| Page 4 |
|
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:
#44 - Can religion be separated from the notion of a god? - Sep 07, 2005, 03:38 PM
#45 - Will humanity ever break free of ethereal addiction? - Sep 07, 2005, 03:49 PM
#46 - Is it possible to truly be an atheist? - Sep 07, 2005, 07:33 PM
#47 - Sad - Sep 07, 2005, 07:40 PM
#48 - Trapped from birth - Sep 07, 2005, 07:44 PM
#49 - Can there be gods without religions? - Sep 17, 2005, 03:05 PM
#50 - Case-study and dissection of the religious meme-virus - Sep 17, 2005, 03:18 PM
#51 - Is there such a thing as a 'fact'? - Sep 18, 2005, 04:12 PM
#52 - Demonstrating compassion for ethereal addicts - Sep 18, 2005, 04:24 PM
#53 - A lifetime of suffering at the hands of religion - Sep 18, 2005, 07:21 PM
#54 - Disregarding age when determining voting strength - Sep 18, 2005, 08:27 PM
#55 - The mysterious Black Hole - Sep 18, 2005, 08:48 PM
#56 - How to find 'spirituality' without ethereal addiction - Sep 25, 2005, 04:22 PM
#57 - The tall tales of religion - Sep 25, 2005, 04:25 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
|
#43 - Intense vocabulary - September 07, 2005, 03:11 PM |
Mr. Banechart wrote:
> I have found everything from meme to betterhuman.org the most interesting thing that has ever crossed my path..
I can't thank you enough for these rewarding and very motivating words.
> but i have extreme trouble comprehending just about all of it. I get a scent but that's about it. I am blind when it comes to the intense vocabulary you use. then again I'm only 15 years old, but how can i train myself to understand 100% of every sentence, every word you use?
First of all, let me sincerely apologize if I have lost you or anyone else because of the terminology I chose to write with. One of my prime motivations for writing Meme and creating BetterHuman.org, was to keep the verbiage reasonable, however, sometimes it is necessary to leverage more obscure words in order to project the greatest clarity and precision. In these circumstances, a dictionary is quite useful, as well as the glossary in Meme. Alas, reality is intrinsically complicated and sometimes less familiar diction must be used.
If you have any questions whatsoever, even if it takes a thousand emails, I will explain and clarify any BetterHuman.org or Meme statement that you wish to understand. Please feel free to ask me about any specific words or concepts that may not be clear. Your questions may answer many other people's similar questions as well.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
|
#44 - Can religion be separated from the notion of a god? - September 07, 2005, 03:38 PM |
Mr. Eyecast wrote:
> For ME, the problem of God is a problem for God. We have nothing to do with that. If He exists HE is big enough to manage is own problems, without we have to meddle. The only problem are RELIGIONS. Each one of us is able, if he want it or need it to address to "God" directly. What are religions good for ? Nothing but make free people slaves and take their money.
I tend to see this reaction quite often, that of a serious distaste for the obvious con game that religion is (sometimes mistakenly assuming this makes them an atheist), and yet people will still find justification for the belief in a god, not understanding that religions are solely responsible for driving the persistent belief in these mythological gods. It must be understood that both religion 'and' gods are nothing more than mythology, and are inseparable. Without religion to propel these mythological perspectives, the notion of ethereal beings would eventually disappear as well.
The most effective way to destroy the tyrannical power structures of religion is not to tackle religion head-on (logic vs fantasy), but instead it is to educate away the heart of the beast, and that is to demonstrate that we, humankind, created the concept of gods (not the other way around) in order to try to give some explanation for the world around us. Once people finally understand that we invented the stories of these ethereal creatures, just like we created the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, the very essence of religion will collapse like a house of cards, and all that will remain will be reality. The tyranny of religion will end.
Many thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.44, 4.49}
#45 - Will humanity ever break free of ethereal addiction? - September 07, 2005, 03:49 PM
Mr. Pointkey wrote:
> Dear Sean, I have read your Web Site. I agree with most (not all) that you have expressed.
I would love to hear any feedback about the points you do not agree with.
> Today I am very concerned that organized religion has become so dangerous to human progress that my grandchildren and their children will not have an opportunity to live my philosophy or to develop something even better.
The problem is that 'reality' has few benefactors. Reality education isn't nearly as lucrative or corruptible as controlling billions of ethereal addicts with fear-based fantasy is. Though I have very many years left to live, I also feel that the magnitude of humankind's liberation from ethereal addiction may still take a few generations to fully manifest and as such I will probably not see it to its fruition. However, I know as an absolute mathematically-demonstrable certainty that the demise of religion is slated, whether or not BetterHuman.org, or anyone else, has to directly do with it. The pursuit of a reality perspective is one of the most fundamental driving forces in the natural course of evolution for us as a sentient species. The desire to know the truth will eventually overwhelm all fantasy.
The most important factor in protecting oneself from religion is education. Our education systems are ever so slowly but persistently increasing in caliber, and there will be a day when the tides turn and more people reject ethereal addiction than turn to it. This day will come, perhaps in our lifetimes (more likely not), but with more people like yourself and I, and all my BetterHuman.org friends, those toddler-steps are being taken and we'll eventually get there. Have 'faith' in humanity, we're still growing up.
> Be Happy
{All letters from this contributor: 4.45, 4.54, 7.90}
The most desired and yet elusive wish of all humankind.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.45, 4.54, 7.90}
|
#46 - Is it possible to truly be an atheist? - September 07, 2005, 07:33 PM |
Mr. Chantrile wrote:
> I hate to break it to you, but you website is nothing but a waste of time. It is impossible to prove the existence or inexistence of God. It is an infalliable argument. It's useless. Claiming to be an athiest is just as ignorant as being a devout Christian. No proof. Agnostic or sophist is as good as it gets, sorry.
So, my friend, extending this argument, are you suggesting that unicorns might exist?
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.46, 4.51}
#47 - Sad - September 07, 2005, 07:40 PM
Mr. Whilebase wrote:
> That the very epitome of God's creation should want to deny Him.
When I first wrote Meme, I had to set a realistic goal, "who can I help to see the truth?" and by far the toughest part was being forced to draw a line between myself, and those that can never break free of ethereal addiction. You, my friend, are unfortunately past that line. I truly don't believe there's anything within my power to free you from the mental traps set long ago by your religion that keep you confused, ignorant, and intimidated. To imagine having to live within your mythological perspective terrifies me, for it is quite literally insanity, and your life will be wasted in the pursuit of nothing.
I want to beg for your forgiveness in being forced to leave you behind, the weakness in your single, fear-motivated statement suggests to me that you do not possess the ability to question your faith; but I will make you this promise: my life will be dedicated to the eradication of the religious meme-virus that has hobbled yours and billions of other's lives.
There will be a day in the future when the tyranny of religion ends.
Much love and respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.47, 4.50}
#48 - Trapped from birth - September 07, 2005, 07:44 PM
Mr. Rampgreen wrote:
> You go on about the 'shackles' of religion and how it holds people down etc etc. Im 15, ive been a christian since i was about 7 and i cant think of a better way to live.
I promise you, virtually every non-ethereal aspect that you hold dear in a religious perspective, also has great value in a reality perspective. My young friend, I feel much sorrow for you, for you have awoken into this life in the middle of a very ancient trap, and you have been trained to keep yourself inside of it. It takes great wisdom and courage to even begin to challenge your faith because it requires the huge sacrifice of the investment your ego has already made into it. I know precisely how painful and disorienting it is to challenge your own beliefs but please trust me, life is supposed to be one long series of learning experiences. Don't stop at what religion has taught you.
> You say that this meme book is great, ever tried reading the bible? Thats quite an awesome book aswell.
I have read and been taught significant portions of the Bible, and feel quite justified in dismissing its usefulness as an accurate educational resource of any kind, other than for historical mythological study. There is a whole world of knowledge to be had outside of the limited confines of the Bible.
> Have you ever actually stood in church and just felt that overriding feeling of happiness?
{All letters from this contributor: 4.47, 4.50}
Many, many times as a youth. This psychosomatic experience is entirely a placebic reaction to believing that an unbeatable reward (e.g. immortality) is due to you because of your dedication to your faith. If you carefully examine the chemical activity produced in the brain during this feeling, it would be exactly the same as winning a lot of money, or being granted a huge amount of power. This feeling is not the result of a spiritual connection with an ethereal entity, it is the result of greed/ego fulfillment, and fear/stress alleviation. There is nothing noble or pious about this feeling.
> Before spreading this propaganda i think you need to study other religions in further depth before dismissing them.
I have, which is why I am qualified to judge 'all' religions as the single most destructive and intellectually debilitating force on Earth. Simply put, any perspective that reinforces fantasy as fact, needs to be vanquished; there can be no tolerance.
Please, all I ask is that you always question everything you are told. Put your youthful vigor and passion aside just long enough for you to take a really objective view of things. Don't be manipulated by your ego. Pay close attention to how religions administer 'faith' like a drug. Watch how the collection plate forms a crucial part of every single aspect of the religion. Especially be aware of how 'fear' of punishment is used to push you further into religious commitment, or how rewards can 'only' be had through faith. Develop a sensitivity to how religions channel your thoughts with these tools and you'll soon see that there's little piety and plenty of manipulation in everything that religion is. Once you start seeing these things, it will unravel rather quickly until you finally expose the false wizard of Oz behind the curtain. When the smoke clears, there will only be reality remaining, and BetterHuman.org will be there to help you find 'true' happiness within it.
Best of luck my friend,
Sean Sinjin
|
#49 - Can there be gods without religions? - September 17, 2005, 03:05 PM |
Mr. Eyecast wrote back:
> I believe that a world without the idea of god for weak people is unattanaible, but that a world without religious mafia is quite possible.
My friend, religion is the sole vessel for the concept of ethereal entities; they are inseparable components of the same meme-virus. Without religions, there would be nothing to perpetuate this mythology, so this is why you cannot have the concept of gods without religions. BetterHuman.org focuses considerably on dispelling of the notion of mythological gods as a pretext to the discrediting, exposure, and inevitable eradication of religions.
I would also like to clarify that religion is not solely an affliction of the weaker-minded of our species. There are many highly intelligent people that also suffer from the religious meme-virus. Like any virus, the highest likelihood of infection stems from long term exposure to it, and intelligence, though a formidable defense, is not always a sufficient immunity to its powerful emotional tethers. Reality education (immunization) and religious oppression (containment) are the only practical defenses we have.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.44, 4.49}
#50 - Case-study and dissection of the religious meme-virus - September 17, 2005, 03:18 PM
Hello friends and readers of BetterHuman.org,
I have received an amazing and educational letter from a prior visitor to BetterHuman.org. It demonstrates the full impact of a severe religious meme-virus infection upon a person's psyche. Before I dissect his diatribe, however, I'd like to rigidly define exactly what we mean by 'religious meme-virus'.
A 'meme' is nothing more than an idea or concept that is passed along from person to person. For example, if a person tells a story to another, and that second person tells that story to yet another, this is called meme-transfer. What makes a 'meme' significant from an 'idea' is that a meme is much more granular, as in an idea is composed of many memes. Also, due to human error, memes 'evolve', as in they change content somewhat when they transfer from person to person. An example of this would be to hear a story that has traveled one-by-one through 10 consecutive people. Chances are that the story will have changed radically since it was told to the first person. This is called 'meme-evolution'.
How we define 'virus' in this context is one of, 'anything that is dependant upon its host for survival, and is in some way detrimental to the host'. The best analogy would be a computer virus, which is defined as a bit of operating code that generally forces the infected computer to perform actions that are not in the best interests of the owner.
Putting the two together, we get 'meme-virus', which still essentially draws a strong parallel to a computer virus, but in a form that affects humans. An extreme example of a meme-virus would be if a rumor started spreading that eating feathers will give you the ability to fly. This meme-virus (the rumor) might actually implant so deeply into a few victims' psyches (the hosts) that these poor people end up jumping off a building in the misguided belief they could fly.
A less extreme version of a meme-virus would be if someone told you that an investment opportunity was going to double your money overnight. You tell all your friends and family and after investing all your money, and all of theirs, you discover that the money has disappeared instead.
Both these examples demonstrate a couple important tidbits, 1) A meme-virus is nothing more than incorrect information that travels from person to person, and 2) the repercussions are unpredictable and absolutely limitless in destructive potential. This brings us to the 'religious' meme-virus, which is essentially a person's belief in the teachings of religion, that primarily being 'faith' in the existence of ethereal beings. This virus is very ancient and has evolved a very complex labyrinth of fear and reward manipulation techniques. This meme-virus implants extremely deeply into the psyche of its host and virtually takes over the person to the point of insanity. The infected person (host) truly and wholeheartedly believes that mythological creatures exist. The scope and diversity of these religious meme-viruses is nothing short of a global pandemic that has persisted for millennia.
Now let's examine the letter I've received from a very infected host of a religious meme-virus. I did not respond directly to this person so as to avoid antagonizing him, he is obviously suffering enough, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't learn from this case. As you read this, please understand that this is 'not' truly the person speaking, for only a small remainder of that individual exists, acting only as a robotic shell to house the meme-virus. Virtually everything in this text is generated by the virus itself, and as such can be considered more a diatribe from the virus as opposed to a sentient human being. I will attempt to identify the underlying motivation for each statement, as well as the foundation for that motivation; here goes:
Mr. Whilebase wrote back:
> There is no hope for unbelievers for any who reject the Lord Jesus Christ.
Motivation: To manipulate with fear and intimidation using the most powerful tool he knows of, his deity,
Foundation: BetterHuman.org challenged his beliefs (ultimately a blow to his ego), which he perceives as ethereally-ordained and therefore unchallengeable. As such, the virus reacted vigorously to our 'arrogance' to suggest he was deluded. The reason his ego was wounded is due to the fact that he has a large investment into his beliefs, and by discrediting his religion, he believes we are also condemning him by association. This is completely untrue however; BetterHuman.org will always have respect for the individual.
> I am not in any trap, it is you who have been trapped by Satan to believe his lies.
Motivation: He's trying to inform me of the ethereal explanation for my position, and attempting to manipulate with guilt by affiliating BetterHuman.org with evil.
Foundation: He's trying to understand my position from within his context (hence potentially revealing my weaknesses). Unfortunately, the more limited your education and exposure to the world, the more primitive and basic your understanding of reality will be. In extreme cases, such as this one, a religious perspective of the world is limited to the most fundamental of interpretations, that of the need for a parent (God), and the need to encapsulate all that doesn't please this god (evil). In our situation here, BetterHuman.org obviously does not fit within his 'good' category, and as such we default to the other extreme, that of 'evil'.
> To live without acknowledging God is truly terrifying, for you if you don't see your needs, they will never be met.
{All letters from this contributor: 4.47, 4.50}
Motivation: He's trying to use the design of my statement from a prior letter to him against me, to both shame and consume my perspective. You'll see that guilt and ridicule are frequently used manipulation tactics of the religious meme-virus
Foundation: Again, his intensity demonstrating that his ego was damaged. He's also trying to use my own tools against me in the attempt to reach me in a way that I might recognize.
As a side note, his powerful reaction reveals that we've had a tremendous effect on his virus, which is an odd thing considering the supposedly impermeable nature of 'faith'. If you think about things from a religious context, having perfect 'faith' in your beliefs would imply that it should be very difficult to 'shake' one's faith enough to produce such a volatile reaction. If our subject's faith was absolute, he would just have shrugged his shoulders and offered to help me see his perspective in a friendly inviting tone. But in our example, the harder he tries to stand his ground, the more obvious it seems his 'faith' was rattled. However, I didn't actually lessen his faith, I only 'exposed' to him the already existing weaknesses in his faith, which means that even the most outwardly faith-secure person, realistically only has a very weak foundation in their faith. And how could it not be weak; the meme-virus is attempting to obscure the single most terrifying thing imaginable, true death. What a phenomenal mental workout that must be to perpetually keep that monster in denial.
> "Cursing the Holy Spirit" is rejecting Christ,
Motivation: Here he is diving deep into a safe territory, that being of biblical mantra, and repeating his attempts to intimidate and expose to me just how my arrogance will be punished.
Foundation: He's exposing some of the structure of the religious 'logic tree' that religions create in the minds of followers. These are very elaborate meme constructs that define the overall religious perspective, and all of its individual branches of information seem to 'fit' together intuitively. However, all of the pieces themselves are founded upon the existence of an ethereal entity, without which, everything collapses to nonsense (like a tree can't exist without the trunk). In this example, he's trying to show me a greater depth (complexity) of his perspective in the attempt to establish some credibility for it, and that it is not so easily dismissed. He's also inadvertently showing me that there exists within his religious perspective many ulterior angles of reinforcement of the ultimate punishment for rejecting the virus.
> for it means there is never any hope for you in eternity,
Motivation: Intimidating with fear, and appealing to my greed instinct by reminding me of the loss of the perfect reward, immortality.
Foundation: This is an ostracization tactic that categorically separates us. This statement is more for his benefit than mine because he believes he is earning bonus points with his god by attempting to educate/recruit (infect) me. He's also trying to appease his ego by attempting to establish hierarchy over me.
> and there is an eternity, whether you accept it or not.
Motivation: Now he's drawing an immovable line in the sand that he believes cannot be crossed; a challenge to me to futilely test his faith.
Foundation: To him, this is a foundational fact upon which his entire perspective rests. He will never relinquish one iota of conviction in it because even the smallest self-doubt would collapse his entire faith structure. He's showing me the heart of the virus, and also showing just how impossibly integrated it is with his psyche; immovable. At this degree of infection, I believe that removing or destroying the virus (through education) would render the host virtually incapable of dealing with reality; very sad.
> Do you think everything, including man, just "happened" to crawl out of a pool of water somewhere?
Motivation: Here is more ridicule aimed directly at what he perceives as the foundation for my perspective, to try to get me to question my own beliefs by knocking my ego.
Foundation: He is exposing how limited his knowledge is of a scientific perspective. In his mind he is showing me the difference between the richness of his world, to the pathetic and insane lunacy of mine.
> What hogwash; it is one of the biggest lies that has ever been perpetrated by Satan.
Motivation: More ridicule, mixed with fear and guilt manipulation. He's 'damning' me as hard as he knows how by continual association with his definition of pure evil.
Foundation: By associating me with his evil ethereal entity, it brings him immediate closure to any need to understand my perspective, relieving him of the burden of learning more about my world; and effectively also locking him in his.
> The biggest lie is that "there is no God".
Motivation: to get me to consider the opposite of what I hold true
Foundation: He learned this technique from religion, a black-and-white mentality. If it's not good, it's pure evil. Anything that does not fit in his religious context is simply classified as a massive lie. They need this black-and-white mentality to facilitate the immediate disregard of ethereally-contradicting concepts in their minds so they can avoid diluting the intensity of the 'high' their simplistic mythological perspective generates; and this brings us to the biological ramifications of the religious meme-virus. The reason this virus is so powerful is that it operates to soothe our greatest pains (fear of death, fear of life, etc.) and to feed our bottomless egos (affiliation with the supernatural, immortality), something that reality cannot compete with. The virus has the 'same' narcotic effect on the mind as any pleasure-inducing/pain-relieving chemicals, and is just as addictive. The religious meme-virus is probably the most addictive narcotic on the face of the planet based upon the count of billions of addicts globally. And, much like any conventional drug addict, any information that the addict receives that spoils the high produced by the meme-virus (e.g. evidence to prove there are no ethereal entities), is responded to with phenomenal tenacity, as thusfar demonstrated in this letter.
> Fortunately, there is still hope for all who do not believe, for God is still waiting to save your soul if you only believe upon His son Jesus Christ.
Motivation: He's shifting gears after blowing off some steam. He's realizing that he's done nothing but 'react' to my words so now he's trying to think for himself and instead, lead the conversation with 'reward' manipulation.
Foundation: What may superficially seem to be an attempt to guide me into actions that are in my best interests, this is really a disguise for an attempt to earn himself more God points. He really doesn't care if I consider his perspective or not because he is still angry at me, however, his ethereal duties have been performed simply by throwing the option out there for me to consider. My judgment may seem rather dismissive but it must be understood that ethereal addicts are incapable of performing a truly altruistic act, as discussed in this prior post: 1.10.
> What darkness you must live in within your mind; no hope for eternity, an unbelief in the only true God,
Motivation: Now switching to a false demonstration of pity and trying to make me feel desperate and unintelligent.
Foundation: As with most of the prior examples, by utilizing all these basic emotional manipulation techniques, the meme-virus is attempting to expose footholds in my mind for it to attach to. If it can arouse enough curiosity in me about the ultimate reward (eternal life), or intimidate me enough with the ultimate punishment (Satan and hell), his virus might be able to plant a viral-seed in my head, and if successful, it would only be a matter of time before that seed blossoms into another full-blown religious virus. The virus however is not intelligent enough to realize when it has been exposed and as such it will futilely continue to probe for footholds in even the most atheist of potential hosts.
> One so powerful that he chose to make you even though you don't believe in Him.
Motivation: More guilt manipulation. The virus is probing very hard for a crack in the armor.
Foundation: He is revealing more structure of his perspective, that of ethereal hierarchy, and hence the intrinsic debt of gratitude, (which is paid through servitude that fuels the propagation of the religions) that I should incur because of my lower rank in that hierarchy.
> What future is there without hope? None.
Motivation: Hope in this context is exactly synonymous with eternal life. This is an attempt to ridicule my hopeless (true death) perspective, as in what could possibly be the point of my life?
Foundation: More structure revealing. Now he's demonstrating that his motivation in life is the sole driving pursuit of affiliation with his god in order to have an infinite future (this pursuit generates the greatest 'high' possible from the meme-virus). Inversely, he is also revealing that he knows 'exactly' how terrifying true death is, because his entire life is geared to preventing that demise with this pursuit of affiliation with his god.
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Motivation: Little bit of showing off and defiance, with the intent of diminishing the effectiveness of BetterHuman.org.
Foundation: This is an excellent example of an ethereal-addict 'taking a hit'. This is no different than a heroin junkie sticking a needle in his arm in defiance. If we could measure his brain activity during the composition of this final passage, we would see his pleasure center and ego instinct light up with activity due to the intense 'high' the meme-virus fed him.
It's noteworthy to recognize that in all of his letter, there was not one iota of generosity, love, compassion, tolerance, or charity whatsoever granted towards me; a discrete failing from a representative of a purportedly 'loving' religion. This effectively demonstrates that unless you are programmed with their virus (a member of their beliefs), you are outcast and undesirable, which is a not-so-discrete tactic of 'ostracization' manipulation. How hungry must his altruistic instinct be for placation, it having been usurped and curtailed in function to solely facilitate the spread of the religious meme-virus.
My friends, despite all of this, please understand that this person was reacting out of 'fear'. Anger is always indicative of a deeper problem (it's impossible to be angry for no reason). Fear is the driving force here, so please don't condemn or chastise this or any poor soul that suffers from ethereal addiction. Pity them, for they probably would have grown into wonderful, caring, and real people, if it wasn't for the life-destroying religious meme-viruses that infest our world.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.47, 4.50}
|
#51 - Is there such a thing as a 'fact'? - September 18, 2005, 04:12 PM |
Mr. Chantrile wrote back:
> Yes, it is very possible the Tooth Fairy exists. No one can confirm it doesn't exist.
What you are correctly identifying here is that there is no such thing as a true 'fact'; there is no way to be absolutely certain something is true. This leaves us with a reality perception based upon 'probable' facts, as in, things are determined true or false by their acceptable proximity to 100% true. For example, the sun rising in the east each morning is a world-wide accepted fact. However, this doesn't mean that it's 100% sure to rise in the east tomorrow because a number of things can happen (black hole swallows the sun, gigantic meteorite hits Earth causing it to spin the other way) that negate a 100% absolute certainty. (Facts should not to be confused with 'definitions', such as 1 + 1 = 2. This is not a 'fact' per se, it is a strict definition that we created, stating that 1 + 1 must equal to 2. Facts, in the context we are discussing here, are conclusions founded by evidence)
It's important to draw an acceptable 'fact' line somewhere (e.g. 99.9999999% likely to be true) so that these factoids can be used to build structure into our perception of the universe. Without an acceptable 'fact' line, we are always left with these paradoxes that we know are simply not true, such as the Tooth Fairy example above. There may not be a way to absolutely prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but we're pretty sure this story is a fabrication from some person long ago, and as such, the chances of there really being a tooth fairy are virtually none, therefore, it being nothing more than mythology is a probable 'fact'.
In order to understand and perceive any viable structure whatsoever in our universe, there has to be some acceptable approximation of 'fact' that approaches the literal definition of 'fact', but allows for the little bit of remaining 'unknown' to be overlooked until further evidence to the contrary appears. In your original letter, you seemed to want to raise the bar of 'fact' to an unreachable percentage, or even to 100%. By this definition, this then also implies that your world doesn't exist, your mind doesn't exist, and there is nothing in the universe, and there is no universe, all simply because we can't prove any of it exists (I think, therefore I'm not?). If this is the perception of reality you wish to indulge, my friend, then you have chosen the easier path of apathy; choosing to accept not knowing, and not trying to know, rather than much more rewarding and noble pursuit of truth. I personally choose to research and assess the probabilities of 'facts' to try and build a reality that is predictable, sensical, and reliable, despite all the pitfalls, mistakes, and oppression I'll suffer along the way.
Great feedback!
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.46, 4.51}
#52 - Demonstrating compassion for ethereal addicts - September 18, 2005, 04:24 PM
Mr. Banechart wrote back:
> People all the time are telling me I'm insane or they just laugh in "Cognitive Dissonance". And as much as id like to extend their argument in the existing of an ethereal entity, i don't, and feel extreme sorrow for them because they are waisting their life on nothing.
It takes considerable inner strength to get past the confrontational nature of dealing with ethereal addicts. It is very challenging to endure their ethereally-charged egos without reflecting their passion back at them in a heated verbal exchange. Ultimately though, they are very mentally ill, and compassion for their situation must be your overriding emotion. Due to a lifetime of ethereal-addiction indoctrination, they have had their skills for objectivity and logic severely oppressed, handicapping their ability to see things from the outside, so it makes no more sense to engage them with powerful emotions than it makes sense to scream at a child for their ignorance. I'll apologize for the diminutive nature of this child analogy (not my intent, I assure you) but despite perhaps having the body of an adult, adamant ethereal addicts have the mental acuity more akin to an ego-dominated adolescent. It is so important to perceive ethereal addicts as our brothers and sisters that need our help and need to be educated, rather than people that need to be confronted. Congratulations for your demonstration of empathy.
> I truly wish everyone had a copy of your book. Sean, you have changed my life to a level of happiness i never knew existed. Thank you
And thank you very much, my friend, I'm deeply humbled. It's simply amazing how valuable a 'thank you' can be.
> and i was wondering about time travel. You didn't go into great detail about it in meme, could time travel ever be possible?
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
The 'only' time travel that is possible is the equivalent of 'slowing' your own time flow, which is achieved by reaching a high relative velocity for some period of time. The faster you move relative to one frame of reference, the slower your own time moves relative to it. Other than that, there's not much control we can exert over time flow, for example, it is impossible to travel backwards in time because this makes no more sense than measuring something as -2 meters in length. If you think about it, the notion of going back in time would imply you 'undo' the very act of attempting to go back in time in the first place. A very mentally disruptive paradox. Mathematics can sometimes point us in non-reality directions.
Love the science questions,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}
|
#53 - A lifetime of suffering at the hands of religion - September 18, 2005, 07:21 PM |
Mr. Ratebell wrote:
> Hello friends and readers,
Let me start by thanking you for quite simply, a beautiful contribution. I believe that many, many people are going to benefit from your story. I'll address your comments first:
> Sean, I feel I do not have the ability to express adequately the respect and admiration I have for the work you are pursuing. ... I would like to say thank you for taking the effort to explain very difficult subjects and make them digestable to persons such as myself.
Awesome. Every time I get a 'kudo', I know that religions forever lose one more potential victim. Welcome to reality, and sanity, my friend.
> Your ideas on bether,time,space and the nature of reality were my first glimpse at a universe that is truly "magical"
It's amazing that given the beauty and wonder of the universe, why even today we still need to 'invent' our own magic, when it's already all around us.
> A quick comment on your quest to tackle this problem of religion: There is a humble "spirit" (for lack of a better word) that I percieve in your book and on your website. Always gently yet unapologetically explaining the truth. Never lose that, it is endearing, and that in itself makes the medicine more palatable I think.
Agreed, and I will strive to maintain this disposition. I recognized at the very inception of this project that the only things capable of surmounting the very core of religion, the human ego, are love and respect, and that is all I'll allow myself to indulge in with my public voice.
The rest of your letter below can speak for itself. Again, tragic yet inspiring story, thank you so much for sharing.
> Please allow me to share my personal story in the hopes that a part of it might be a help to you in what you are doing. My father is a Pentecostal minister, as was my grandfather and as are a couple of my uncles.
> I grew up as a child in a church where speaking in tongues, laying hands on the sick, casting out demons etc. were a normal part of every service. I spoke in tongues myself and had several personal experiences that I at the time felt were certainly spiritual. These were some moments of emotional elation the likes of which I am not sure I have had since. So brainwashed was I, that I cannot remember even a single instance in my childhood where I even considered the possibility that an ethereal entity did not exist. I learned to draw inner strength from private moments "communing" with my God, the one being that I was told loved me unconditionally. I wanted and needed that.
> But paradise was not as it seemed. The nearest example I had to my spiritual father was my natural one, and he beat me so badly that my mother would often keep me out of school for fear that someone would recognize the unmistakeble marks of child abuse and turn it in as such. I loved both my natural and spiritual father and was deathly afraid of them both at the same time. The most horrific childhood moments I can remember did not come from my natural father though. I had a reoccurring nightmare for about 5 years. It was that Jesus had come and taken my parents in the rapture and I was left alone, (knowing I was not worthy). Every night I would wake myself in a cold sweat, often also in a bed of pee, shivering with uncontrollable fear from the same dream.
> As I grew older my relationship with my dad changed but I still held on to the narcotic of religion. But I questioned my salvation continually, never feeling that I had conquered my sinful instincts. Especially masturbation which riddled me with guilt throughout my teenage years. After high school I enrolled in a Christian College where, ironically, I lost my faith. It is hard to pinpoint exactly what did it, and I know I certainly did not see it coming. I think it was the convergence of two events happening at the same time in my life that finally forced me to face reality. The first was a class that I was taking called "apologetics", which was a course investigating the various arguments for and against the existence of God. This was my first exposure to this hypocrisy but I found myself thinking that the arguments "against" were making more sense than the other side! But no one else in the class seemed to be being persuaded as I was, in fact the opposite was happening, they were becoming more passionate in their convictions. I thought they were all stronger Christians than me. The fault had to be in me, I just couldn't release from the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome.
> I was feeling tons of guilt. Something else was going on too, I had fallen in love with a girl and we were coming close to having pre-marital sex. And even though I was technically still a virgin, the guilt was unbearable and I broke up with her on the grounds that we were leading each other into sin. It broke both our hearts but I thought I was doing the right thing. Maybe now I could be like everyone else in my class who never doubted, finally I had made a sacrifice that would make me worthy. I sacrificed the only women I had ever loved, God would reward me. He would make me a strong Christian. Except he didn't. I still struggled with doubt. The pain was excruciating, still I didn't give up. Until about a year later. It was a gradual process. I have no "aha" moment to share.
> Later my dad would blame the Christian college for corrupting his son when I honestly shared my story with him. But I think I would have eventually come to my current conviction anyway. All I can say is I never stopped searching, and probably never "forgave" God for not rewarding the sacrifice I made for him. The process was so painful, I kept trying to "believe" but it just became impossible, the truth was too obvious to ignore. I have been "ethereal addict" free now for about ten years. I couldn't go back now no matter how hard I tried and frankly, don't have a desire too.
> Still, I have compassion for all of my family and the burden they bear. About 3 years ago my dad was diagnosed with advanced stage 4 stomach cancer. During this time he and I had several conversations about life and eternity. I found him turning to me for comfort more than anyone else in the family. I was always honest, open, and loving. During this time he would say, "Son, you have always been the most honest person in the family, you are my best friend."
> Sorry for the tangent, Sean. A little therapy for me I guess, and a true personal story to explain why I appreciate not only what you are doing but how. If simple logic was all that was required we would have already won this battle. But this religion meme is an intensely personal one. I am saddened by my atheist brothers/sisters who use ridicule and humiliation as their primary tools for conversion. Sometimes we need these for "shock" value but my own G.O.D. tells me that the truth with love are our best weapons in this fight. Keep planting the seeds, like my college professor unknowingly did with me. You might have to wait for a little rain, but if the heart is fertile you will eventually get a harvest. "They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free." Thanks for reading.
My friend, congratulations on completing the colossal journey out of ethereal addiction. I challenge 'anybody' to read this and still profess that religions are harmless.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
P.S. For another fantastic story about someone escaping ethereal addiction, I highly recommend reading Expansion.
|
#54 - Disregarding age when determining voting strength - September 18, 2005, 08:27 PM |
In regard to my tenet:
- In order to elect leadership, the voting power of any individual should be calibrated against their level of intelligence, education, and empathic disposition, granting more electoral power to those individuals that have pursued excellence in all of those categories.
Mr. Pointkey wrote back:
> Are you suggesting that a 25 year old with a PHD in physics is more qualified than a 30 year old school teacher with a BA and the teacher more qualified than the 55 year old self taught/self employed auto mechanic who for his own reasons has studied history, philosophy and economics while staying abreast of world events.
One of the key points that you've correctly identified here, my friend, is that I've removed 'age' as criteria for voting power. Age is probably the single most socially debilitating parameter to determine intelligence, empathy, and education with; and yet it is virtually the sole factor utilized today to determine voting eligibility.
Imagine trying to run a company with the same logic used to run a democracy. For example, let's say you need to hire 100 people, and 1000 people apply. Using the equality system, it would be a completely random distribution for which people get which jobs, and the company would probably fold overnight because it can't operate well enough to compete. This system doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and yet, this is the premise upon which our equal voting system is based. Continuing our company analogy, if instead, a concerted effort was applied to finding the best candidates for each position, the result would be a much more logical and intelligent allocation of resources, and the resultant company would run with a much greater efficiency.
To summarize: the company (the government) runs much better when the best of the candidates (the most intelligent, educated, and empathic) delegate the operations of the company (are granted more voting power)
So, my friend, getting back to your original question; if someone at 25 years old can demonstrate measurable intelligence, education, and empathy levels 'combined' that exceed that of a 50 year old, then yes, I would much rather grant that 25 year old more influence in the formation of our government. Age is a very poor measure of mental ability.
As for your mechanic analogy (which implied an unfortunate prejudice suggesting that they are uneducated), even if he is self-educated, that knowledge still carries considerable weight in the education category.
> Do you have research that supports this assertion.
I think the research is all around us in various forms, like my company example above, or how only the finest athletes are chosen to form a sports team, or that only super-models ever appear within fashion magazines. For any system to work at its best, it must be formed from the best of the crop. Human classification is a very ancient idea, and to forego this very natural tendency in the misguided attempt to appease everyone's egos with a placebic sense of equality, well, we end up with governments that parallel juvenile popularity contests, instead of true, strong leadership.
> And how do you purpose to measure empathy.
I don't. That is something left to the leadership to ascertain.
> If our ideas cannot stand up against a few ignorant theist then we either have bad ideas or we have not successfully communicated them.
My friend, not everyone is granted the time and opportunity to mature enough in order to make a truly objective decision before they have been emotionally and mentally ensnared into mythology. The ulterior recruitment techniques employed by religions are more effective at trapping victims than any techniques that we could morally endorse in a reality education. You see, religion is designed to press with fear and false hope, and these two devices are probably the most powerful psychological tools imaginable. As well, religions do not exercise any discernible moral or legal boundaries to thwart the rampant spread of their misinformation, hence their toolkit for recruitment and containment of their victims is virtually unlimited.
BetterHuman.org is attempting to educate people away from mythology, but how to do this with the same effectiveness as the ultimate terror and ultimate greed/ego satiation tactics of religion, is still undetermined. Asking someone to choose between the narcotic effect of a religious perspective, or to accept our complex universe and all the dangers and mortality that comes with it, is equivalent to putting a chocolate cake and a carrot beside each other on a table, and then asking your child to choose one. They don't have all the information or experience they need in order to make a healthy choice. And once people have become accustomed to the cake, it's very difficult to get them to relinquish the chocolate for the carrot.
> The one other problem I have with the two concepts is that are so counter to our culture and possibly counter to human nature that they probably will not come about.
Actually, I believe that what we have now, our even-weighted democracy, is a perfect example of a 'counter'-natural human system. Nature implicitly demands hierarchy in order for its evolution mechanism to work, but democracy completely destroys that hierarchy, giving more power to those that cannot understand how to best administrate that power. This 'equality' is very unnatural. The single, sole reason that our form of democracy exists, is for the original intent of appeasing the egos of the taxpaying populace, and for recruiting more populace. Democracy was 'not' designed with the best interests of the masses at heart. When does it ever make sense to value egos over logic?
> You have some really great concepts and you ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT IS COOL!!
Thank you for your support my friend. I would like to expand your compliment to use the words: 'we' are doing something. Every letter that is written to BetterHuman.org shapes us, and as such, it's a community effort. It truly isn't necessary that everyone agrees on everything that BetterHuman.org represents, as long as the most important thing is accomplished, the global and permanent eradication of religion.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.45, 4.54, 7.90}
|
#55 - The mysterious Black Hole - September 18, 2005, 08:48 PM |
Mr. Nightack wrote:
> ...it is the mass that is an infinitesimal point causing a disturbance (charge) in a specific volume of space which appears as a proton or electron. These probably originally appear as the unstable neutron.
In Meme, I describe a model of the universe in which I have introduced a relativity-compatible version of aether, called "Bether" that doesn't break conventional physics (most notably, its compatibility with c, the ubiquitous speed of light), but it adds enough qualities to be able to explain (not simply calculate or analogize) the existence of gravity and magnetism. These explanations demand that particles do occupy a non-infinitesimal volume and as such their size can be measured.
> ...so-called Big Bang is still happening. It follows that the universe is still being created, rather than having been created at the "moment" of the Big Bang.
My model dictates that the total 'mass' of all (non-Black Hole) matter in the universe was created during the Big Bang, but also that the total 'size' of the universe 'bubble' that we exist within is still expanding (not to be confused with still being created).
> Further, I believe that Hawking, Penrose and Thorne have concluded that there is a definite limit regarding the maximum size of black holes regardless of how many stars or even galaxies are available for them to "feed" on. This would preclude all of the matter in the universe from collapsing into an ultra black hole.
This is one interpretation of the data that we currently have regarding Black Holes. However, the nature of Black Holes when explained in the context of my bether theory, would imply that a Black Hole's Hawking radiation could not compete in volume with the persistent and constant growth of a Black Hole. One of the properties of my bether theory leverages a Hawking theory that virtual particles created at the Schwarzschild radius can be separated, thus creating mass (a loop of bether) that accumulates down at the surface of the Black Hole. Effectively, bether 'dust' is falling to the surface at all times, constantly adding mass to the Black Hole; far more mass than is ejected by a rotating Black Hole's poles. Of course, this is all subjective theory, and any position on the nature of Black Holes must be viewed as only a theory.
> If that is the case, coupled with the "laws" of Thermodynamics, it is practically unthinkable that all of the matter/energy in the universe suddenly appeared as an unstable singularity out of absolute nothingness.
I definitely do not subscribe to this theory. In my book, Meme, I have a very elaborate pre-Big Bang theory that accommodates current observations, but takes some of the paradoxical nature out of the mathematical inferencing we use to define our universe, that sometimes lead us beyond the capacity of reality.
Thank you for an interesting physics letter,
Sean Sinjin
|
#56 - How to find 'spirituality' without ethereal addiction - September 25, 2005, 04:22 PM |
Mr. Paperto wrote:
> How can you deny that there is no spiritual aspect to human beings?
Spirituality is a religious buzzword that attempts to manufacture the concept of a 'supernatural' emotion, but in reality, the term 'spirituality' does nothing more than encapsulate many 'natural' emotional feelings that we already have intrinsically. The motivation for creating the word 'spirituality' was so that religion could hijack our already existing positive and rewarding emotions, but with the intent of giving credit for them to an ethereal entity such that a person believes they can only feel these positive emotions under religiously ordained conditions. Effectively, the concept of 'spirituality' allows religions to steal 'happiness' away from normal life, forcing people to chase it down religious channels of servitude instead.
In more abstract language, by using 'spirituality' as another control mechanism, the religious meme-virus usurps all of our pleasure channels in order to facilitate its own propagation. The only time that the meme-virus 'grants' these moments of pleasure and freedom from guilt (the 'high' experienced during a moment of 'one with the spirit') occurs when the infected person is enacting the appropriate religiously-defined rituals or behaviors.
My friend, I assure you that whatever religious people claim to feel (the spiritual 'high') is but a fraction of what we are capable of feeling outside of a religious manifold, and this leads us to the only definition of spirituality that BetterHuman.org endorses, that of the 'human spirit'. Empathy, love, overcoming challenge, discovery, introspection, pride, generosity, accomplishment, compassion, integrity, justice, etc.; whatever you do that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside that let's you know you're doing the right thing and can be proud of yourself, that's millions of years of instinctual evolution telling you you're a good human being. This is the human 'spirit', and it existed long before there was even a concept of religion.
When our perception of reality isn't twisted with religions' ill-placed guilt mechanisms and narrowly-focused reward system, you'll find that virtually every aspect of life can be enormously rewarding. This 'opening of reality' is the same perception that recovering drug addicts often experience once their focus on the drugs have been removed. They find great pleasure in the 'real' things in life that were easily overlooked during the addiction. Look around you at the incredible beauty that our world is, and how many things you can do in it. Every day can be a lifetime of discovery, adventure, socializing, etc. There is no greater high than just 'life' because after millions of years of evolution, nature has rendered us completely balanced to live happily within a simple, Earth-bound perspective.
> Do you honestly believe that feelings of love, appreciation for art & music, fulfillment from helping others in need and friendship, are purely physical activities that trigger chemical reactions, and in turn make you "happy"?
From within a religious perspective, I completely understand how incredulous you may be towards believing that what we perceive as emotions and perceptions, are nothing more than the result of our inconceivably complex chemical/electrical neuron circuits firing off in our brains, but, it is true, and very easy to prove. You can research about how victims of regional brain damage will exhibit inabilities to perform specific tasks, or feel specific emotions, etc., very much exposing the specialization of each section of the brain. Certain chemicals (including many illicit ones) can target specific brain functions (e.g. serotonin flow), generating many powerful emotional states that may have no environmental justification. As well, artificial stimulation (e.g. electrical, magnetic, etc.) of even healthy brains will generate many powerful emotions, trigger memories, control muscles involuntarily, etc. Eerie. We are nothing more than a very complex biological machine that nature has forged from eons of probability and natural selection.
So why is it eerie to perceive ourselves as a 'machine', rather than this ethereally-ordained spiritual entity? Many reasons: it makes us feel mortal (which seriously aggravates the ego), it makes us feel fragile, it demonstrates how easily we can not be in control of ourselves, and it shows our dependency upon nature's design. Our ability to artificially and externally stimulate (albeit not very precisely, yet) a gamut of emotions and other brain functions, with absolutely no intent from the brain's owner, should sufficiently demonstrate that the brain's chemical and electrical activity alone is responsible for any emotional perceptions that we have.
> Explain to me scientifically, why is wrong to murder somone, if will make me "happy" ?
You are really asking two questions here. The first thing that I'd like to point out is that science makes no attempt to define something as right or wrong. All science does is attempt to define 'actions' and 'consequences'; essentially science tries to predict, that's all. For example, if person A killed person B, science would look at this scenario like a sequence of biological and societal parameters that all combined to result in the death of B. Science will also contribute to the forensics that will help to determine who A was. Science is simply a tool.
What makes any given act (or thought) good or bad, is how the act (or thought) contributes to the morality definition of the observer. For example, it was common ritual for some ancient cultures to often sacrifice people's lives with ceremonial beheadings atop temples. Barbaric by our standards, but well tolerated and accepted at the time, even by the victims! Their moral guidelines permitted murder under certain conditions. All throughout history, humankind's tolerance towards killing another human being has waned up and down in relation to the needs of whatever the current morality context was for all societies that have ever been, until we reach today where there is even still quite a high tolerance for murder. We fight wars that take many thousands of lives, we execute hard criminals, we passively allow millions of people to die of disease and hunger, etc. You see, killing people is a very intimate part of humanity, and always has been, whether we wish to perceive it that way or not.
As a side note, what's always interesting to me is how quickly religious people default to this perception of atheist people, almost implying that atheism liberates us from the ramifications of guilt and conscience for performing horrible acts. Please read this prior post: 2.17.
Now, getting to your one-on-one scenario, I personally believe that killing someone to make yourself 'happy' is so unbearably selfish and ill-minded that it borders the same insanity that religions represent. There are a myriad of solutions to permanently removing someone from your life such that it's almost never necessary to resort to their physical termination. I will not attempt to describe a scenario that justifies murder because I want to believe there is more to be gained from the alternate solutions that always exist.
Great questions!
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.56, 5.59, 5.64, 7.95, 8.108}
|
#57 - The tall tales of religion - September 25, 2005, 04:25 PM |
Mr. Banechart wrote back:
> what about celebrating Christmas
There are two ways I wish to look at this, the religious angle, and the social angle. First, of course it is appalling to BetterHuman.org to celebrate a religious figurehead of any form. This type of event would be 'exactly' equivalent to heroin addicts celebrating the day the needle was invented.
Having said that, I do believe that people tend to work too hard, spending too much time away from their families and friends, in the perpetual pursuit of non-essential and expensive 'wants'. Holidays give these people a chance to temporarily step out of the slavery of the modern world, and instead revisit and reinvent relationships with people they should be much closer to. Christmas can and should be renamed to reflect its only true value, perhaps 'rehumanizing' week?
> and marriage in a church.
Here is a short excerpt from my book, Meme:
Begin excerpt...
The institute of marriage is virtually universal in all cultures, extending from a very ancient instinct to bond, or to feel 'in love'. This instinctual mechanism of pair-bonding historically has statistically afforded the offspring a better chance of survival and integration with the populace, when compared to the rearing that a single parent can provide. Marriage is the cultural manifestation of this instinct to bond with another; however its roots are founded in ancient times when lifespans were much shorter and 'together forever' effectively meant a limited number of years before one or both participants would die for whatever reasons.
In our day and age, though, we live much longer than our hunter-gatherer ancestors did, and to be obligated into a pair-bond beyond the effectiveness of child-rearing benefits, and even beyond enjoying one another's company, is nonsensical. Instead, these pair-bonds should be enacted in the light of what they are, a loving relationship that strengthens a family and provides a safe haven for rearing children. Recognize the fact that both participants in a pair-bond will change in personality many times over a lifetime, and the compatibilities that may have existed to forge the relationship may disappear as these people change over time. If and when the effectiveness of the relationship to generate a mutually happy environment has expired, there should be no reason to continue the relationship, nor suffer a penalty for its discontinuance.
Marriage is the flawed cultural interpretation of the instinctual pair-bonding mechanism. Needing to perpetually 'contain' someone via a lifetime commitment is a sad reflection of our insecurities and the ever-selfish ego, which has transformed this natural bond into a potential life sentence of inescapable intimacy with someone that you may grow to dislike.
End excerpt.
> What about the Shroud of Turin and the discovery of wood fragments from Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat in Turkey?
What's more important than verifying the authenticity of these claims, is to understand that even if they are genuine, does that contribute to proving the existence of ethereal entities? Simply finding a relic of the past that was mentioned in an ancient religious text only means that parts of that text actually contain some factual information. It does 'not' mean that the entire text can now be considered 'fact' because portions of it have some accuracy. That would be the same as someone putting together an Earian religious book, mixing in a couple facts here and there, and then telling people that the entire book is factual because a few facts can be demonstrated from it. Religions often mix factual history with ethereal entity fables in the attempt to borrow some of the credibility of the factual information and lend it to the mythological portions.
To get back to your statement, religious people are endlessly willing to believe anything that adds some kind of credibility to their beliefs, and their foundation for a lot of their 'evidence' usually boils down to the sheer number of other people that believe something to be true. Once a rumor begins to spread within a faith-based community (they don't require hard-evidence), it takes hold as 'fact' quite quickly. But, let me assure you that strength in numbers adds no credibility whatsoever to information. There was a time when everyone on the planet believed the Earth was flat, but it wasn't. However, there is one surefire way to be sure if an ethereal entity was responsible for a given event or not___they weren't; simply because they do not exist.
> and finally how can there be these spinning super particles in "nothing"?
I simply do not know. I can't explain that because we do not currently have any information about it whatsoever, and to try and describe something we know absolutely nothing about, is beyond the scope of what I consider reasonable theorizing. 'Infinity' (the 'nothing' you mention) is as far as I was willing to venture in terms of possible explanations for the existence of the universe because I needed a model to generate the Big Bang, and this theory worked well with my relativistic-compatible bether theory. However, there is no way to understand the nature of Infinity, or where it came from, or what it really is, or even if it exists at all.
There will be many questions in life that will remain unanswered, my friend, and it is sometimes better to leave them unanswered rather than force unwarranted solutions into those holes (e.g. ethereal explanations). The best we can hope for is have the most accurate perspective possible, and to find true happiness within it.
> ..don't get me wrong, i am free from ethereal addiction, thanks to betterhuman.org and meme.
Fantastic. I hope you find it beneficial to share your reality perspective with those around you. Educating the masses away from ethereal addiction starts at the individual level; you.
Hope to hear more questions,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.43, 4.52, 4.57, 12.163, 17.233, 21.304}