Page 14 |
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:
#178 - Materialism or materialism? - Mar 25, 2006, 10:38 AM
#179 - Dare to compare - Mar 25, 2006, 10:49 AM
#180 - Maligned with reality - Apr 08, 2006, 06:46 AM
#181 - Priorities - Apr 08, 2006, 07:27 AM
#182 - Fear - Apr 08, 2006, 08:08 AM
#183 - Means to an end? - Apr 08, 2006, 08:16 AM
#184 - The continuing infection of the religious meme-virus - Apr 08, 2006, 08:26 AM
#185 - One less victim of mythology - Apr 08, 2006, 08:35 AM
#186 - Hanging on to the afterlife - Apr 08, 2006, 09:55 AM
#187 - How to fix the system - Apr 08, 2006, 10:12 AM
#188 - Crack-houses of faith - Apr 08, 2006, 10:41 AM
#189 - The far left - Apr 15, 2006, 12:48 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#177 - Ghosts, demons, and spirits - March 25, 2006, 09:27 AM |
Mr. Siderain wrote back:
> Im curious to know your take on ghosts. Just the wind? Obviously I dont think it is an angel or a demon or anything like that, but could it be more than a drafty house?
An excellent and timeless question, and the answer as you already suspect is a 10-story 'no', there is absolutely no such thing as ghosts (nor souls, witches, psychics, spirits, demons, alternate planes of existence, etc.)
The notion of a ghost originated long, long ago before we had even evolved the ability to communicate. Our evolutionary transition from an animal to a more 'sentient' species has left us with a legacy of instinctual and autonomic biological systems that 'trigger' automatically based upon environmental cues. One of the most pronounced systems we have is called the 'sympathetic' system. Despite the very misleading name, this system really only serves to prepare us 'animals' for a 'flight or fight' state of mind and body. You can feel the effects of this system when you get angry or scared (your pulse quickens, you brain becomes very alert, your muscles tighten, etc.). The sympathetic system is evolutionarily 'trained' to switch on when your senses come across a potential threat. Unfortunately, these 'threats' are not always fully discernible and so your imagination works hard to fill in the blanks of what a perceived threat might be.
For example, most everyone is creeped-out by an old decrepit house. The pitfalls of weak floor structure and rabid animals aside, the many dark corners, accompanied by the creaks and groans that an old house generates, provides ample 'unknown' stimulation for the senses to feed the imagination with. The imagination's job is to try to identify those noises and dark shapes, and if there's not enough information (too dark, weird creak, etc.), it 'must' assume the worst case scenario (a threat) in order to keep you as alert as possible to a potential (unidentified) threat. It doesn't matter if you 'know' that the house is safe and there's nobody there, because the instincts cannot operate on this knowledge, they only respond to the senses. Your intelligence only comes into play 'after' the assessment of environmental stimuli by the instincts. This means that even if you know it's safe, your sympathetic system has already kicked in and you'll 'feel' scared regardless.
Now having this understanding of the biology behind fear can help to dissuade false perceived 'threats', but let's examine what happens when people do 'not' understand this mechanism. It is quite easy to interpret your biological responses to this type of environment as somehow 'sensing' a 'presence' of something else. True, your mind is 'preparing' for the presence of something else, but that is not the same as there actually being something else. Someone that is susceptible to ethereal notions, might investigate those dark corners to find nothing, and think to themselves, "I'm pretty sure I sensed something here, so it must have been here and then vanished. The only thing that can vanish is something magical and ethereal, and the simplest thing that I can relate to that would have this agenda would be an intelligence"; hence, a 'ghost' is born.
Why does our mind work like this? Well, consider the scenario thousands of years ago when our ancestors would rummage through the forest in search of food. Back then, predators that preyed upon humans were a very real danger and conceivably the stealth-like nature of those creatures would make them very difficult to visually locate before they were within deadly range. This meant that in order for us to survive, our senses had to be very fine-tuned to the environment to pick up on these background cues (twig snapping, lack of birds chirping, etc.). Once the sympathetic system subconsciously picked up on these cues, it would fire up, put our ancestors on brilliant alert for danger, and their imaginations worked overtime to piece together the environmental evidence into assessing the nature of the threat.
This is where our ubiquitous 'ghost' concept came from, from the very frequent occasions when the threat was never identified (or entirely misconstrued) and the imagination's version of what was 'out there' overruled the reality. This 'wild imagination' may have kept our ancestors out of danger many more times than there actually was danger (better safe than sorry) but it has also imperiled humanity with a litany of legends and folklore about ghosts, demons, and spirits, wildly exacerbated in prominence by the misinterpretation of the causes of various mental illnesses (e.g., demonic possession), delusions suffered under the influence of various narcotics (e.g., psilocybin hallucinogen from mushrooms), the desire for afterlife (e.g., the soul), the need to sedate a state of bereavement (e.g., refusing to accept that a loved one is gone forever), and religious promotion due to the recognition of the power wielding abilities of fear of the 'supernatural'; among other reasons.
> The fact that so many people have encountered these phonomena makes me draw this conclusion.
This consensus 'magical' interpretation of said phenomena is due to everyone having the exact same ancient 'sympathetic' system in their brains. This makes it quite easy to believe 'any' ethereal interpretation of the sympathetic system's response because everyone has a similar reaction to any given 'spooky' stimuli. If the imagination is left unchecked, this can quickly turn into an 'ethereal' explanation, and once a rumor gets going...
> How many dimensions have we yet to understand?
I would like to discourage utilization of the concept of alternate 'dimensions' as some form of human-inaccessible 'hiding' place for all demons, ghosts, spirits, etc. This 'dimension' other-world concept probably began to surface at the time that mathematics and physics started to suggest there might be more than the four dimensions (length, width, height, temporal) necessary to describe the universe. Some examples of 'other' dimensions might be energy, spin, orientation, magnetic charge, etc. Since then, the concept of dimension in its 'quantitative measure' definition, has been horrifically perverted into implying that doppelganger universes exist; creating 'fantasy' out of science. The notion of alternate planes of existence, though excellent fodder for sci-fi literature, is nothing more than yet another fictional spin on science that some people have taken literally, and now it's become difficult to backpaddle away from this 'twilight zone' belief, back into reality.
> Whenever I come to a subject like this (or religion), I just tell myself that the universe doesnt care what i believe, and it will continue on its course to whatever end regardless of what i try to make it. Our best hope is to try to understand it as much as we can and use this knowledge to our benefit (Thats why I want to be an astronomer).
My friend, that is a most excellent frame of mind you have.
Take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
#178 - Materialism or materialism? - March 25, 2006, 10:38 AM
Mr. Yoredove wrote:
> Both you and your reader have misconstrued the term "materialism" as it applies to Atheists. The terms refers to the materialism philosophies of early Greeks, right through to Descartes, Hobbes and Diderot. In a nutshell, the only thing that exists is matter, that all things are composed of material, and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Applied to atheism, the concept of Materialism is often at its core; atheists regard the world as it actually is, viewed only in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. I doubt seriously, that you would reject this view.
I do not reject that there's probably a wide adoption of this perception of atheism, that atheists only perceive things made of 'material' (not to be confused with 'materialistic' in which contemporary definition implies an inordinate value towards goods and power), but as we'll see below, it is not intrinsically a part of atheism.
> Clearly, you've both confused Materialism with its non-philosophical definition: "A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns". This is unfortunate. I expect this kind of mistake from your readers -- you should be setting them straight.
I'll admit to being completely oblivious as to the origin of the application of 'materialism' in reference to atheism, and thank you for providing the history for such (and setting me straight). Your point notwithstanding, I believe our focus was on whether or not 'materialism' (of any definition) is inherently a part of atheism. Let's refer to a couple dictionary definitions to clarify things.
Dictionary.com describes 'atheism' as:
1 a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods
1 b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods
2) Godlessness; immorality
Merriam-Websters online dictionary describes 'atheism' as:
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a) A disbelief in the existence of deity
2 b) The doctrine that there is no deity
As we can see, neither the literal, nor the diminutive definition of 'atheism' make any provisions whatsoever for the notion of matter, materials, or materialism, or any variations of those terms. It may seem a natural conclusion that an absence of perceiving 'ethereal' elements must therefore leave only 'material' elements (the same 'reverse' pseudo-logic that leads us into false paradigms such as 'Intelligent Design'), but this conclusion is perhaps a bit hasty.
For example, some scientists postulate the existence of alternate dimensions, something that we cannot ever 'materialistically' encounter. Though I personally discount this idea, it is nonetheless not encapsulated by either an 'ethereal' perspective, nor your chosen definition of 'materialism', and yet this perception can comfortably be held by an atheist. It is also quite possible for a person to reject both ethereal notions 'and' material presence, considering our reality instead to be a product of information, of which nothing more exists (a perspective that I personally find intriguing). This too is atheism, but not materialism. And what of the possibility that our consciousness is really nothing more than a software program locked into a neural net somewhere and all that we perceive and know is merely a simulation fed to our 'virtual' consciousness. This too, can be atheism and not materialism.
Any appendage of 'materialism' to atheism, regardless of origin or interpretation, is exactly just that, an appendage, and not a fundamental constituent of atheism. Of course the serious fallout of the purported 'materialist' definition of atheism is what we've already witnessed, misinterpretation, and ultimately anyone who isn't privy to the original intent of the word (myself included) is going to naturally assume the contemporary definition and believe that atheists are power and wealth hungry, which makes no more sense than saying all doctors are female, and all females are doctors; there is no relationship.
I hope I've at least clarified the true definition of 'atheism', versus what assumptions and conventions are commonly drawn from that definition.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.178, 14.187}
#179 - Dare to compare - March 25, 2006, 10:49 AM
Mr. Grayneice wrote:
> Sir: Are you proud of your understanding of the mind?
I'm not quite sure how to take this. Can I say 'yes' without falling into a trap?
> Have you read "Realms Of The Human Unconcious" by researcher/psychiatrist Stanislav Grof?
No, but from the few excerpts I've found on the Internet, I believe it would be an educational read.
Tell me please, what is it you are pursuing with these two questions? Are you attempting to contrast my work here at BetterHuman.org against a lifetime of hallucinogen-inspired insights from the author you mention? If so, I dare say that our work may very well complement each other's and I see no need to compete for intellectual prominence.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
#180 - Maligned with reality - April 08, 2006, 06:46 AM
Mr. Cardhome wrote back:
> I feel that I've thought the topics through enough for my own needs for the time being rather than a derogation of your forum.
My friend, this is a dangerous 'plateau' to reach, that of believing there's no need for further discussion or learning, especially in light of our recent conversations that exposed a few unfortunate ideas you subscribe to. I'm sure you'll agree that this 'all I need to know' type of mentality is also typically one of the same primary failings with religion, closing one off to the endless pursuit of truth. Knowledge is a river with no source. You can keep swimming upstream, learning more and more, but there is a point for everyone at which they cannot continue; they simply don't have the strength to learn anything more. It is here that they build their cabin (perspective) and live their lives. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, except when those people claim they've reached the river's source. The river of knowledge is far too long for anyone to know everything, so it only makes sense to accept that what you know will always be incomplete.
Previously I wrote:
"Your 'rules' were formulated centuries ago and have little validity in today's modern world; we are no longer simple peasants."
> My rules are probably very similar to yours.
I'd be interested to know how congruent our philosophies are. Take a look at the BetterHuman.org tenets and see how you fit against them.
> I also am not a simple peasant!
In no way does my statement imply you are, in fact, it says quite the opposite.
I previously wrote:
"So, exactly 'when' is it appropriate to 'make up' a false threat in order to control people with fear?"
> When those people are beyond hope of reform and their actions cause greater suffering to others.
The reason that a mythological 'fear' control mechanism fails to have your desired effect is due to the degree and longevity of 'programming' that a person would already necessarily have had to been subjected to, in order to even be able to coerce them with ethereal fears. If you attempt to put the 'fear of God' into someone that has never been to church, they're going to laugh you right out the door. There are many forms of punishment/reform (incarceration, psychology, love, etc.) that are infinitely more effective in modeling socially-congruent behaviors.
> Nonetheless some very dangerous and very capable people are manipulable. Take the suicide bombers of 911 who underwent extensive intellectually demanding training for long periods in time in order to pursue a tast that would end their own lives. These were very tough, very intelligent and very idealistic people. Desperately poor and psychologically devastating situations serve to create make these people homicidal bigotted nutters.
You've rather nicely supported BetterHuman.org's position against religion. In your example, these people were bred to believe that upon their martyred deaths, they would go to an ethereal plane of existence where their sexual appetites would be supremely placated with virgins. Of course this sounds ridiculous to you and I, but it is exactly as ridiculous as an ethereal entity sending his son down to us to be crucified so that upon the death of the believers, they too can go to an ethereal plane of existence where other instinctual placations will be satisfied. Both versions of this same fantasy only serve one purpose, to manipulate believers with false hope. The fact that we know these particular followers were sui/homicidal, is situational, and can easily be paralleled with many historically similar examples in virtually all other religions. All religions have been used as a tool of death.
> I wish I found it within myself to believe that a total transition to humanitarian secularism is inevitable. I don't think the human race will survive long enough. We are doomed.
I'm sure it seems like a very radical transition, especially to those that have led a very religious life and are just now undertaking the colossal shift to a reality perspective, but I'm a lot more optimistic about our future; if only because I have made the journey myself and I know that the hardest part is the first step; accepting true death. It continuously get easier from there.
I'd also like to point out that this 'reality' transition has already begun, and is gaining momentum. What I'm doing here at BetterHuman.org is in no way going 'against' the flow because for quite some time now, there has been a gradual and yet persistent tide shift towards non-theistic perspectives. Humankind's intellectual evolution toward a reality perspective is quite simply, inevitable, and of course we will survive, and be much better for it. Do not be afraid of our brave new future, for what you will witness at the end of religion's reign is humankind's purified love and altruism brilliantly surfacing from beneath eons of ethereal profiteering, and the resultant circulating love from your fellow humans will be stronger than ever in recorded history, because all that love that we waste on fantasy creatures in the sky, will be refocused onto each other; trust me on that.
> We have the power to create our own niches in a way that no other animal has ever done and are outstripping our resources with terrifying abandon.
Of course this concerns me too. A prioritization towards capitalism could very well be our downfall. I have to believe that our future leaders will have the strength of mind to address these issues, but that is beyond the scope of this weblog (though I am working on a solution).
> Maybe I should stand up and be counted but for personal reasons I don't want to because my mother has a very very hard life and is a devout Christian, if she knew what I was it would break her heart.
You are identifying a very common challenge for those that wish to pursue a reality perspective, and that is the risk of alienation from those that they love. For myself, this challenge was only second to not having a guide to take me into reality. It is 'very' painful to have someone you love, look upon you like 'you' were insane, and lose all respect for you. I still suffer those losses today, but you know what? Those losses are not my fault, those losses are on the hands of those that poisoned their minds with mythology in the first place, rendering them insane. For me, it all comes down to 'integrity'; do I want to act and live a lie, or do I stand up against all and represent my true self?
It may help you decide if we put things into perspective (and please don't take offence to this example because it truly parallels your situation and is only meant to shed some light on it): if your mother believed wholeheartedly in the Earian bunny god, and faithfully put on her bunny ears and climbed down into the bunny hole every Wednesday night to worship this magical character because she believed she would go to bunny heaven when she died, would you still find it so difficult to tell her that you didn't believe that this bunny has the power to grant immortality?
Of course, even if you agree, it still may not justify having this conversation with her, as the fallout may be too great. Ultimately, you may not really even need to confront your mother on this matter, but there are many other arenas in which you could vocally represent your philosophies.
> Frankly it's a lot of hassle to unconvert people, you'd have to be very close to them to have an opinion that mattered to them.
Exactly, exactly. This is one of the reasons why I do not want BetterHuman.org to become a 'club' where people can come and remain 'exclusive' from other people. I want everyone that subscribes to our philosophies to integrate with everyone else and do precisely what you are saying above, use your influence on those that are close to you. Nobody's going to listen to Sean Sinjin, but they are going to listen to 'you'.
> I don't fancy being saddled with trying to help these people get psychiatric treatment or feeling guilty for doing so.
I wouldn't suggest you have to. The number one priority in your life should be to make yourself happy. For myself, exposing fraud and injustice makes me very happy and hence you witness Meme and BetterHuman.org. I in no way am suggesting that everyone do the same. Do whatever you feel you can to help, but you are not obligated to do so. You were born into a world of insane people, that's not your mess to clean up.
> Such people would only walk away unless they were very desperate and if they were that low what decent person could stand to make them suffer?
How would you feel if those people were hooked on heroin instead?
> In any case people like lies.
Nobody likes being lied to. They only listen to the lies because they can't handle their fear of death.
> It was the hardest transition I have ever made in my life and made harder by having serious real world challenges to face at the time.
My brother, congratulations on having the strength to face reality, even in the face of despair.
> But having changed I am substantially wiser and more empathic for doing so.
Thank you for contributing that. This doesn't make sense to most religious people so it helps to have other non-believers discuss their intrinsic morality and altruism.
> I think it would be a good thing to establish some kind of secular counselling service/forum with the intent to help people undergoing faith loss to learn to live with themselves.
Agreed, and 'everyone' should do their part. You are reading my contribution to that pursuit.
> Unfortuneatly I don't see how its members of staff could be protected from religious fundamentalists.
That was a serious challenge that I had to address when beginning this project. The risk is very real and I have necessarily had to sacrifice some liberties in order to remain secure. Trying to prove that practically everyone in the world is insane, is a task fraught with peril.
> An internet forum of that type would probably get hacked to pieces, I'm surprised yours isn't.
We will be stepping up our exposure in the near future so those risks are going to surface, I'm sure. But, like the old adage goes, bad press is still good press. The more BetterHuman.org is hated and/or feared, the more the message will get out there.
> Maybe there is no anger there now but you must be changed by it. How can a person loose their religion and be made alien to their own families without wanting to beat the {censored} out of something at sometime?
I was the angriest person on Earth for a very long time. Fragments of that person remain, but none of that anger motivates me today. Once I realized that my anger stemmed from being victimized by a faceless enemy (the religious meme-virus), I was eventually able to reinvent my disposition into something logical and progressive, the vaccine, which you are reading. It makes no more sense to be angry at religion than it does to be angry at an ear infection. The time came to stop screaming, and find a cure.
> My rage is largely abstracted into these kinds of discussion.
It definitely helps to verbalize these thoughts.
> Most of the torrent of anger I have felt is no longer there but it has chiselled out caverns in my mind that still reverberate with its echoes so I am still, in some sense, angry. When my mother dies the cavern will, predictably, fill with malignant bile again as I am left to look after my sporadically alcoholic and/or drug addicted/manic depressive older sister.
What a burden you impose on yourself, my friend. How is it you feel solely responsible to take on these duties? Where do 'you' come into the picture? Why allow your sister to ruin two lives? You don't owe her that.
> You can't effectively punch air!
Much empirical evidence has demonstrated this to me as well.
Seek happiness in life,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}
#181 - Priorities - April 08, 2006, 07:27 AM
Ms. Tellfour wrote back:
> My Dear Sean; As a Atheist I love what you are doing but at this stage of my life it is too frustrating & time consuming to read the ugly ignorant ratings of the 'believers.' I will continue to visit your web site on occasion for a refreshing look at what and should be our future. Keep up the good work.
I know exactly how you feel. It is not my desire to engage them directly either, but, there is a master plan to all this confrontation, and it won't be too long before all this dialogue works against religion.
Thank you for explaining your need to withdraw from BetterHuman.org weblog updates, and congratulations on prioritizing your life towards self-fulfillment and happiness instead. You are an excellent example of a BetterHuman.
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 9.134, 10.144, 14.181, 18.248}
#182 - Fear - April 08, 2006, 08:08 AM
Ms. Beadquit wrote:
> stop exploiting ppl
My friend, can I please ask you how you perceive BetterHuman.org to be 'exploiting' people? We don't ask for money, in fact, we have had many offers of donations and I have refused them all. Our primary goal is to clear people's mind of the insanity of mythology; the motivation being education, not exploitation. Our mission is to 'prevent' the exploitation of people by religions, such as yours.
> there is no GOD BUT ALLAH IS THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE
I am so sorry that you are yet another unwitting victim of the greatest tragedy in human history: religion. You may never come to understand the true nature of the universe because of your inflicted inability to accept that which is outside of the safety shell of your faith. But, no matter what you believe, it does not change the fact that the mindless power of the Big Bang was the 'only' creator of this universe. Please read my book, Meme, to educate yourself in the sciences that can explain how the universe came to be without an ethereal consciousness to guide it, and how mythology (like your faith) is a human-fabricated tool for controlling the masses with fear.
Please, don't lead with blind hate towards that which you do not understand; we are here to help.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.182, 17.236}
#183 - Means to an end? - April 08, 2006, 08:16 AM
Mr. Zapmoat wrote:
> Please, call me {removed}. I like your site, and can help.
I appreciate the sincere offer, my friend, and please forgive me, but for security reasons I will be unable to connect with you directly. Also, please understand that I am not looking to create a coalition of any sort, I am merely presenting a philosophy to pursue. If you truly want to help BetterHuman.org, then try to educate the people within your realm of influence about reality, and help them to see the evil nature of religion. This will be the greatest contribution you can possibly make to our mission.
> I have a plan that can work to elect a non-religious legislature that will challenge ludditism and faith at the federal level.
I too have entertained notions of a regulatory approach to the oppression of religion, but it's my feeling that any judges capable of making these types of decisions will be unwilling to take on such risk, even if they themselves believe it makes sense. This legal 'oppression' approach may be too premature. Laws are not always reflective of what's in the best interest of a society but instead they're often more reflective of what would maintain the greatest stability. Introduction of powerful legislation like the above in today's current societal state would have phenomenal repercussions that we are not currently fit to absorb. I believe that society itself has to change before the laws will bend accordingly, and this is why I am appealing to the individual, instead of trying to beat them around with the law. People will vehemently resist being told what to think.
> I am an objectivist.
Dictionary.com's definition is: One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
This may or may not do justice to Ayn Rand's more elaborate exposition of this concept, but I think one can draw out the essence of it. This definition handily relates to a recent weblog entry that equated atheism to 'materialism' (in the 'tactile' sense of the word).
> Her views on faith are excellent. Moreover, she is a harsh critic of altruism, which you unfortunately seem to endorse as a merit, in some of your writings.
I'm absolutely stunned that anyone could discount the merits of altruism, though I suppose your statement above could have more foundation to it than this rather bleak summary. Do you have some references to her justification for anti-altruism?
> Selfishness is a good trait that encourages beneficial actions. There is no conflict between the self and the greater good.
I'll disagree because I believe it's quite easy to identify many scenarios where one's selfishness impedes upon another's happiness; contrary to the 'greater good'. And though BetterHuman.org clearly supports the pursuit of self-fulfillment to the greatest reasonable capacity (aka selfishness), in no way is this meant to exclude altruism (selflessness, or self-sacrifice).
> I have attempted to educate, where possible, but the faith addicts have the numbers. What then, is a strategy for succcess against this monstrosity of human ignorance?
Understanding and compassion for their ailment, granting them a meaningful and complete reality education, assisting them to define their own purpose, and lots of time. The transition to a reality perspective is probably the greatest challenge humankind will ever face (and I 'love' a challenge) so it might very well not realize itself in our lifetimes, however, this extended effort does not diminish the importance of the steps we take today to fuel this transition.
> It involves pandering and deception in self-defense, and is a very realistic plan.
I'm afraid that your plan to promote atheism utilizes the same ulterior toolset as religion, and is quite contrary to the essence of BetterHuman.org. We wish to be a symbol of trust, integrity, respect, and credibility. These traits cannot ever be sacrificed, 'ever', even if the end result would ultimately further our mission. We will not take shortcuts, or cheat; we have started with a slow, steady walk, and some day we will cross the finish line, all of us walking together.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.183, 14.189}
#184 - The continuing infection of the religious meme-virus - April 08, 2006, 08:26 AM
Mr. Matget wrote:
> I've got to address your book/philosophy from the perspective of somebody (American) teaching English in China. You'd be amazed at how many well educated, English speaking Chinese enbrace fundamentalist Christian theology. ... The reason I think, Christianity is so popular here maybe are two from what I can tell. The unpopularity of the atheistic dry Marxist dogma and the vacuum or morality/belief that people are inclined to embrase.
As witnessed in even recent history, any attempt to suppress ethereal addiction by replacing it with cold, empty atheism, is bound to fail. People need more than just perspective, they need purpose and fulfillment, something which atheism alone does not define. It is important to have a perspective founded in atheism, but it is also necessary to extend this philosophy to attempt to address these 'human' needs.
> The other is the high concentration of Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christian missionaries in the Universities working as teachers.
I'm surprised that China even allows this. I don't imagine they would allow heroin dealers to teach their children to speak English.
> I think the flaws of Communism, as far as atheist thought though, are disturbing.
I know there's a historical correlation between communism and atheism, but I wish it to be clear to my readers that they do not necessarily imply one another. Atheism can occur in any kind of government, and likewise communism can also support religion. The two are not interdependent.
> Atheism is maybe too intellectual an undertaking for the masses of uneducated peasantry the Communist leaders had to deal with. They were never up to the challenge.
Correct my friend, and what you've identified is that education forms a key role in clearing the disease of mythology from humanity. Simply oppressing religion without offering something easily-digestible by the masses to replace it with, will result in nothing more than an exercise in futile attrition. People 'have' to have answers, and if they don't understand the answers given to them, they'll make up their own; hence religion.
> Christian missionaries, on the other hand, don't care much about money. They're more interested in 'saving souls for God' and such. So they will accept the lower pay the universities offer to get access to bright young minds that are already more interested in English and things western, not really having thought about religion before and their teachers are mainly talking about Jesus. It's really a perfect storm environment for Christian missionaries. You get are a large number of well educated Chinese, disenchanted with their own secular country being exposed to Christian theology on their campus and getting the impression that all foreigners are Christian. They have the support network, the faith community, the sexy Western appeal with the frowning of the paternalistic government.
The religious meme-virus runs amok, infecting the disenfranchised as it has for millennia. What an exceptionally resilient virus; though, its resilience is entirely a product of human malcontent.
Thanks for sharing your experiences,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 14.184, 15.190}
#185 - One less victim of mythology - April 08, 2006, 08:35 AM
Mr. Writleap wrote back:
> Compliments of the season. I want to thank you for the motherly and divine advice you gave to me.
I'm so glad you found the advice valuable. I hope you feel much safer and happier now.
> Please what are the main objective of your organisation. I am interested to know more about better human organisation,
BetterHuman.org wishes to educate people so they do not believe in fantasy. You know exactly how scary it is when you believe in magical things, and this is how bad people control good people, with fear. Every single religion in the world is doing this to their followers. Religions 'scare' people with fake stories about demons and gods and spirits and other such nonsense so that these people will give their money to the churches. Religions are 'evil', and that is what BetterHuman.org is trying to teach everyone.
> What is your Nationality.
I will only claim to be a member of the human race; the political details are not important.
> I humbly request for your right hand of friendship and honest co-operation.
My brother, you had my friendship before we ever met. If you have any questions, please send them to us.
Be safe,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 13.174, 14.185}
#186 - Hanging on to the afterlife - April 08, 2006, 09:55 AM
Mr. Labeldial wrote:
{All letters from this contributor: 14.178, 14.187}
{All letters from this contributor: 3.29, 10.141, 13.173, 14.180}
{All letters from this contributor: 9.134, 10.144, 14.181, 18.248}
{All letters from this contributor: 14.182, 17.236}
{All letters from this contributor: 14.183, 14.189}
{All letters from this contributor: 14.184, 15.190}
{All letters from this contributor: 13.174, 14.185}