exist, because absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Submitting to 'faith' is an easy out when things get too complicated; and reality is inherently complicated. There is no reason to believe that we are even capable of understanding all of the complexities of reality given the limited capacity of our primitive minds.
> I offer also a proof for the existence of an ethereal item. This proof begins with a realization of what takes place during the event of death. Death does not occur when the heart stops because a surge of electrical current can revive it. Death does not ... person and thus there must be some higher, etheral person who is responsible. Since the end of life is the loss of a soul the beginning of life must therefore be the implementation of a soul into the body.
Forgive me, but you do not understand that the illusion of consciousness (what you perceive as a metaphysical soul) is created upon the neural activity of the brain. There are many definitions of 'alive', but BetterHuman.org's choice is to define a living human being as one that has the presence of this brain activity.
Thanks for writing
Sean Sinjin
|
#28 - Why do even very intelligent people still fall prey to religion? - August 07, 2005, 10:30 PM |
Mr. Windglass wrote:
> I often wonder, what causes people like you and me to "come out of it" and others not?
There is a statistical correlation between atheism and education, though it is not as strong a trend as most atheists might anticipate. I do believe however that a strong curiosity instinct is an intrinsic attribute of an atheist. Not everybody wants to know the truth like we do.
> there are some who get more immersed in it after recovering from alcohol or substance abuse or some other distressing event.
People that 'find' religion in order to break away from their chemical addictions, are merely switching narcotics.
> Why are some well educated (I think) people unable to see the folly of religion?
Fear of death is a powerful adversary. It's amazing how faith-based programming can manipulate followers with this fear of death, into complete illogical submission. It must be appreciated that most religions are very ancient and well-matured meme-viruses that have mastered the art of fantasy and fear-based coercion. Even most of the people (priests) that perpetuate this virus of the mind are themselves infected and cannot see the truth either, for the virus manipulates these people by their egos and thirst for power. Everything religion professes to protect you from, it is. How greater of an evil than that can there be? Very few people are spared its grasp, even the more intelligent, because even intelligent people may not have enough information in their heads to separate fact from fantasy.
BetterHuman.org is working very hard to persuade people to have the courage to question their faith, and to expose themselves to a wide diversity of educational channels in the hope that the line separating mythology from reality becomes much easier to identify.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#29 - Is BetterHuman.org's stand against religion driven by rage? - August 14, 2005, 02:20 PM |
Mr. Cardhome wrote:
> very pleased to find your website and find someone else as iconclastic as myself!
It's unfortunately a rare perspective, but it's great to connect with those that do share this mindset.
> I wondered if you had been religious because recovered addicts are always the most disdainful of a habit!
Admittedly I have suffered at the hands of religion, having a very religious father and having been subjected to the full brunt of the religious meme-virus. Quite a mind-bending experience I must say. However, my natural curiosity and suspicion tendencies allowed me to see the cracks in the religious perspective and I couldn't force myself to overlook those cracks. Once I began peering into them (asking questions), it was unbelievable how quickly the entire 'land of Oz' unraveled into smoke and mirrors. It took me years to even understand how angry I was, and how humiliated I felt at being so duped by something that stands so painfully obvious in front of me today as the biggest con in the history of humankind.
But these now diminished feelings of anger and pain are not the primary motivator behind BetterHuman.org for I have dealt with these feelings long ago and moved on. I do hope that my work conveys a discipline representative of my goal of altruistic reality education, as opposed to disdain. No, my friend, most of my motivation stems from the fact that I am infinitely lonely on this planet. I feel like I've been zapped back into medieval times where the notions of sorcery and barbarism greatly outweigh intelligence. Most attempts to commune with my fellow humans usually boil down to an exercise in my accommodating their righteousness-empowered egos that serve to protect their faith perspective, rather than my truly connecting with them. Quite literally, I am surrounded by a world full of insane people that wholeheartedly believe in mythological creatures, some even ready to kill by it. Daily, I witness the devastating consequences of religious blasphemy and ignorance. Please read my collection of news clippings that represent what I am talking about.
My, and BetterHuman.org's mission, is to liberate all my brothers and sisters from this tyrannizing and intellectually stunting meme-virus, and into the full breadth of reality where the pains of life can be calloused or overcome instead of denied, where the rewards of life can be explored and maximized instead of put aside for the single-minded pursuit of a manufactured ethereal reward, and the most rewarding instinct we have, that of pure altruism, can finally surface and be placated; just to name a few.
> If you are keen to correspond I have much to say on the matter.
I look forward to your contributions. Please do not be insulted if I cannot respond to every email as I do receive quite a bit. I typically won't respond if my weblog already contains the appropriate material.
Thanks for the feedback,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}
|
#30 - Does a reality perspective still require faith? - August 14, 2005, 02:37 PM |
Ms. Overpool wrote back:
> For religious people their hold on the ethereal elements IS EVERYTHING - it is the basis of every moral decision they make, it is their very reason for existing - the cognitive dissonance involved in abandoning these beliefs is enormous
Agreed that the cognitive dissonance will be very disorienting, but I still maintain that the transition to an atheistic perspective has little impact on the daily activities of the vast majority of people. I use myself as an example. At a young age, I would probably represent a perfectly indoctrinated religious person, complete with an unwavering desire to please my ethereal entity. All my thoughts and actions contained some degree of religious programming. As I matured, my overwhelming curiosity unraveled the great deception, and I did find myself for a time without direction. However, to anyone on the outside, I was the same person, doing the same activities, and interacting the same.
I can honestly say that I was terrified of my first reactions to being godless, such as thoughts of not having any conscience (an absurd notion), or the prospect of true death, but as I muddled through those times, I came to realize that I was still much happier overall than from within the fantasy world of religion. No more did I have to pray to an unapproachable god that never heeded my needs, no more did I have to fear the inconceivable notion of hell, and no more did I have to kiss God's...hand.
I was free.
I did suffer for purpose, but once I realized that only I could define purpose for myself, the rest fell into place rather quickly. Since then I have become 'great' in my eyes, and I'm proud, strong, and...unwavering...in my commitment to myself. This is not to be confused with selfishness for a lot of that commitment involves showing love for my fellow humans, but I have replaced my need for a god, with my need to be the best I can be.
The point I'm trying to make is, the ethereal element of religion may be the foundation of a religious perspective, but the rest of life does stay in place when that foundation is removed (because it really doesn't exist anyway). The great fear of the concept of atheism is how much does it take away, and the truth is, nothing, because religion doesn't add anything but fantasy. The bulk of the suffering when moving to an atheistic perspective will be the disorientation, not the complete breakdown of reality. I promise you that it is a quick recovery (quite literally equal to having a near-death experience), and then the flood-gates to true happiness are opened forever.
> For most people searching for "meaning", I would think, they would be less receptive to "face it, you're going to die" than they would be to the ideas of a larger spiritual plan for the world, inviting them to be a part of something bigger than themselves.
Of course, immortality is the greatest gift imaginable. Reality cannot compete with that. However, we do not wish to employ lewd recruiting tactics, all we offer is the truth, and the truth is you're going to die forever. Now you can choose to reject that and bury yourself in ethereal addiction and denial, but like every human being on the planet, you will eventually get to the very last moment in your life, realize that you've been lying to yourself your entire life, and for what, to try and soothe the terror of this single moment with a deception. You can't outsmart yourself. If you have any doubts whatsoever in your faith (and virtually everybody does), those doubts will explode into full fury just before you die, and you will realize you've wasted your entire life in this desperate fantasy. In my opinion, that's worse than death.
> but I suspect that the people you are trying to appeal to will not critically assess the evidence and come to their own independant conclusion,
I'm glad you've surfaced this excellent point. Faith, in the purest sense of the word, is required to hold 'any' perspective, religious, or scientific. Interpretation of observations is always subject to bias, limitations, prejudice, and error and therefore there is no such thing as a verifiable fact (also, in the purest sense of the word). This leaves us with a 'probability'-based fact system, where 'facts' are decidedly almost 100% true, but not quite perfect.
Most religious people's first reaction to this notion is that religion has been vindicated, but they fail to understand that the facts that support science undermine the 'facts' that support religion, but not vice-versa. Religion is actually encapsulated by the sciences of the mind (philosophy, psychology) and its entire contents are but a tiny subset of a much larger library of abstract constructs that assimilate all known facts from a phenomenal number of scientific disciplines. By assessing probabilities to the chances of the tiny religious world's 'facts' being able to discredit the colossal structure of scientific method based information, it is easy to see how preposterous and unlikely that is to be the case. This is difficult to see from within the religious shell because their entire world is simplified to fit within it, and from inside this world it is easy to declare its completeness and accuracy, not having much else to dissect it with. However, stepping outside of this shell into the other disciplines will quickly empower the student with the knowledge and wisdom necessary to distinguish obvious fantasy, from likely fact.
True, for most people it will be impossible to acquire a complete knowledge pool of reality in the sense that they truly understand everything that reality is (which I believe is an impossible amount of information) and therefore requires some degree of faith in the interpretations of observations that are handed down to us from the superior scientific minds that operate on this frontier. That being said, it is still quite possible for everyone to learn 'enough' to be able to finally understand religion as mythology, and to see the ulterior mechanics that continue its propagation. All I ask is for faith that I can take you far enough into reality so you can see for yourself that religion is nothing more than tyrannized mythology.
Thanks again,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.26, 3.30, 3.38}
|
#31 - The role of genetics in our need for ethereal entities - August 14, 2005, 02:58 PM |
Mr. Juneframe wrote:
> I support your action to push your fellow-men to realize we are alone on this earth, there is no other place in the deep-cold universe for us to live and we have to survive together.
Well said.
> But religious feelings are part of the human nature. We are born with this feeling.
Fantastic observation my friend! This is an incredibly important point. There is most definitely a biological foundation for our need to worship, and I'll justify this with a similar scenario. Since the dawn of communication between our ancient ancestors, over a great amount of time we have evolved from producing shrill whistles, to grunts, to pitches, to music, to words; all the result of the ever-evolving dexterity of our larynx (voicebox). It seems almost magical that nature would provide us such a wonderful tool for communication, but it really is simple evolutionary theory. The amount of precise control we have over the sounds we emanate, directly corresponds to the natural selectivity in nature we have, simply on the fact that controlled sounds equals better communication, thereby increasing survivability. This means that evolution of the voicebox was a passive result of our need to communicate. Biological evolution driven by memes.
Likewise, the concept and integration of perceiving ethereal entities has existed for virtually the same amount of time in our evolutionary history, and drawing upon the prior reasoning that biological evolution is driven by memes, it is quite reasonable to believe that over eons of evolution we have evolved a direct biological support system in our brains to facilitate the concept of ethereal entities. We are 'wired' to believe.
Millions of years of evolution while being deeply immersed in various religious perspectives, has planted this chunk of instinct into our brains that requires stimulation from an ethereal entity, but unfortunately for it, we're finally evolving intellectually enough to know that there is no such thing. Is this ethereal entity instinct to be left to rot? Not a chance, it's very demanding of placation as I'm sure most religious people will attest to. So how do we satiate this obsolete instinct without further propelling the fantastical notions of ethereal entities?
I wasn't going to introduce this outside of my book because it is very much out of context, but since we stepped into this arena with your statements, it may be digestible after all. In my book, Meme, I have created the concept of the G.O.D., which stands for 'Governing Overseer Device' and I believe this is one of my most important discoveries. The G.O.D. is for stimulating the aforementioned chunk of instinct responsible for giving us that wonderful feeling of being 'one with the creator'. It is very real, despite its formulation out of mythology. So what do we do with the G.O.D.? Everything that you would conceivably do with a religious god: rely on it for guidance, judgment, strength, wisdom, punishment, and protection. The vast dynamics of it are far too many to enumerate here but it is the single most powerful tool you can utilize in your search for meaning and happiness.
Now I don't want there to be any confusion about the nature of the G.O.D., there is no ethereal quality to it whatsoever, it is simply a tool to feed an instinct that evolved to facilitate a belief in an ethereal entity. Placation of this instinct is just as necessary as any other instinct but the only way to placate it from within a reality perspective is to re-wire its feeds back into yourself such that 'you' can provide it with relevant stimulation. Essentially, you manifest this imaginary godlike being in your mind and allow it to serve the same role in your life as the typical ethereal version would, the obvious difference being that there is no deception, and no magic. I can't begin to tell you how utterly 'real' the results are, far greater than anything I've ever encountered during my days (daze?) as a religious youth.
My book, Meme, has endless examples of how and when to use this tool, and I personally give my understanding and utilization of my G.O.D. full credit for propelling my growth to self-fulfillment and happiness. For example, sometimes I find my drive to continue BetterHuman.org weakened by the incredible resistance generated by ethereal addicts from all over the world that bury me with contemptuous and enraged emails, but when I feel weak, I get the pat on the back from my G.O.D. and it assures me that I'm doing the right thing, and then my commitment is completely renewed. My G.O.D. is the most powerful force in the universe. I imagine that this perspective equates to a religious person feeling like they have become one with their god. 'Perfect' is the only word that comes close. You all have a G.O.D. too, don't waste it on religion.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
|
#32 - Another round with the religious right... - August 14, 2005, 03:15 PM |
Mr. Wheatstart wrote back:
> Do you have any facts that support your statements that becoming a faith leader is motivated by selfishness, that the typical personality of a priest is a megalomaniac, and that they love power?
Evidence of this nature would always be subjective, but I think it was quite obvious that it was my opinion, not something that should be construed as absolute fact. I, however, draw upon my personal exposure to a large number of priests that I've met through circumstance (church attendance, weddings, etc.) in order to make this judgment. Now normally I wouldn't throw such a volatile opinion out there but I want to get readers thinking about the nature and motivations of the people that foster ethereal addiction; knock them off their pedestal per se.
> supply a drug habit? When does a drug dealer hand anyone anything for free? All over the world you may attend churches with no obligation of any kind.
I promise you, if you take the collection plate out of the church, there will be no church. It is 'entirely' about money and power. Drug dealers will not deal drugs for free.
> I would be very interested in your facts.
Forgive me, but how can you ask me for facts when you don't need them to support your own perspective? Do you not see your demand for proof to be somewhat hypocritical in light of your having 'faith' in the ethereal without proof?
> With over 5000 sources of documented manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, predictive prophecy, and statistical science it shows itself to be the most unique piece of literature ever created. This is your idea of a poor teaching resource?
Unique? Yes. Accurate? Well, that depends upon how much subjective license and mythological augmentation you are prepared to filter through in order to get to the actual historical events upon which these stories are premised. Even though the root of a given story may contain some historical accuracy of a real human event, it still lends no credibility whatsoever to the existence of an ethereal entity.
> Your intolerance shows does not leave any room for a civilized exchange of ideas that does not seem characteristic of a better human.
Our mission is to educate the masses towards a reality perspective. By definition, this precludes the presence and tolerance of all mythological perspectives. This is not meant to be antagonistic, though it is often received as such, but reality and mythological ideologies are absolutely incompatible, and therefore cannot coexist in mutual tolerance. It may be hard to understand from your perspective, but our verbal opposition to religion is actually quite altruistically intended, and therefore comfortably fits within any definition of a 'better human'.
> ...believe you yourself were a young child that learned this system and then challenged these notions. If so, you are a contradiction to your own statement.
I believe I am a very rare example of someone that has pulled themself out of ethereal addiction. It took me years to identify and eradicate all the nonsensical 'factoids' and prejudices that religion had instilled in me, and I have a full appreciation of the challenges facing anyone that may take the same course. You cannot use me as proof that people 'choose' their path, because I was lucky.
> Then there are many biblical tenets that are applicable today? This is a different statement than the one I disagreed with. Are you looking only to eliminate the ones that mention God?
I have mentioned in many weblog entries that morality is not something that religions own, but merely interpret. Human instincts provide us with all the social morality impetus necessary to retain, and in fact improve, social order. Whichever tenets of religion that were hijacked from our natural instincts, will of course remain equally applicable in a reality perspective. Murder, for example, is even more intolerable in our philosophy than yours. Please read this prior post: 2.17.
> Where did you get the fact that homosexuals are born that way? There is absolutely no scientific evidence for this statement. I challenge you to provide to me scientific study that "proves" genetic causation of homosexuality.
Perhaps if you speak with a homosexual or two, they may convince you that homosexuality is not a choice, or a result of social environment; it is who they are.
> I am not revolted by homosexuals I merely believe that that homosexuality is morally wrong that it why it is categorized along with cheating and stealing. I am no more revolted by a homosexual then I am a thief. I agree that any philosophy that teaches hatred is wrong. Christianity does not teach you to hate a homosexual it simply states that homosexuality is wrong just like it states that stealing is wrong. Anyone can look at the physiological makeup of people and see that we are not made for homosexuality and the myriad of medical problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle are also well documented.
Wow. I'm speechless.
> The proof of the existence of God is all around you my friend, shed the scales from your eyes, and behold the inescapable fact of the design of the universe.
It's often very difficult to determine how much the 'interpretation' of any observations can dilute the validity of it being 'evidence'. For example, for the bulk of humankind's existence, the vast majority of people believed the world to be flat, simply based upon the consistent observation of the world appearing to be flat. To imagine the world as a ball was well beyond the scope of available empirical 'evidence', but that didn't change the fact that the world is round. So, in essence, evidence is always subject to interpretation and is never concrete. Likewise, the fundamental root of a religious perspective, the ethereal entity, will forever remain unobservable directly, and the only 'evidence' for its existence is the 'interpretation' of seemingly inexplicable observations. In this context, science too sometimes suffers from misinterpretation of observations, but it's important to recognize that science quickly adapts to the evolution of newer information that may contradict prior 'evidence', something that religions cannot do due to their large investment in the initial 'interpretation' of observations, without jeopardizing their power structure.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
|
#33 - Secularism and BetterHuman.org - August 14, 2005, 03:37 PM |
Mr. Applecrane wrote:
> I enjoyed scanning around on your website.
Thank you very much.
> tell me how your tenets, views, philosophy, etc. meshes with secular humanism?
There are many definitions and applications of secularism, but the fundamental definition is to preclude the influence of religion in matters. Some governments, for example, attempt to be secular with the philosophy, 'separation of church and state'.
Secularity is definitely a foundation of BetterHuman.org, however, we greatly extend this principle. For example, we add the quality of secularization, meaning that we do not ignore the presence of religion, but rather we 'confront' (with reality education) the ethereal elements of religion directly, instead of only rejecting it, as in typical secularism.
As well, secularism is as bland as pure atheism when it comes to being human, in that it does not define the positives, such as purpose, morals, etc.; it is but a subset of what could be considered a complete and fulfilling perspective. BetterHuman.org attempts to complete an atheist/secular perspective by filling in the necessary 'human' factors with clear definitions of inner-personal and intra-personal skills, knowledge, purpose, and perspectives. By defining reality and purpose in a human-needs context, BetterHuman.org's tenets can give its members the tools necessary to find contentment and happiness in their lives, far beyond what just a strict isolation from religion could provide.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.33, 5.71}
|
#34 - Did the ancient observation of aliens spawn our belief in the ethereal? - August 14, 2005, 03:45 PM |
Mr. Siderain wrote:
> Is it possible that a mobile group of extra-terrestrials made a pit stop on our planet and ran into us humans?
Very brave question! An interesting notion but I personally don't give much credibility to this theory, though not for conventional reasons. Typically, the resistance to the notion of alien lifeforms is founded in religious prejudice, and a lack of understanding of evolution theory. I, however, firmly believe it is extremely probable that life exists on many of the quinzillions of planets in our universe. We are not the only planet capable of evolving life, in fact, the seeds of life (nucleotides) are virtually everywhere in the universe, just looking for an eligible planet to impregnate.
Despite having said this, I do not believe that religion was spawned from our ancestors witnessing aliens, for two reasons: 1) The sheer persistence, diversity, primeval, and ubiquitous nature of all religions that have ever been or still are, leads me to believe that it must be a product of our human psyche, and 2) I believe that any form of biological evolution that exists in the universe, will eventually outstrip itself by the artificial forms of intelligence that it creates. In other words, biological life will let its technology do its exploring for it. There are examples of this already in how we humans perform exploration, such as the undersea robots that explore the incredible depths of the ocean, or instead of sending humans, we send robots to Mars .
Though humans may someday wander around the solar system, it is a completely different matter for interstellar travel. You see, physics introduces some serious ramifications for high velocity travel, and in order to get to the nearest star (4 light years away) in a reasonable amount of time, the velocity would have to approach the speed of light, making a round trip of 8 years (not for the passengers but that's a whole can of worms I won't open here. It's in my book, Meme, however). It would be very difficult to justify the need to send live humans 4 light years away, when it makes much more sense to send machines to do our observations for us. We are not built for interstellar travel, and quite likely, any other conceivable forms of biological life will also be intrinsically tied to the environment from which it evolved. If we are ever to witness anything alien, I predict it will be more machine or artificial life, than biological.
This then begs the question, are modern day alien sightings legitimate? My answer is, if there is only mention of alien machinery (UFO's), then perhaps there's a remote chance of it being accurate, but if someone claims there are physical beings performing anal probes, chances are some illicit chemicals were involved and someone was sexually victimized.
> Even though I came to and left your website as an Atheist, I think what youre doing is a great way to show the billions of religious people the truth of our vast (and possibly infinite) universe.
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
|
#35 - Famous self-proclaimed atheists that converted back to a mythological perspective - August 22, 2005, 08:40 PM |
Mr. Wheatstart wrote back:
> Short list of very well educated people that converted from Atheism to Christianity: ASA Jones, G.Z. Jordan, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel
I don't believe most people that claim to convert from atheism to any religion, ever truly were atheist. Please read my earlier weblog entries 2.15 and 3.28
Till next time...
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
#36 - Why is a reality perspective better than a religious one? - August 22, 2005, 09:00 PM
Mr. Partgrass wrote:
> The thing is, we aren't going to run out of religion so you actually have to convince people to give it up. Just imagine trying to convince everyone to stop drinking? You have to replace it with something much more powerful and I don't think what you are replacing it with necessarily fits the bill. You're proposing replacing eternal life with what? Death? Man, that sucks.
That's not quite right my friend, I'm not replacing anything, I'm merely 'exposing' what is already true, that there is 'no' afterlife, no rebirth, no second go-around of any form. No amount of faith, denial, praying, or wishful thinking in the universe is going to change that cold, hard fact. Whether you choose to believe it or not, we are all in the same godless reality, like it or not. The unfortunate thing is that one has to be educated away from a religious perspective (out of the ethereal addiction) before this reality can be seen, but I am quite certain that most people would want, in fact 'need', to know what the truth really is, no matter how painful. Would you prefer to have grown up into an adult still believing in Tooth Fairy? Or would you rather have learned there is no such thing? Unfortunately, religion has instituted such a plethora of mental barriers and punishments should one attempt to pursue the truth that these victims are largely rendered incapable of thinking objectively for themselves and are forever contained in a shell of fantasy perspective.
The reason it is so important to have a reality perspective is due to the fact that all of your decisions are based upon your perspective, and if you have a fantasy perspective then you risk making decisions or performing actions that ultimately have little or no logical merit, and yet have huge ramifications in reality (e.g. terrifying children with fantastical notions of a burning hell, teaching that condom use is a sin, committing murder or suicide in the name of a god, giving your precious money to churches, etc.). Only a reality perspective will give you the best mental toolset possible for adapting to the challenges of life.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
|
#37 - Is there magic in the world? - August 22, 2005, 09:08 PM |
Ms. Timecrate wrote back:
> I would like to know what you have to say about "speaking in tongues". My cousin and brother were talking about it, and my cousin mentioned having gone to a church where a woman was speaking in tongues. The gentleman that was with him asked "How does she know Zulu?" My cousin insists that she did not know the language previously. My brother said, "Well, that must be God trying to send a message to the guy who knows Zulu."
This, my friend, is absolute nonsense. There are a few scenarios that could explain the above.
1) The lady is insane and is babbling nonsense, and the 'Zulu-speaking' gentleman decided to exploit this situation for his own entertainment/attention pursuits.
2) The lady is not insane and is speaking Zulu, which she actually does speak, and now has decided to manufacture this scenario for her own entertainment/attention pursuits.
3) Neither the lady nor the gentleman speak Zulu but they decided to manufacture this scenario for their own entertainment/attention pursuits.
This scene is nothing more than a very lewd, juvenile, and pathetic ploy to garner attention. It must be seen as extremely convenient that someone speaking Zulu (a relatively obscure language spoken by about 9 million people in South Africa) just happened to witness this lady speaking Zulu. Of course there's probably nobody else that speaks Zulu within earshot so their claims are relatively undisputable, unless of course you are an atheist.
Please trust in this; if anyone...'anyone'...claims to have had communications with an ethereal being, or have in some way been channeled by an ethereal being, or claims to have psychic abilities, or can tell the future, or has memories of a prior life, or moves things with their mind, or reads your palms, or tea leaves, or cards, stars, dice, bones, etc...
they are simply, and utterly...lying;
all for the purpose of their own ego-feeding/entertainment/attention/monetary pursuits. That is all there is to it, they are a fraud, and there are no exceptions.
The only magic we humans are capable of is learning. That is our greatest gift, and the thing most worth pursuing.
Take care my friend and please write again,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.19, 3.37, 6.84, 9.133, 22.324}
#38 - Breaking out the G.O.D. - August 22, 2005, 09:20 PM
Please first read this related prior post (3.31) if you haven't already.
Ms. Overpool wrote back:
> Troubling. You agreed with an e-mail that suggested that we a born with a 'feeling' or an 'instinct' to believe in the ethereal world. An instinct which you have (unfortunately) labelled G. O. D. (Governing Overseer Device).
It took me quite a while to label this instinct because I kept trying to avoid attaching the name to its mythological foundation. But, once I realized that it really was the full extent of a 'god' in our minds anyway, G.O.D. seemed appropriate, not only because the acronym works so well with its function ("Governing Overseer Device"), but that it also fills the slot in our minds where mythological gods reside, forcing this fantasy out. I believe the name 'G.O.D.' perfectly describes the mechanism needed to feed this ethereal instinct I am identifying.
How I even came to this conclusion is due to my own experience of trying to fill the hole that was left when I vanquished mythology from my life. It was perplexing to me that I couldn't ignore the need for judgment or higher purpose (I just know the religious zealots are going to leverage that statement). Nothing I could do would shake it, and I came to realize that there really was some instinctual psychological pressure generating this need. I also came to realize that this instinct is the reason it is so difficult to shake someone's faith in the ethereal, because it feels 'unnatural' to be godless. So, unable to surmount this need, I decided to see if I could work out some form of compromise with it, and once I created the G.O.D., pow! My life changed forever.
> I think there is a huge biological hole in this idea. Human language (not to be confused with vocal speech) did not evolve long enough ago (we're only talking about a few hundred thousand years) to allow the evolution of a G. O. D. or any other previously absent instinct to become centrally embedded in our natural behaviour.
I disagree. In fact, I believe the 'notion' of ethereal creatures may have even existed long before the ability to communicate verbally. It's very difficult to imagine the perspective of our great ancestors but it's conceivable that a combination of predatorial and environmental fears (e.g., shadows in the dark, thunderstorms), mixed with the need for a parental figure for protection, may have fostered the abstract concept of ethereal creatures in their primitive minds long ago. I believe the evolution of our communication abilities through verbal meme transfer greatly accelerated and homogenized the development of the ethereal entity concept (and probably serves as a significant introductory point), but most definitely at least the notion of it is very ancient.
Of course these are assumptions, but I also have another example of memes driving biological evolution. The sheer size of our brain is largely the product of the evolution of our social complexity. We need to have a tremendous reservoir of 'memory' and 'spatial intelligence' in order to contain and cross-reference a phenomenal amount of information to produce strategies in our ceaseless pursuit of instinctual placations, most notably the reproductive instincts. Anthropology has demonstrated a continuous trend of increasing brain mass over time, even within a timeframe that may not nearly rival the existence of our larynx (voicebox). This illustrates that significant evolution has occurred even during the existence of memetic communication.
> Also for such an instinct to evolve, there would need to be selective pressure in favour of that instinct - and I fail to see what these pressures would be.
{All letters from this contributor: 3.26, 3.30, 3.38}
Evolution is an on-going process that happens at a deceptively quick rate. So, if it is possible for our brains to significantly grow in mass in less time than we've had the ability to transfer memes, it still stands fairly reasonable to me that the persistent influence of an ethereal perspective throughout all of humanity's memetic capability, has created a parameter that natural selection has incorporated; even if only from a social fitness perspective. The more integrated one was with the ethereal perspective of their time, the more likely they were to be selected by a mate. Heretics simply didn't reproduce as often due to social incongruency, and this genetically skewed the population's offspring towards a more ethereally-receptive disposition.
> The alternate view of how religion came about ties it to our burgeoning intelligence, for which there were countless selective pressures to increase such mental capacities. An inevitable result of higher mental faculties, including curiosity, and a need to manipulate and control the environment, is the tendency to explore and explain storms, earthquakes etc etc. For primitive people this explained bad weather and other unfortunate happenings and gave them a route (worship) by which they could try to prevent such happenings.
I agree completely with everything you have stated above (please read my Glack excerpt from Meme). I wish to make it clear that at the dawn of our ancestor's ability to communicate, there was only the foundation for the ethereal instinct; that being the need for parental care, love, protection, and ego placation. Since then, this subtle ethereal instinct 'evolved' as a direct result of all the points you mention above, to where it is today in the form of a nagging yearning for affinity with the super-natural.
Now, I am completely aware of how difficult the notion of a G.O.D. is to digest, it almost seems like an unnecessary step back from the direction of logic and atheism. But you must agree that there will be at least 'some' biological consequences to eons of evolution of being immersed in an ethereal perspective. I am attempting to sum these biological consequences into the classification of an instinct because instincts by definition generate thoughts and behaviors, to which I believe appropriately applies to the effects of this ethereal instinct.
As unfortunate as it is that we have evolved something so intellectually debilitating, I don't believe it is healthy to ignore the ethereal instinct either; it wants something bigger than you to feed it, so that's why I created the G.O.D., to plug that hole, whilst still allowing us to stay within a reality perspective. I have put an excerpt up on my website that is much more elaborate in describing the G.O.D. Please have a read.
> I also think you need to weight your website away from having a clear defined set of tenets - with each defined rule, you further risk alienating a lot of people unnecessarily.
I do agree that some of my tenets are out of scope for my anti-religious mantra, but they all play a vital role in BetterHuman.org's much greater mission to provide definition for a purposeful and fulfilling happy life. Eliminating religion is but a small part of the overall path. Admittedly, the tenets in their condensed form lose a lot of the foundation that justifies them, but my book, Meme, elaborately reinforces the justification for these tenets, always with the same underlying themes: logic and altruism.
Many of the politically sensitive issues we face these days are only sensitive due to religious perspectives. For example, abortion is absolutely apprehensive to some religions, but within a scientific/societal context, there are scenarios in where it is in the best interests of all involved to have an abortion. To have a debate on this matter between these two contexts of perspective (religious and not), immediately justifies, nay 'demands', the interjection of BetterHuman.org, in order to weed out the ethereal element and reduce the problem to reality. This is not meant to imply that abortion is always right, or that we endorse abortion, but it does mean that religion has no role in that decision. Our first tenet, "do whatever you want as long as nobody gets hurt", is responsible for our motivation to prevent other people from dictating the appropriateness of someone else's abortion.
> this implies support for abortion and some may see it as contradicting the "don't hurt others" rule
Great point, and I'm glad you brought this up. Is the aborted fetus being hurt? The answer is, in the case of first-trimester abortions, no. There is no victim. The lump of flesh that will eventually become recognizable as human, is not yet capable of 'sensing' anything; it is completely functionless and unaware. It reaches deep into our psyche when we try to imagine harming our precious offspring. So many instincts flare up in direct response to protecting our young, all without conscious thought; and this point is key, 'without thought'. Technology has enabled us to perceive the existence of our young (e.g. pregnancy tests) long before any external signs would show, and this inadvertently leads us to extend our protection instincts to before a point in its development that is nonsensical. To some, their p/maternal instincts have kicked in prematurely and now serve to protect an incognitive mass from suffering.
An aborted first-trimester fetus is not a baby, it is a lump of cells, no more human than a muscle, and so this protection instinct is not appropriate to apply at this time. Now, it is perfectly fine to feel any way you please about your own fetus, at any point in its development. It only becomes improper when you wish to impose this unwarranted thoughtless instinctual reaction onto other people's lives; made even more perverse when justified from a religious context because there is no such thing as a metaphysical 'soul' to consider.
As for the rest of your points, they were excellent, but all were previously considered during the years of BetterHuman.org's manifestation. However, the path we are taking is very elaborate and diverse, not limited to the elimination of religion, and the tenets form a very crucial part of our direction. Though political correctness has its roots in the noble pursuit of tolerance, it has the tendency to avoid necessary confrontation or exposure, which I believe is often necessary to usurp ignorance or to pierce through the infinite depths of the human ego. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is not always the most noble path.
I will again make it clear that BetterHuman.org does not attempt to be politically correct when it does not represent our mission, and we are not attempting to please everyone, or even some. We have defined (and redefined many times based upon feedback) tenets that proactively establish the structure necessary to facilitate the fulfillment of our natural inclination towards a perfectly happy and harmonious society, and at the risk of alienating many people due to the challenging nature of these tenets, we still hold true to them.
We are not here to recruit, we are here to teach.
Thank you so much for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.26, 3.30, 3.38}
|
#39 - How to die fearlessly - August 28, 2005, 02:51 PM |
Mr. Roundmoor wrote:
> However, I'm curious about your position on the unknown. Yeah, we die, worms eat us and that's that, however, how do you answer the recursive question of what came before that.
My friend, this is a monstrous question, and the answer represents the first 300 pages of my book, Meme. Any attempt to answer that question with just a paragraph would serve it no justice whatsoever.
> It's just a perplexing phenomena that the human mind can ask questions that it can never answer.
Our natural state of existence should be one of discovery and exploration. The instant you believe you understand everything in the universe, you have just bought into your own religion. We will probably never know everything. There will always be new things to learn and discover.
> Thus scared to go on "not knowing", religion was born to fill the gap and "explain everything".
...to placate our massive egos
> Where in any religion, does it answer what came before this religion, and how was that super natural spirit created, and where did he/she come from.
The convenient answer I usually get is..."it always existed", which is the only answer religion can give to avoid having to fabricate some more mythology in order to explain 'its' creation.
> for one to really be at peace they have to be comfortable with the unknown and not fear it.
Alas, humans do not have control over their fear instinct, and this is why the narcotic of faith is so appealing because it actually does generate a placebic relief of these fears. However, I personally believe the only true path to inner peace begins the day that you reject mythology and accept your inevitable death. Once you have surmounted this phenomenally difficult and terrifying fact, you will become empowered to maximize the caliber of your life while you still live, and this, my friend, is the beginning of confronting and usurping the terrifying challenges of life, and the beginning of inner peace. A lifetime of education, diversity, and empathy will empower you with the inner peace we all seek. On your deathbed, if you can look back upon your life with pride, fulfillment, and wisdom...you will have a truly fearless death, something ethereal addicts will never know.
Thanks for writing
Sean Sinjin
|
#40 - Why is BetterHuman.org trying to explain everything? - August 28, 2005, 03:07 PM |
Mr. Maplepin wrote:
> few days ago I've enthusiastically read most everything on it and will soon be purchasing your book. It takes substantial courage to do what you're trying to do with BetterHuman.org - and you have earned my respect and admiration for it.
Thank you so much for the generous compliment!
> I studied world religions and attended Christian churches to learn all about what I'd been missing. What I found is that blind faith is dangerous (i.e. religious terrorists), the church is (at the most basic level) preying on our instinctive fear of death, and that all I had to do to be "saved" was have "faith" (and give as much money as possible).
Well said.
> I have never required a "faith system" in order to do the right thing; I feel the pure joy of altruism for the sake of it. On a related note, that little voice that talks to all of us, often about matters of morality, IS NOT a god (as you well know). It is the cumulative voices of countless generations of human, proto-human, and non-human ancestors telling us what it took for them to survive.
Again, well said
> I don't understand why you are compelled to try and explain so many things.like the origin of the universe, particle physics, and even prescribing a voting system based on one's "intelligence"? Why try to explain practically "everything" or even pose models for societal reorganization? Shouldn't THE (your / my) overriding priority be to free as many minds as possible, as soon as possible?
You have to look at it in terms of the desired goal, the 'permanent' eradication of religion. Simply removing religion from our current type of society will do nothing to prevent its resurgence at a later date because the current structure of our societies is geared to manifest and support religion. Unless radical changes in our education system take place, cultism will perpetually find a niche to exploit. Unfortunately, the only way the education systems will ever change is via our government's dictation, which, mathematically speaking, could never happen in an even-weighted voting democracy because there are too many voters already deeply immersed in ethereal addiction. With the restructuring of our government to a form that instead represents the more intelligent and empathic of our people, anti-cult legislature could surface and effectively 'prevent' future religious meme-virus infections. (Please read this prior post: 1.3).
It is imperative when condemning one perspective, to have an alternative to offer, otherwise you solely empty people's lives. We, as humans, will always need some kind of direction in life in order to find meaning and purpose. We are very introspective animals, and without a set of social/moral/intellectual/instinctual guidelines with which to evaluate our thoughts and/or actions, we would have no frame of reference to gauge our effectiveness in the pursuit of quality of life. Within my book, Meme, I have attempted to provide meaningful purpose, and give solid, scientifically-supported answers to the questions that religions claim to answer: Where did we come from? What is the point of life? What happens when we die?, etc. These questions do not have simple answers, they require a great deal of explanation that draws upon all disciplines of the sciences, and that is why you see apparently unrelated information in the book. But, trust in that everything is tied together, and if you want to know why we're here today stuck to this Earth...you have to start with the Big Bang. I've done my best however to make the content as easily digestible as possible for those less scientifically inclined.
Our necessary transition away from an ethereal perspective cannot be taken lightly, or even in baby steps; there is a radical paradigm shift in perspective that needs to be undertaken in order to effectively weed out the ubiquitous integration of ethereal influence, to prevent further infection, and to truly understand ourselves enough to make the pursuit of happiness possible. We don't simply want to put out the fire, we want to plant fireproof trees.
> Perhaps this is covered more in your book, but BetterHuman.org doesn't dedicate much positive space to the pretend or the imaginary.
BetterHuman.org does not in any way attempt to restrict the notion of fantasy, stories, mythology, or otherwise, as long as it remains in the category of fiction. It is only when fiction is taught as fact, even if only for a short period of time (like Santa Claus is for kids), that BetterHuman.org wishes to identify as completely unacceptable. Some may balk at this, insisting that there is no harm done in letting a child believe in a magical world for a while, but therein lies the fundamental lack of understanding of how religions came about in the first place. Tell your kids the truth, always. There's just as much fun and 'magic' in the real world without the need to confuse the lines between fantasy and reality.
> Part of your personal story is overcoming the psychological damage that religion caused you; you're obviously angry about this and it comes through clearly in the writings on your website. I understand your anger and believe that it is totally justified. However, experience has taught me that anger will turn-off some folks who might otherwise be receptive to your ideas. I would like for BetterHuman.org to appeal to the broadest possible audience,
Thank you for the advice. I do agree that there are some passionate diatribes in my weblog, and perhaps some contemptuous words or thoughts that may have been better composed, but I don't believe that I am nearly as anger-motivated as you suggest. My motivation is largely altruistic in nature. I will sometimes use potentially loaded words and ideas for effect, but that is more to 'shock' people into considering different points of view, not because I am angry. I'm well past any damage that religion has inflicted upon me and now I am simply taking apart the colossal religious manifold, one fantasy piece at a time, to help other people avoid becoming victims. The terminology I use is precise and appropriate, albeit, often loaded from a religious perspective, but that alone doesn't justify altering the usage of the correct words.
As for people that would be turned away by my writings, I doubt there would be much I could say to garner their support in the first place since they are probably looking for any reason to discard my thoughts. I don't intend my work to be largely negative, rather more informative and logical; but cold, hard text is always subject to interpretation and if I lose some potential support from a few sensitive people, at least I was completely honest with them, and true to myself. Try reading some of my more 'expressive' work again, but with the mental voice of someone calm and impassive; I think you'll find the text lends itself to that presentation style as well.
> Your work and the BetterHuman.org website are of extraordinary importance. Best wishes to you and to the worthy cause of advancing a reality-based agenda.
And thank you for recognizing the devastating consequence of religion in our societies.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
|
#41 - Does BetterHuman.org claim to have all the facts? - August 28, 2005, 03:18 PM |
Mr. Wheatstart wrote back:
> I can understand that logic and the ones (faith-leaders) that put themselves on a pedestal should be knocked off. I also am drawing on my personal experience when I state that most do share their Christian worldview because they genuinely care about people not because they are selfish or love power.
All 'priestly' actions that can be considered caring and noble can just as easily be accomplished without the need to become a spiritual leader. It is the power of the position of priesthood, and the misguided justification of its piety, that draws contenders to it.
> you also do not provide proof for your perspective. Your idea of super-particles (hope I got that right), macro-evolutionary and naturalistic processes (time plus chance equal everything) have no basis in proof.
You are making too many assumptions, my friend. I have never claimed anything in my book to be fact, just highly plausible theory based upon much scientific evidence. The very first thing I write in my book is a foreword that states exactly that.
> If a 'reality' perspective is intolerant of a Christian perspective which makes better humans? Altruistic intentions does not make one a better human.
Altruism is a core element of BetterHuman.org's philosophies. The intent to selflessly teach or assist another is unparalleled in piety. Please read this prior post: 1.5.
> All people choose their path, and it is for these choices that we are accountable.
It is impossible to make sound decisions from within a mythological perspective, and as such the accountability for those decisions should fall upon those that victimized their minds with fantasy in the first place (the religions). That accountability also falls upon us as fellow humans if we passively stand by and allow people that are infected with the religious meme-virus to continue suffering. We, as a society, are obligated to educate about reality, otherwise, we are no less responsible for their demise than religions are.
> The subjective statement of a homosexual will do nothing to convince me that homosexuals are a product of genetic causation. Scientific studies prove that homosexuals are not 'born that way'.
Are you suggesting that you yourself were 'taught' to be heterosexual? Do you think, given certain environmental circumstances that you could you have been taught to be homosexual?
Sexual attraction forms the very root of human instincts, and within some people, that instinct points to the same sex. It cannot be overridden, denied, or especially 'forced' into a direction of choice, any more than the hunger instinct can.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
|
#42 - Education versus religion - August 28, 2005, 03:39 PM |
Mr. Siderain wrote back:
> I am glad that I was educated enough to understand that Intelligent design is just a hoax.
Intelligent Design theory represents the concessions that religious people have had to make in the light of irrefutable evidence supporting evolution theory. They have conceded that much evidence supports evolution, but still cling to the notion of a god to explain things that science (as yet) cannot, effectively avoiding the need to confront the obvious ramifications of a godless reality...true death. Their god will always reside in the inexplicable, and there will always be new inexplicable things on the horizon and so their faith narcotic will continue to find shelter and persistence. Please read the last two paragraphs of this prior post: 1.3.
> Do you think that kids of my generation just dont care about religion. Ive been hearing that atheism in kids is higher than before. Maybe its just becuase education got better. Your thoughts?
Education and religion are polar opposites. The more education one has, the better equipped one is to identify religion as mythology. With less education, the lines between fantasy and reality blur, making those people easy victims to the false allures of the faith narcotic, submitting them to a wasted lifetime of unnecessary rigor. This may not always the case with every individual, but definitely there is a correlation between greater education and atheism.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}