Thank you very much my friend.

> assuming you are an American

I'm afraid that's an incorrect assumption.

> Your tenet concerning anger states that "Revenge should only be enacted with the purpose of recuperation and prevention, instead of a simple-minded act of equal retribution." While I agree that vigilantism is counter to social stability and progress, I wonder if your tenet, as it is written, precludes the incarceration of criminals

Incarceration (or alternatively, banishment) definitely fits the 'prevention' caveat of the tenet. Of course each situation requires an individual assessment to see what the options are in terms of rehabilitation, but because of its powerful deterrent effect, imprisonment can form a healthy and humane portion of the resolution.

> Another of your tenets declares that "Every person has the right to deter the detrimental actions of another." I strongly believe we should all fight injustice in accordance with our individual capacities to do so and within the limits of legitimate law, so I would venture to say you should change "right" to "obligation" or "responsibility." However, without the clarification of "within the limits of legitimate law," this statement borders on being anarchic, as it suggests that the extent and severity of such actions are subjective. I should hope you'd want the people to allow the courts and law enforcement a chance to be the objective judges (are there any?) and executors of justice before they took matters into their own hands!

Excellent point, my tenet as shown on the website is much too vague, though in my book, Meme, I have elaborated greatly on this. The original intent of this tenet was to grant people the right to oppress the spread of the religious meme-virus, unlike what exists today where religious perspectives are protected by 'freedom of speech'. By my simplifying this tenet to simply reflect the self-pursuit of justice, I have unwittingly expanded the scope of this tenet beyond reasonably clear interpretation, and so I would like to propose the following revision:

"Every person has the duty to maximally exert the influence of the law, either by their direct influence (when interpretation of the law is not in question), or by incitement of law enforcement services."

If the above is to successfully fulfill my original goal of religious meme-virus oppression, then of course the laws will have to be rewritten to recognize that religion is a social disease that can only be practically contained by oppression (and more effective education), and not simply tolerated (which does nothing more than assist in the spread of the virus).

> In the tenet "We are all equally worthless in the big picture," I understand the reason you chose "worthless" instead of "worthwhile" but in order for me to better judge the validity of the tenet, I would like you to elaborate on what you mean by the "big picture."

I meant the entire universe, and this has now been added to the tenet. I believe this tenet is important in that it helps us to find value in those that we perceive to be below us, almost granting us the ability to observe any person as if we are meeting them nonjudgmentally for the first time. As well, it inspires those that feel 'below' others to recognize that they truly are not, and are worthy of respect. People tend to get mentally 'tunnel-visioned' into only one or two human evaluation systems (employment position, personal wealth, etc.) and often base their entire self-worth upon their position within these systems. What we all need to understand is that there are potentially thousands of human classification systems that we could partake in that we would excel at, or conversely, suffer in. It makes no sense to evaluate your self-worth against other people, hence, the only classification system in which we are 'all' forced to take a role (that being the universe's) is one in which we are all equally worthless, and this helps us to recognize that our 'self'-worth can only come from within.

> In another tenet, you decree that "Massive accumulation of wealth is only permitted in the light of the nobility of its eventual intended purpose, which must in some way benefit humanity as a whole...." What are your opinions on how society should quantify "massive" and "noble"

I will be intentionally vague in my response here because I believe these definitions should always be reflective of the time period in which it is to be enforced, and defined by the intellectually/educationally/empathically-elected ruling body. Now that I have personally disclaimed this responsibility, the intent of this tenet is to prevent the unnecessary enslavement of our fellow humans for the king-like lifestyle of the very few.

There is only so much money in the world so if you accumulate plenty of it, then it was somehow taken from someone else. Given the complexity that we have in our economic engines today, it may be difficult to imagine that the money we use to purchase an item at a market here, ultimately trickles down through many, many layers (distributor, bank, shipper, insurance, tax, manufacturer, employee, etc.) to ultimately end at some virtually enslaved individual, perhaps in a far-off land, that receives a ridiculously small fraction of this money for all their manufacturing efforts. This system might be considered fair if equal opportunity existed ubiquitously throughout the world, but we all know this isn't the case. Our participation in this economic structure directly contributes to many others' indentured servitude.

Historically, 'slavery' has been defined with the caveat of physical imprisonment, but barring the notion of chains, how much does that contemporary definition differ from what we consider 'employment' today? I choose to define slavery as "unwanton self-sacrifice to the benefit of another's greed". Now, you may challenge the choice of the word 'unwanton' simply because we get rewards out of working, however, I would venture that the greatest returns from your efforts while employed are not garnered by yourself, but by your employer, who feeds you just enough reward to retain your services. This modern definition of slavery essentially reformulates contemporary slavery into a matured and calculated mental confinement that replaces the traditional physical confinement.

I often find myself asking, 'how much money do I truly need to live?' After removing the expenses related to retaining a job (which is considerable with travel, clothing, food, time, etc.), and reducing living accommodations to a more pragmatic and less ego-demonstrative level, it is easy to see that a very meager amount of money can set the stage for a content life, without the need to enslave ourselves for 50+ hours a week simply to pursue these colossal aspirations that a capitalistic mindset drives us into.

Now at the other end of the spectrum is communism, which I believe is noble in intent, but entirely lacking in purpose and motivation for its constituents and hence lends itself to severe corruption. Communism fails to recognize that apathy and motivation cannot be systematically equated, simply because we are not all created equal. We need to be rewarded for motivation in order to dredge the best out of humanity.

What I am proposing is a society that will grant the highly motivated a means to free themselves from the indentured servitude that is a necessary evil at our current level of technological evolution (implying that we'll eventually have the technology to do all our labor for us). Once someone has accomplished the monetary resources to be 'free', any further collection of wealth needs to be balanced and justified against the degree of human enslavement that is required to support said wealth.

Of course many wealthy people would severely balk at this tenet, and how could they not? They live like kings among us. Despite the fact that there may be many of them that choose to exercise their great wealth in true philanthropic fashion (which is 'exactly' what I am promoting), I would still venture that most wealthy people have no interest in freeing their fellow humans from their indentured servitude, rather, they enjoy the personal liberties that they exercise at the expense of those servants.

Do all wealthy people deserve their great wealth? Hardly. The only people that deserve great wealth would be those that are clever enough to accumulate it with a minimum of enslavement, and are altruistically motivated to exercise that wealth. This immediately precludes the automatic wealth windfalls bestowed to heirs, family, royalty, religions, capable vagrants, lotteries, etc. Essentially what I am driving for is the recognition that money is 'power', exactly. And power should be carefully bestowed only to those that can best administrate it for the benefit of the masses (which does not necessarily imply the government). Unfortunately in our modern societies, this massive power often falls into the hands of the most undeserved, at the expense of potentially thousands of others' slavery. Does anybody sincerely believe that one person should singly benefit as the focal point of thousands of others' slavery?

Somewhere between capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. lies a weighted-vote democracy that stimulates its constituents with rewards for motivation and yet maximizes the quality of life for the greatest number of people. What I am proposing is a paradigm shift away from the 'greed' focus, and more towards a self-fulfillment focus. Greed enslaves others; make that unattainable, and the nobler pursuits radically increase in value. How great would it be to master the martial arts, or to have 5 PhD's, or to sail around the world? All of these things are impossible when your time is stolen by a full-time job that just makes someone else rich.

So in answer to your question, let's stop focusing on how much we can accumulate in our lives, and focus more on freeing our brothers and sisters from all forms of tyranny, including the slavery of full-time employment.

> and how do you justify advocacy of punishment of those who have committed no specific crime, but have only demonstrated fiscal responsibility within the bounds of the law?

I don't believe that I indicated any form of punishment for the above, but only that it should be impossible to pursue massive wealth for selfish means. Simply put, if you procure a lot of money and decide that jewelry, servants, and lavish luxury is the best you can do with that power; then that power will be removed from your hands. If philanthropy is the chosen course for your power, then it is ~yours to render as you see fit.

> You then go on to say in the next tenet that "All other forms of unfortunate poverty will be remedied by societal pooling of appropriate resources." Isn't all poverty "unfortunate" from the perspective of the advancement of mankind?

There are those that choose to impersonate poverty as an occupation, and they exist in a surprisingly disproportionate number compared to the genuinely needy. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in first world nations where the facilities and options exist in undeniable bounty for vagrants to step up into civilization. Quite simply put, virtually all vagrants in a first-world nation have discovered a financial resource in undeserved pity, and have 'chosen' their path of apparent destitution. These are the career vagrants that are nothing more than immoral thieves.

'Unfortunate' poverty can occur when someone is mentally ill and is incapable of caring for themselves. Another type of unfortunate poverty would be those victims of political oppression or disregard, as witnessed in many third-world nations. These people, given the opportunity, would flourish in a way that would deeply humble even the most successful in our world, yet these opportunities don't exist in their world, either due to their political climate or the abject poverty they are born into. These are the people that are most victimized by 'our' society, in that they are enslaved into producing goods for our world, for virtually nothing in return.

> I am struggling to conceptualize an example of poverty that is not a result of the apathy of the impoverished. Poverty as a result of human (crime or war) or natural disaster can only occur if the victim did not take the responsibility to protect their assets through some sort of insurance.

A very first world notion. Please understand that insurance is a very expensive luxury that most impoverished people cannot begin to afford.

> Poverty as a result of an oppressive, corrupt government can only exist if the impoverished allow it to by failing to remove (forcibly if necessary) their oppressors from power.

Again, imagine a peasant farmer attempting to confront the policies of a militarily protected government. Simply impossible. We take 'free speech' for granted but this too is a very unique (and very abused) privilege that most poor nations do not have. Oppressive governments remain in power because they can quash any offensive before it gains any significant momentum. There are more examples of this immovable tyrannical power throughout history than any other form of government.

> I'm not sure if such was your intent, but the wording of your tenet makes it sound like you favor the basic premise of a communistic or socialistic form of government, where the wealth of the masses should be collected by the government and redistributed in a manner which better serves the society as a whole.

I wish to make a clear distinction between BetterHuman.org's tenets and that of communism. As stated before, communism has the altruistic intent of granting everyone equality. Though on the surface it seems a noble pursuit, it is unfortunately based entirely upon the premise that we are all born with equal intrinsic potential, which we are not. Any governing system that attempts to flatten everyone to equality will suffer from a myriad of abuse and corruption from its members that are attempting to correct this oppression. Simply put, communism does not work. BetterHuman.org does 'not' subscribe to any form of equality system, but rather attempts to define purpose for and give value to all measures of people. Our philosophy provides that you will be rewarded for your efforts, but only to the point of relative freedom. Beyond an agreeable form of content lifestyle that most would describe, you no longer retain the privilege of wealth accumulation that can only serve to enslave others, unless you can demonstrate altruistic and progressive intent with further wealth accumulation.

Socialism is a long way towards what I would consider the ideal form of society, if it wasn't for the unfortunate fact that socialism is too easily abused in its current manifestation. The 'Robin Hood' structure of using the rich's wealth to supplant what is often no more than apathy of the poor, is too liberal and wasteful. Not many people recognize that if you were to take all of the wealth in the world and distribute it evenly to everybody, within 10 years the wealth will again have returned to those that had it in the first place. Some people are good with money, but most people are bad with money, very bad. As such, a socialist system of monetary 'hand-outs' (such as welfare, charities, etc.) only serves to introduce an infinite gaping chasm into which to pour money.

Instead, I suggest that we pursue the 'intent' of socialism, and that is to guarantee a minimum quality of life for our less financially inclined. This can be accomplished by providing a high-caliber baseline education, palatable living conditions, nutritional food, and health care, such that 'anybody' who wishes to pursue a better life has this foundation to begin from. Access to these minimum living conditions will not be granted through forfeiture of the rich's wealth into the poor's fiscally-incapable hands, but rather with the 'direct' supply of these minimum standards. Ultimately though, there will be no money, unless you are willing to work for it. Those that do not wish to work will be granted these basics in exchange for a modicum of maintenance effort, equivalent to the workload one might experience in a hunter-gatherer society. It must be our intrinsic right as humans to be able to live in the same modesty as our ancestors did, without the forced servitude we bear in today's world. Wealth should be considered a separate luxury from the basic right of survival (as well as the privilege of reproduction, but that's a can of worms we'll leave intact for now).

The above system accomplishes many things: 1) it vastly increases the efficiency of the government's ability to effect this minimum living standard, 2) the standard can be homogenized to a largely agreed-upon 'fair' level, 3) a minimum education can be applied, setting the stage for anyone to pursue a more fulfilling life, 4) it can counter many monetarily introduced issues (such as misappropriation, regional cost disparities, etc.), and most importantly, 5) it recognizes the value of all humans as people, and not as commodities.

This system gives genuinely good people that are 'not' greed inclined, a chance to just live life and be content, without them being enslaved by 50+ hours a week just to barely survive. It is these meek and noble people that suffer the most in our dog-eat-dog economic engines. I say for those who wish to compete for the power and glory, let them compete, but leave the innocent and gentle out of the arena.

> Your FOS tenet claims that "Freedom of speech should be a privilege instead of a right; to the degree that prevents someone blind with ignorance from misleading an innocent or susceptible audience." Your philosophy undoubtedly aims at vaccinating the populace from potential infection of the meme virus through prosthelyzing. However, any form of institutional censorship inadvertently suppresses ideas and imagination because it will always be subjectively imposed based on the judgment of those in control of the institution who may themselves be collectively blind with ignorance

That is correct, and a risk I believe is worth taking. My analogy for our current manifestation of 'freedom of speech' is to imagine recklessly driving a vehicle at 200 mph down a freeway for no other reason than nobody wants to take responsibility for deciding if it's better to drive at 60 mph or at 90 mph. Of course there will be some gray area and there will be some unfortunate oppression at the expense of a more limited freedom of speech, but the cost of what we perceive now as freedom of speech (which ultimately still suffers a tremendous degree of censorship) is that the mythological nonsense of religions continues to fester and evolve, all the while hiding behind this unduly liberal freedom of speech caveat. There is more damage done with this freedom than the possible damage done from a more limited tolerance of what can and cannot be taught to the masses. An intellectually/educationally/empathically-weighted-vote government will go a long way to improving the caliber of any meaningful censorship that can serve this purpose.

> American liberal activist Michael Moore created "Fahrenheit 9/11" because he wanted to spread the message that our administration had led us into an unjust war based on false principles and personal greed; a message he adamantly believes but one that is nonetheless based on subjective opinion. The concepts portrayed in this movie were biased and highly slanderous against a standing president. The legitimacy of Moore's claims is debatable, so from the perspective of many people, he believes them in "blind ignorance" and, if they are presented without 100% accuracy (again, this is a big IF since it cannot be confidently determined) or even out of context, he would be "misleading an innocent or susceptible audience," thereby making himself a perpetrator under your definition. Hence, his expression of his opinionated views would need to be suppressed.

Not suppressed, but requiring of evidential support. If he absolutely believes his positions, and attempts to portray them as 'fact', he would necessarily have to justify them, not just present them without supporting evidence.

> If we can present a valid, logical argument (such as you are doing on betterhuman.org) which is more acceptable than an ethereal explanation to a rational mind, then there will be no need for imposed censorship. If we cannot, then these minds must bear the burden of their irrationality (or our failure to present a strong enough case), as personal responsibility ultimately falls on each of us as individuals.

I consider that a failing in compassion, and a lack of understanding that we 'all' suffer the burden of their irrationality, as you understand first hand when you engage insurgents on the front lines. There are many people in the world that expend a tremendous amount of their resources in the futile pursuit of immortality. To witness this, and not feel somehow compelled to help them or not to try to prevent more victims of ethereal addiction, I cannot understand. If something as simple as oppression (censorship) of religion will enable millions the opportunity to mature intellectually strong enough to see it for the mythology that it is, before religion ever has the chance to ensnare them with their ego-manipulating and fear-inducing tactics, then how can that be wrong? I would venture a gamble that virtually any person whom accumulates a reasonable education in science and life, and then is exposed for the first time to the wiles of religion, will run for their very lives from that madness. We must give people the chance to acquire the necessary wisdom to be able to make this 'decision', long before religions have placed their mental traps.

> In your excerpt from "Fate," you make the statement that "The universe may seem randomly disorganized but it is indeed a perfectly closed predictable system....." but I am curious as to how this remains valid in spite of the unpredictability of human behavior.

Human behavior is no less predictable than the clouds in the sky, or flames in a fire, but that does not mean they are random. Every single atom, electron, photon, etc. that composes our body or influences our presence, has a predetermined path, but because of the complexity of the universe, that path is impossible to predict. Because of our powerful ego instinct, it is very difficult to understand that we do not actually 'choose' a path; meaning that we suffer anguish to believe that we are essentially being controlled by destiny. To better explain: imagine if we recorded a video of someone running a course with many trails. The first time we watch the video, we may wonder what path that person will take, first a left, then a right, and then another right, until the finish line. Now we watch the video again, left, right, right, finished. Again, left, right, right, finish. No matter how many times we watch it, of course we get the same results. So what we are watching here is a slice of time in the energy flow of the universe, where we happened to watch a particular event unfold. The person in the video was subjected to certain environmental parameters at each 'decision' point that made them fulfill their 'decisions'.

Now imagine if instead of watching the video over and over, we actually flow 'back' in time to the point where this person runs the race for the first time (and the runner's brain is also rolled back in time so it's still technically his first run). As we watch, we 'still' see that the runner has chosen left, right, right, finish. Reverse time again, left, right, right, finish. It will 'never' change. This running person will always 'choose' the same path, simply because the exact same environmental parameters were presented to that person every single time, and their brain is wired to respond with the actions it manifested each time.

What we perceive as 'choice' is not free-will as we like to define it, but rather it's an 'unfolding' of destiny. Our choices are handed to us, though our egos wish to call them our own. Fate long ago decided what this runner's path was going to be and he merely fulfilled the energy flow that defined this event.

It may help to understand that there are an infinite amount of 'decisions' that occurred throughout this race. We tend to focus on the choices of path, but what about the choices of where his feet would land, or when he chose to point his hands, or how he chose to breathe, or glance, or blink, or twist, or heartbeat, or twitch his left quadricep, or point his toe, or look up 1.5 degrees, or perspire 0.0045% more, or...etc.etc.etc. You see, there are an infinite number of turning points in any scenario, and simply because we recognize some on a human level, doesn't preclude that at every single instant of every event, some kind of choice is being made. It doesn't matter that some choices seem to stem from a 'consciousness' because ultimately our consciousness is nothing more than a very elaborate sequence of neural activity that processes information in a pre-determined way with an exact result.

You may argue that the second time this runner takes this course that he decides to take right, left, left, and then finish, but it is important to recognize that many parameters have now changed in the second scenario, most notably that the runner's brain now contains information about the path options that he might not have had before, and this new programming changes how he reacts to the same environmental conditions. For example, it might be his interest to discover what the other options were and this directs his actions to follow the complete opposite of the path he ran the first time (a completely new video). Two different scenarios. However, if you were to go back in time and follow his path the second time, over and over and over, he'd choose the right, left, left, finish, every single time, because the parameters that enter his brain for the second run are exactly the same, and his brain is exactly the same for each second run.

At the moment of the Big Bang is when the universe wrote the video of the future. We will never be able to (accurately) see this video until it has already played, but make no mistake, our fates our written. Our powerful egos suffer when attempting to consider our lives as nothing more than a fulfillment of a predetermined destiny, but the fact that our futures are unpredictable to us gives us the powerful illusion of control of that destiny and as such should suffice to comfort the ego; but at all times remember, it's just an illusion. Humans do not introduce any degree of randomness whatsoever into the universe, any more than a computer can operate outside of its programming. Our inability to predict our own futures or pre-determined decisions in no way separates us from the gameplan of the universe. The universe has already planned every decision we will ever make.

> As a result, our concept of protean "choice" only appears to be authentic because we observe it from a limited (read: lacking universal omniscience) perspective. This scenario, however, begs the question of how such a precise script was pre-ordained and by whom or what force or entity?

A natural direction to pursue when discussing fate, 'whom' is responsible? The problem is with the question, not the answer. The question should instead read, 'what' is responsible, which clearly removes any consciousness from the design of the universe. I use the word 'design' only to acknowledge that design has evolved in our universe, but it is important to understand that this design is a product of energy flow propagating evolution, and 'not' due to the ludicrous concept that a necessarily 'more' complex intelligence manifested this design.

To answer your question, the Big Bang is originally responsible for how the universe will play out its life, and all that it contains will follow a very precise script, however, there was no intelligence behind this scripting. Your perception of precision implies there is a huge improbability of reaching the apparent fine balance of the current state of the universe and its contained lifeforms that seem to perfectly match their environments. To explain why this precision is easily attained, let's use our eyes as an example: we have color-sensitive rods in our retinas that respond to red, green, and blue. That's it. Every other color we can possibly witness is some combination of these three primary colors in our retinas. These colors also happen to perfectly match the most powerful radiation frequencies that the sun generates, allowing us to maximize ambient light to view our environment with. Was this lucky? Designed? Try evolved. Many thousands of generations of our most ancient ancestors slowly evolved the ability to see in color, all through genetic mutation trial and error. If the sun had instead radiated a more ultraviolet or infrared spectrum to generate its greatest energy from, so too would we have evolved to 'see' those frequencies. It is no fluke that we are perfectly balanced to our environment, we just simply evolved thought natural selection to match it.

> Also, does this equate us to organic computers in that we only possess the ability to make the one logical deduction if faced with options?

Yes, exactly! We are biological machines that respond precisely to environmental stimuli. What makes this confusing for most people to understand is they believe that in reality we can encounter the same scenario twice and make a different decision, thereby breaking this concept. What needs to be understood is that even though it may seem like the same scenario twice, it is impossible for every single variable and thought to be in exactly the same condition it was the first time, simply because it is not the same time. If it were possible to step back in time and 'really' do the same scenario over again, it would 'always' demonstrate the exact same decision being made.

> If so, then why do so many people act so irrationally? Is it merely flawed programming? And if not, then does this serve as exemplary proof of free will?

'Irrational' is very subjective. One person's irrationality may be another's very logical emotional recourse. Everyone's programming is different and nobody will react in the exact same way as another person to the same scenario. This only demonstrates that we are all wired differently, due to different experiences in life, but again, the same person going through the exact same scenario (by going back in time) will 'always' perform the same 'decisions'

> And what of altruism? Using the example of finding a wallet and mailing it back to its owner without a return address, isn't it a defiance of logic that our egos would allow us to sacrifice the value of keeping the money in the wallet in exchange for the solely psychological value of knowing you did the right thing?

You are failing to acknowledge the logical benefit of exercising the altruistic instinct. Of course you are correct in recognizing that it is virtually 'impossible' to perform a logical yet unrewarding act, but when you throw in the reward of the altruistic instinctual 'fix', the above action of returning the wallet now has some merit; and that fix is far greater a reward than any amount of guilt-laced cash could offer. Instinctual placation is the source of all happiness; greed tends to be more obvious than most of the other instincts, but altruism can generate just as much, if not much more pleasure than most other instincts.

(taking a breath...)

> you say that "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 (religions)." This is one of the few areas where I strongly disagree with you. Unless we are forced to make them under duress, we are all responsible for our own choices, regardless of what sort of influence led us to make these decisions.

I would consider the threat of 'eternal damnation in hell' to be a powerful state of duress.

> To say otherwise would be the equivalent of saying a violent video game is responsible for a child murdering his sibling

It is merely common sense that violent environmental stimuli can induce violent behavior. You only know what you're taught.

> or that alcohol producers are to blame for alcohol-related traffic fatalities

I do believe that people who drink and drive are educated enough to bear the responsibility for their actions.

> or that a child brought up in a bad part of town who subsequently turned to crime is somehow not culpable for his decision.

Ultimately, this is a failing of society as a whole to provide opportunities for this individual to better themselves.

What I hope I've demonstrated from the above examples is that everything needs to be considered on a case by case basis, and that there are no draconian policies that are equally applicable in every scenario.

> The folly of this logic becomes apparent when we see that not all video gamers kill

So is it ok that even a small handful of violent video gamers kill? Do you not think we could create video games that are non-violent but still fulfill the aggressive instinctual placations that the violent games appeal to?

> (the) decision to profess belief in the imaginary may, itself, be initially made under duress applied from family and society, but the act of genuinely accepting this belief as truth and perpetuating it through your actions is truly an exhibit of free choice and as such, believers should be held personally accountable.

I disagree. Unless there are alternatives to consider, many people will be unable to see through the very imposing and coercive tactics of religious recruitment. Please understand how sinister and evolved the tactics employed by religions are, and how it is virtually impossible for the uneducated to even begin to challenge notions of ethereal existence. Once they are addicted to the faith narcotic, few can retreat. There is no free will in that, no more than a heroin addict can believe he can build a life for himself outside of the addiction.

> isn't it fair and logical to accept that the same figure you use (99.9999999%) could have also been used by pre-Copernican scientists regarding the centrality of earth to the universe from their perspective of reality and based on their knowledge of science?

Absolutely. With the evidence they had to work with, their theories exactly matched their observations. This doesn't mean their theories were fact any more than our modern day theories are fact, it just simply means that, by definition, theories will match the observations of the time. What they thought was close to 100% true, ended up being largely false. As more evidence presents itself, theories will continue to evolve to match, but until we have more evidence, we'll never know just how close to 100% accurate our 'facts' really are. Reality definition is an ongoing process.

> Now you and I both know that Leprechauns were a creation of human minds, but how can we say with absolute certainty that they don't exist somewhere in spite of the overwhelming odds against it fully knowing that we must accept that the odds we use are limited by our incomplete knowledge of the universe?

I don't think there is any evidence to grant the existence of leprechauns anywhere near a 99.999999% likelihood of existence. That isn't to say that they don't exist, but the chances of them existing approach zero, and as such, they are easily dismissed as fiction.

> this argument certainly doesn't lend any credence to the belief in the existence of Leprechauns. Rather, it only points out that strong atheism, although based deeply in factual evidence, still requires a certain degree of faith that our current understanding of science has not emboldened us to make premature judgments as a result of incorrectly interpreting what we see as evidence. You cannot know what is not yet known, therefore Atheistically-leaning Agnosticism still makes the most sense to me.

I would argue that there is as little evidence to support the existence of ethereal beings as there are of Leprechauns, Tooth Fairies, Zeus, and the Easter Bunny, and as such are dismissible. It is not logical 'whatsoever' to leverage the incompleteness of science in order to introduce the possibility of a complex ethereal consciousness. This is not a scientific approach, it is merely the primordial steps toward the severely misguided notion of 'Intelligent Design'. Please recognize my friend, that your choice of agnosticism is simply a reflection of the intimidation religion imposes on you with threats of ethereal punishment, and of your fear of death manifesting into the false hope of immortality...and of all the people that have written me thus far, I know that 'you' are smart enough to recognize this.

> Interesting take on marriage! So, do you feel that humans are not naturally inclined to mate for life?

The instinctual cues that lend itself to pair-bonding, and the subsequent child-rearing, have a lifespan that is meaningful to a healthy family environment until the children are mature enough to survive on their own. Beyond this point, I believe that any relationship which persists would need a foundation in friendship, companionship, and familiarity, but will probably be lacking in the roaring youthful lust that initially drove the union together. Of course there will always be exceptions to the above but as a rule, the biological element wanes over time and any union that persists usually depends upon personality congruency. What often makes a lifetime commitment difficult and impractical is the inevitable altering in people's dispositions as time passes; and the personalities that may have existed to forge the relationship may evolve over a decade or two to no longer facilitate a happy communion.

All that I am striving to help people identify (and many people think I'm just flat-out against marriage, which I'm not) is that people change over time, and if either/both of you change in a way that the two of you are no longer compatible, accept it, and gracefully, respectfully, and without penalty, go your separate ways. That's what nature has defined for us so stop fighting it with nonsensical lifetime commitments. You can't predict what you'll be like in 20 years so don't make commitments on your future you's behalf that you have no right to impose on future you; for the future you is truly a different person.

> "I'm not interested anymore; take care!" If dedication to family is reduced to such a trivial manner, I fear it could have a devastating effect on the youth which already face increasing challenges and temptations.

Absolutely. I completely agree that a pair-bond should not be enacted lightly, and with the full intent of serving the term necessary to see the child-rearing obligations to its fruition. I merely suggest that beyond that obligation to your offspring, you are free to choose your path (which obviously includes staying with your mate if you so choose).

> (using the) military as an analogy. There are certainly times when soldiers would like to simply hang up their uniforms and walk away, but to do so would incur hefty punishments since they have all voluntarily signed contracts to serve a set number of years in defense of our government's policies.

This is a great example because it defines a 'set number of years', as opposed to a 'lifetime' contract that marriages define, which demonstrates my point precisely. Would you sign a lifetime agreement with the military? Of course not. Who would want their entire life to be defined for them without the possibility to pursue any unforeseen future opportunities that may present themselves?

> I am inclined to believe that we could completely satiate our human instinct for competition through athletics, contests of intellect, and other non-violent means.

I believe this as well. These instinctually-satiating outlets must be taught at a young age such that those individuals that would be Hitler, or Khan, would have those energies channeled at an early age into harmless but satisfying outlets.

> However, my study of history and, to a greater extent, my first-hand experience has shown me otherwise to the point where I now fear that as long as there is testosterone, there will be armed conflict. Simply put, I am not confident that the masses will ever be mentally advanced enough to overcome their innate ego-driven desire to resort to force as a means to their ends even if religion is abandoned.

Sad, but true. Religion is merely a tool that higher orders use to manipulate, and to harvest the resources of the masses. The reason for the utilization of this tool remains even with the eradication of religion; conquest is as old as humanity. In my book, Meme, I describe a myriad of ways to define meaningful purpose and healthy pursuits that can feed the instincts (the path to true happiness), and in order to have a global peaceful society, all people must be educated in how to peacefully achieve these goals, otherwise they will be left to their raw instinctual cues and most of these cues lead to very destructive consequences on colossal scales.

> First, you could find a way to better organize, by topic, the weblog pages.

Oh to have the time...

> Second, you ought to consider naming the Earian deity

Interesting. Never felt that was important, but I'll try to come up with something.

Please be safe my friend. I, and I'm sure all my readers, wish a safe return for you and your brothers and sisters at war.

Much respect,

Sean Sinjin

{All letters from this contributor: 6.85, 21.296}

Link to this article

Back to top