Page 16 |
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:
#209 - Blind fury - Jul 01, 2006, 01:43 PM
#210 - Isolating the ethereal high - Jul 01, 2006, 01:53 PM
#211 - Big daddy in the sky - Aug 22, 2006, 07:33 AM
#212 - Self-defining purpose - Aug 26, 2006, 09:38 AM
#213 - The pursuit of spirituality - Aug 26, 2006, 10:03 AM
#214 - The dream of God - Sep 09, 2006, 08:48 AM
#215 - Mother Earth - Sep 09, 2006, 09:16 AM
#216 - Contrasting gravity theories - Sep 16, 2006, 10:47 AM
#217 - Spooky special effects - Oct 08, 2006, 05:34 PM
#218 - Separating atheism from communism - Nov 04, 2006, 09:48 AM
#219 - What defines 'extremist'? - Nov 11, 2006, 06:42 PM
#220 - Closure - Nov 20, 2006, 09:22 PM
#221 - Recentering - Nov 20, 2006, 09:25 PM
#222 - Kudos for Meme - Nov 22, 2006, 11:03 PM
#223 - Sean Sinjin the recluse - Nov 26, 2006, 05:36 PM
#224 - Understanding the weighted vote system - Nov 26, 2006, 05:49 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#208 - The virulent religious meme-virus - June 21, 2006, 08:34 AM |
Hello my friend, Ms. Playlope
I must say that the three emails you sent back to back each carry with them a distinct mood. This first one has a gritty tone that I've broken apart for careful examination; a very powerful piece.
The first thing I want to point out about your letter, my friend, is how filled it is with mockery, ignorance, and prejudice, and 'completely' devoid of any altruism or generosity of spirit. I'm not suggesting that you don't possess these traits, but I am disappointed that these approaches had no value to you. Let's take a look:
> Wow, what an earthshocking revelation it will be to you when you do die, and you find that you face none other than God himself.
This is mockery manipulation. Of course, you are assuming your mythology is correct without the possibility of being wrong, and so leveraging that position you are now attempting to belittle our scientific perspective instead of selling me on the merits of yours. To me, this suggests that you do not wish to convince me of your perspective at all, but that you'd rather push me away so that you can callously watch me suffer in the end because of my 'miseducation'. Let me ask you, do you let your children burn themselves with matches so that they'll learn not to play with fire?
> Can't wait to be a fly on that wall when you find out that you really aren't a God at all, and he looks at you and says, I never knew you.
There are a couple things here I'd like to point out: first, going back to my point about 'watching others suffer'; can you explain your morbid fascination with observing the demise of your fellow humans that you believe are misguided? Is this mentality something your religion endorses? And the second point is your incorrect assumption that we consider ourselves 'gods'. This, of course, is ludicrous; we're just humans after all. We don't worship anything except the pursuit of happiness.
> Good luck with that.
More sarcasm, my friend.
> Lord, they will know the truth and the truth will set them free. Every knee will bow in this organization and every tongue in this organization will confess that Jesus is Lord.
Now your religious meme-virus is rewarding you with an ethereal 'high' by convincing you that a strong connection was made between you and your ethereal entity. This must feel quite good to you, especially when mixed with your prior ego-placating dialogue.
> Everyone from this day forward who reads their website will also know the truth and the truth will set them free. And I dedicate this website and its teachings to spiritual destruction (not by the hands of men) and pray that they will be shown to be in the wrong. I loose the angels of heaven and the forces of the holy spirit to pull down this stronghold of humanism.
I sincerely do not wish to mock you, but I'm going to translate your statement into a form that will make you understand how I receive it.
"Everyone from this day forward who reads the BetterHuman.org website will turn their backs to its nonsense and eventually submit to the high of ethereal addiction and ethereal addiction will sedate them from the pains of reality. And I ask my magical deity to take this website and its teachings and destroy it (or by the hands of people that we'll deny did it) and we'll go through the motions of pretending to care for them so that we don't look like uncaring people, even though we don't care about non-believers. With as much false magic and empty intimidation possible, I will now attempt to convince you of the 'cursed' demise of your site that promotes social harmony between all humans."
This all reminds me of a prior submitter to our website (article: 13.174) that was desperately trying to find protection from a voodoo-like 'hex' (he called it Juju) that he believed someone had placed on him and his family. He was absolutely terrified and was quite prepared to pay money to have someone break this 'curse' on him. Of course, to you and I this is absolute 'nonsense', but it was very real to him. It took a couple emails back and forth, but I was finally able to convince him that nobody has magical powers and therefore nobody can place a magical 'curse' on anybody else. It's a good thing he was able to see it all for the superstitious nonsense that it is.
My friend, when you look upon me across the void that separates us, do you seriously see a demonic form that spouts evil and needs to be destroyed? Or do you simply see a very strange figure that speaks a different language than you? Ask yourself, why are you compelled to 'destroy' that which you don't understand?
> May god bless you with the discenment you so desperately need.
If even I can see through the insincerity above, then by definition, I believe your god would be able to as well.
Now on to your second letter, which is filled with remorse at having sent the first one. Your retrospection has revealed to you that you wrote the first email with much rage and virtually no compassion, and this time you have backpedaled to a position more representative of a 'caring' faith.
> Exactly when was it that you cried out to God and felt that he either didn't answer you, or didnt answer the way you thought he should?
Again, let me ask you the same question in different terms so that you can see how I receive the above:
"Exactly when was it that you cried out to the Tooth Fairy and felt that she didn't answer you?"
Do you see now how impossible it is to answer that question? It doesn't make any sense.
> You see, I speak to non-believers and atheists all the time. I have recruited many of them to the Kingdom of God.
How very unfortunate for those victims.
> One thing I find as a common thread is loss-- the loss of a loved one, or a situation where they cried out to God and felt that their prayer was not answered, or was not answered in the way they felt it should have been.
Actually, I simply saw through the façade and realized that your 'god' is all a very elaborate smoke-screen sustained by the churches so that they can convince you to give them your money in exchange for false god brownie-points. That's all there is to it.
> Is that a dictator, as you describe it on your site?
It's not the god that's the dictator (because it doesn't exist), it's the purveyors of this faith system that are, the priests. They are the ones that capitalize on this fanaticism.
> I can assure you, that God is real.
No, my friend, you can't. You've only tried to 'compel' me with emotionally-charged threats and mockery; of which I'm completely immune to. Manipulation with powerful emotions is lewd and primitive, surely you must know that.
> How sad it must be to not be able to reach to him for comfort, hope, encouragement.
It would make no more sense than reaching out to the Easter Bunny for comfort, hope, and encouragement. If it doesn't exist, it can't help you. I rely on my friends, my family, and my invincible inner-core to draw the strength necessary to face reality, and face it I do, head on.
> You see, just as man is made of atoms, and just as gravity is a force you cannot see, God is made of love
Now on some metaphysical level, I will agree with you here. The 'real' entity of your 'God' is nothing more than an abstract concept that manifests as the focal point of humankind's desire to find perfect love and ego placation. We've invented the 'entity' of a god in order to have something to 'point' our perfect love at. However, this 'love' would be much more useful if we could instead point it at each other, instead of wasting it on mythology.
> of that is -- if it is true whether you believe it or not, you are in big trouble at the day of judgement.
An excellent example of 'threat' manipulation. This damnation threat is one of the cornerstones of religion's persistence, that being the most unimaginable punishment possible for non-submission. You poor soul, how sad it is that you unwittingly suffer in the very hell you believe you are avoiding.
> Love (and I mean that sincerely)
My dear friend, I truly wish I could accept your statement above, but I do not believe you understand how to love another that does not share your beliefs. No, I'm afraid that the above is merely an attempt to prove to your god that you are capable of compassion. In other words, you are using our situation to garner brownie points from your God (whom in turn you are 'using' to gain access to your coveted immortality).
As for the rest, despite the extreme length of this second letter, I didn't find a lot of value in much of what was said because it mostly boiled down to preaching of your religious mantra, which is readily available by the truckload at any church and therefore not needed here.
> Oh and btw. Anything that I have written in this email is MY property because it is written by my hand and I do not by virtue of having written an email to you, give you any rights to copy it nor use it in any way shape or form without my express legal consent. That means my written approval.
I wish it to be clear to all my readers and submitters that I do not have the liberty of time to interact one on one with individuals, and therefore my time must be focused on generating material specifically for the weblog. To this end, there are very clear statements on BetterHuman.org that forewarn submitters that their submissions will be made anonymous, and become the property of BetterHuman.org. There are no exceptions. Please, for further reference, if you do not wish to have your submissions published, then it would be in your best interest to refrain from submitting material.
And now onto your third letter. It's been quite a roller-coaster of emotions, my friend. Your prior letter was probably at best, a half-hearted attempt to fulfill your duties to be a loving religious person, but this final letter demonstrates how fleeting that generosity was, and dives immediately back into mockery and insults.
> I think a better name for your organization would be: bitter humans . org
So sorry my friend, I actually already thought of that one myself in a prior weblog entry. Another submitter even suggested 'BadderHuman.org', which was also quite clever.
> I already know that it is your bitterness toward god that makes you strike out at him so publicly.
Unfortunately, this statement makes no sense to me. Are you bitter at the Tooth Fairy because you don't believe in it?
Thank you for your fantastic contributions toward the mission of BetterHuman.org. I know it wasn't your intent, but your relentless display of empathy-less ostracism and transparent threats has profoundly demonstrated the evil that religion is. Please understand that this is 'not' to say that I think 'you' are evil. In fact, quit the opposite, I see the depths of your mental illness, and how confused and frightened you are of the world around you; I have much pity for you.
My sister, your sickness is the most sinister and virile that has ever manifested in all of history, so please feel no shame in becoming yet another victim, for it robs you of the very thing you need to defeat it: humility. You will gain much by reading the entirety of the BetterHuman.org weblog. I can only hope that many people will benefit from bearing witness to the hatred (fear) generated by your perspective, and may instead choose to pursue a warm and genuine 'humanity' perspective, rather than the manipulative and terrifying mythological one that has enslaved your mind; turning what could have been a wonderful and sane human being, into a terrified ethereal junkie.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.208, 16.209}
#209 - Blind fury - July 01, 2006, 01:43 PM
Ms. Playlope wrote back:
> Yes I was upset at your website and yes I did express a few human emotions in that letter. After all by your own definition, nothing I do is wrong. Because there is no standard of right and wrong except what I myself believe to be moral and just. Correct?
Your misperceptions of our moral code aside, are you saying that you discarded your own values to use what you mistakenly perceived as our values in order to justify striking 'harder' at me? Do you often discard your own values when they might interrupt your emotional discharges?
As well, I'm always amazed that a 'free-for-all' morality is the default understanding of an atheistic perspective; and you couldn't be further from the truth. Please review the BetterHuman.org weblog to read the many entries regarding our powerful and intrinsic instinctual morality.
> On the Christian side of that, your right, I expressed my anger in that first letter. It was my first response to your website. But then, I did rethink that, being the repentive Christian that I am, and realized that Jesus would not respond to you in that manner. He would turn the other cheek.
My friend, there's a couple things I want to point out here; first, how you initially justified lashing out in ill-form by leveraging the concept of 'repentment', which allows one to conveniently violate any value desired (religious or not) believing that all you have to do is feel bad about it later and complete forgiveness is but a prayer away. Secondly, how you admit knowledge of your religion's endorsed strategy for dealing with confrontation ('turning the other cheek'), and have yet to remotely exercise that strategy. I believe my cheeks are the ones taking a lashing. Have I struck out at you? (not your religion, 'you')
> And when it happens, and God gave you so many chances to change your mind, reached out to you through the letters of believers like myself who told you that it would happen, what will you say to him? When you stand before the Supreme Court of the Universe, what will you say? What excuse will you give that he would accept? Instead, those who came to you, and told you the truth will stand up as witness and say, I told him, Lord, he wouldn't believe. What will you do then? What if YOU are wrong?
I suppose if you were correct, and I magically found myself in front of your god on my day of reckoning, I could probably use your 'unlimited forgiveness' caveat, correct? And you are more than aware of this 'escape-route', which means you 'also' know that I'm not in any real danger. This reduces the entirety of your diatribe to nothing more than an elaborate charade of 'concern for your fellow man' with the underlying motivations of bullying me, and gaining further brownie-points from your god. Doesn't seem like you have much concern for my well-being after all.
> But ask yourself why he would answer you? You are arrogant.
You are confusing 'confident' for 'arrogant'.
> You speak rudely.
I don't believe I do. Can you give me an example of where I was rude (not simply in opposition to your beliefs, but 'rude')?
> He is a King. King of all Kings. And yet you approach him with disrespect? Why would he answer? Instead you come into his courts with reverence, respect, honor-- three virtues, sir, that you have obviously not learned in your pursuit for that harmonious godless environment that you tout on your site.
Based upon your email contributions, we have very different understandings of these terms. Your definition of 'respect' implies unreserved submission to your mythological entity, and any shortcoming in this submission you inappropriately deem as 'disrespect'; whereas the BetterHuman.org definition embraces the notion of 'respect for your fellow humans'. I may not respect your mental illness of faith, and I'm doing all I can to cure humanity of this disease; but no matter how much I deplore the mythology you are a victim of, I will always respect you as a person, which is entirely separate from not respecting your faith.
'Reverence' we both understand similarly, though we entirely disagree on the appropriate application of such. I have no reverence for your mythological entity, not out of spite, but rather from incredulity. Instead, I apply reverence to 'people' that inspire me.
And finally 'honor', being such an extremely vague and nebulous concept makes it difficult to explore the exact context you were implying that I failed to execute it within. Would you care to elaborate how I was dishonorable? Unless of course you are referring once again to my lack of submitting to your mythological perspective, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on my level of honor. In fact, by rejecting the fantasy of your world, I am doing an honorable thing for myself, by not allowing myself to be seduced by the false charms and easy perspective that your simplistic mythological faith purports, and instead I 'honorably' confront the challenges of reality without the opiate of fantasy to dull the experience.
> Yes at the time, I thought you should suffer. But let's face it. You suffer already.
You assume too much my friend, I live a fantastic life.
> I mean let's really get to it here. No one with a heart as bitter as yours could really be happy.
I understand that from your perspective the 'only' possible explanation for my position 'must' be that I am angry with your ethereal entity, but that fails to understand things from my perspective, so let me rephrase the statement in a way that you will receive it the same way that I do (I'll apologize in advance for the seemingly patronizing flavor of this statement, but this is an 'exact' and accurate parallel scenario, and as such your interpreting it as patronizing is entirely unavoidable, but sincerely not intended as such):
"No one who is as angry with the Tooth Fairy as you are could really be happy"
You see, how can I be angry at the Tooth Fairy? It really doesn't make sense to be angry at a myth.
> Its all a pretense in order to somehow convince yourself and others that you have THE WAY. Certainly you profess at least a mental assent at morality. But even your very works on your site and the way you attack people there deny the legitimacy of that morality.
Our moral code is much different than yours. We believe it is altruistic and humane to prevent others from hurting themselves, whether they are aware of this danger or not. Religion is a meme-disease, and to peacefully educate (not attack) people away from ethereal addiction is a strong moral tenet of ours. Our moral foundation stems from the built-in instinctual morality that was defined by Mother Nature over eons of evolution, which we further refine by the intelligent pursuit of providing happiness for the greatest number of people possible.
> Yes I am very sarcastic. Part of that bubbly personality I was born with.
But how does that sarcasm contribute to your purpose of attempting to expose the err of my ways? Sarcasm only 'repels'. Is it your intent to push me away? If so, they why do you keep coming back here? Or is it simply 'shame' manipulation you are exercising? Surely you must know that these types of tactics only serve to diminish your own character, and ultimately they have absolutely no effect on me. Well, almost no effect, ultimately I do feel bad for you because you don't realize how much dignity you sacrifice with these sarcastic jeers, callous disregard for my well-being, and vacuous threats of eternal damnation. I sincerely would love it if you could find value in stepping up to a more dignified and respectful debating style. Don't reduce your dialogue to an emotionally-charged assault and miss this chance to demonstrate your intelligence.
> I'm not buying that. You cover it all very well with your endless dribble and babble and dispute. But the fact is, my friend, that you really are not satisfied with yourself, with your life, or with that deep dark hole that is inside you. In fact, all that powers you and your website is that bitterness in your soul. The cancer the eats away at you mind and your heart.
Actually, I'm quite happy with life. I have plenty of friends, I've traveled the world, I love my wonderful family, I run a successful business, I have helped many, many people cure themselves of ethereal addiction, I have plenty of other projects on the go to keep my mind sharp, I am in excellent health, I have many exciting future plans, etc., etc. If this is misery, then I'm not complaining.
One of the most important things that I have learned in life is that your inner-composure manifests externally in a manner that 'distributes' itself, much like a meme does. For example, when you are happy, you generate a pleasant disposition, when you are sad, you want to 'purge' that sadness onto others, and when you are bitter and angry, you tend to 'lash out' against others. I think if you review the entirely of our dialogue, my friend, you'll begin to see that I have absorbed all of your rage without reciprocation. That is my gift to you. I believe you would coin it, 'turning the other cheek'.
> recruited many of them to the Kingdom of God. How very unfortunate for those victims. Now whose using mockery and sarcasm. All that you have accused me of, you have done, even in your more enlightened state. The difference is, I can admit when I have acted in haste. Can you?
You are incorrect my friend, my statement is absolutely 'not' mockery or sarcasm. That was my very sincere and concerned acknowledgment of your religious meme-virus infecting other victims. It is very sad.
> So stop looking at churches and people and christians to find out what God is like cause those are human beings with failings and shortcomings and all those things that make up the human being.
Despite our congruency on the evil nature of religion, you are failing to recognize that religion and the mythological creatures they purport are intrinsically connected. They have propagated this 'God' notion for centuries, even to beyond their own control. It still remains mythology however, no different than Zeus of Greek mythology, or Ra of Egyptian mythology, etc.
> Once again, though, you are looking to men to show you God, instead of asking Him to show you Himself. There's a lot of lies going around about Jesus. Rumors etc. But they aren't based in truth. Its all just gossip.
Gossip indeed.
> I got mine (proof) in my living room at home. And the proof was beyond any shadow of a doubt and no one could ever ever ever tell me he doesn't exist. I KNOW he does.
Would you care to share your proof? If you could provide solid proof, you may shift the tide of this debate in your favor..
> I'm sorry that you equate him with a myth. He is a real person. And he is so awesome. So loving. So forgiving.
My friend, it is all mythology, and you've been trapped in its confines. I am so sorry to have to tell you this, and I am not saying this to be rude or insulting for I only speak from a position of empathy and love for my fellow humans; but...you are insane, and if there was 'anything' else I thought I could do that would help you, I would, I promise.
> I will tell you this, for those of us who have really honestly truly experienced his presence, his love, his power, you could never in your best attempt show us to be wrong.
I'm more than aware that it is impossible to reverse the damage done to ethereal addicts, virtually impossible to get them to let go of their faith narcotic. I've tried for many years, and with only a couple successes, and even those were quite traumatic to the addicts. Ethereal addiction is the most powerful addiction known to man, far beyond the power of cocaine, heroin, etc.; and far more destructive.
> letter sent to you was to rebuke your activities. But I separate your activities from you the person. Normally I concentrate on being the best Christian I can be, trying to behave as Jesus would have me behave, but I fall sadly short of that. The one thing though that I can say, is that even if I make a mistake, I can admit it. Can you say the same?
Thank you for this sincere confession, which is an excellent example of integrity and mutual respect. I apologize for being surprised at this because I should have had more 'faith' in your value for mutual respect in the first place. Now, I believe you are asking me to apologize in turn for some prior statement of mine that you misinterpreted to be mockery, but as I've explained, I sincerely wasn't mocking you. If there's some other statement of mine that was 'personally' disrespectful to you (not your religion), I'd be more than willing to apologize.
> Usually those that meet me can tell there's something different about me. They see the love and the sincerity of my attempt to be loving and caring and kind. As I said your site made me angry. Just as it would make anyone angry to see someone they adore slandered and battered on an internet forum.
Absolutely I agree, my site has generated a phenomenal backlash from 'many' angry people such as yourself, as you would witness if you took the time to read the BetterHuman.org weblog. What is happening is that the religious meme-virus senses danger and is lashing out at me with fantastic energy. You, my poor friend, are the unwitting host that the virus is manipulating in order to achieve its reproductive/defense goals, and you are quite oblivious to this. What the virus doesn't realize though is that I completely understand its mechanics of guilt/fear/hope/intimidation manipulation as its form of propagating itself, and as such I am immune to its actions. The virus isn't intelligent/evolved enough to be able to successfully infect me.
In regard to my statement:
"for further reference, if you do not wish to have your submissions published, then it would be in your best interest to refrain from submitting material."
You wrote:
> You have no legal justification for that. You can say that til your hearts content, friend, but without my express written legal consent, which you were notified that you did not have, you are not legally able to publish one word. And if you do, then prepare to be sued. You see, I am a paralegal, so I know thats hogwash.
How sad that your dialogue has once again disintegrated to threats. Please, again, in the future, do 'not' submit material that you do not wish to be published. 'Everything' submitted becomes our property and may be published; there will be no exceptions.
> The hurt inside, the empty void in your soul that no matter how much you lash out at that creator, it is never enough. It is for that emptiness of soul that spend countless hours and countless words trying to convince not only yourself, but others that you somehow have it all figured out, and have it all together. We both know that isn't true.
A most respectful ditto.
> And exactly which part of this letter was warm and genuine? I don't see anything warm about it.
You choose not to perceive it. Perhaps you should peruse our correspondence once again?
> choose to hang on to your "vile sinister" bitternesses toward God and blame him for "church driven-injustices" when hes not even a part of most of it
Again, and I want this to be absolutely perfectly clear, I am 'not' bitter whatsoever toward your mythological entity because bitterness toward something that doesn't exist, makes 'no' sense. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are so adamant with this incorrect perspective. Do you think I'm bitter at Zeus on Mount Olympus because I don't believe he exists? Am I angry at Santa Claus because he is also fantasy? Seriously, please 'try' to understand that I simply do not believe in your fantasy creature, and that is all there is to it. There's no anger or bitterness, or even emptiness, any more than you suffer an emptiness because there aren't any unicorns.
> then we shall see when that Judgement Day comes, who was right and who was wrong.
Back to intimidation manipulation. Your meme-virus is going to be exhausted after working so hard to infect me.
> And which part of your responses were warm or genuine? You preach harmony, and yet you are invested in strife. You lash out at every christian who questions you.
I do not intentionally lash out at people (though they often perceive it as such), I only try to passively educate them (with an altruistic motivation). Of course your religious meme-virus twists this into an 'attack', and perhaps I 'am' attacking the religious meme-virus, but to cast me in a hostile light makes no more sense than calling a medical doctor 'evil' when he prescribes antibiotics to treat an illness. The doctor has the sick person's (the host) best interests at heart, and I do as well for you.
> You mock them, hold them to what you believe is open shame?
Can you demonstrate where I mock people, and hold them open to shame?
> Where is this personal morality of yours?
For this answer, please read the BetterHuman.org tenets.
> If you believe your morality is correct and you believe it so whole heartedly, why don't we see the fruits of your labor?
We do, and there are people all over the world that have announced their commitment to our philosophies, some ready to dedicate all of their time to this cause. It's quite heart-warming to know that I am reaching people wanting to choose a direction that isn't founded in fantasy and denial, but rather 'reality', and love and respect for their fellow humans.
> Why don't we see this harmony in your words, in your presentation. All I see is endless dribble and babble that portrays your bitterness.
Correct, all 'you' see is what you want to see, and I cannot do anything about that. Of course, you do realize that you are here by choice, and that you can leave at any time. My friend, I wish you could see how obvious it is that the only reason you keep coming back to us is that we challenge your faith, and that is why your meme-virus is forcing you to bully and chastise us for our philosophies. I truly wish you could get past your fear of us and begin to try to understand us. Despite what you think we are, we are your most fundamentally your friends who want nothing but what's best for you, much more so than your mythological entities can ever be.
> IF you really believe your position is valid, why do you spend untold hours and endless web pages attempting to prove it and persuade your point. If you really believe it, it doesn't need any justification. Just explanation.
This is a confusing statement, especially since the entire BetterHuman.org website does exactly that, 'explain'. A lot of people have valid questions and I do my best to answer them. You're point that our philosophies shouldn't need any justification is a very 'faith'-based perspective, which we don't subscribe to. We have no value for blind faith, we need evidence and logic-based theory to substantiate our perspective. So, it is very necessary to always 'justify' our position, otherwise we just become another 'faith'.
> And if you, sir, are wrong about the time of the end and I am right, what will you do then?
I can't give you an answer because it would be the same as if I asked you what you would do if the Tooth Fairy decided today was the end of humankind. The question is nonsensical from a reality perspective.
> There was very little respect in your responses. But thanks anyway.
My friend, the only reason you didn't see any respect, is that you chose not to perceive it, but it was there. This is due to your diminished value for the 'human' respect I was demonstrating to you, which was overshadowed by your fury at my lack of respect for your 'faith'. I think if you try a little harder, you should be able to see that I have shown 'you' continuous and sincere respect throughout the entirety of our correspondence.
I would like to ask you, besides venting your rage, what would you like to accomplish with our dialogue? You are intelligent enough to understand the futility of attempting to quash my atheistic efforts, or to intimidate me with further fear/shame manipulation, so is there anything more to your presence here than ethereal threats, ceaseless belittlement, and insincere gestures of concern for my well-being?
With much human respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.208, 16.209}
#210 - Isolating the ethereal high - July 01, 2006, 01:53 PM
Mr. Kickline wrote:
> I do not believe that any time any person has a religious experience or feels something spiritual, etc., that the person must be hallucinating (I, for instance, have never been under any influence of alcohol or drugs, yet I still have such mystical musings) - and certainly, billions around the world cannot all hallucinate in LSD fashion en masse like
I don't believe 'hallucinate' is the word I would choose (as in 'sensing' things that aren't there); I believe the correct term would be 'delusional' (as in 'believing' in things that aren't there). There are few chemical drugs that are as capable of producing the intensity of a delusional state that equals the one perpetually suffered by religious people. Religion is so potent at inducing a state of delusional insanity, that the victims wholeheartedly believe they will live forever, and that some mythological ethereal being rules the universe. This ethereal 'high' effect is actually 'exacerbated' by the fact that it is self-reinforcing when executed en masse, building up a 'resonance' among its constituents, if you will.
> Most realize that their belief (or non-belief) should not be thought of as immutable proven fact.
I'll disagree with your statement. Do you consider your god to be a theory? Most religious people believe their perspective to be immutable fact, whereas an atheist perspective generally limits itself to strong theories.
> this. I know you have said (as has Dawkins, for instance) that religions are memes and spread like viruses. I've always found it curious how absolute materialists like Dawkins (and you, I assume?) can attribute such qualities to non-organic, abstract ideas.
Materialism (one of many classes of atheism) does not preclude abstract concepts, only supernatural ones (the primary difference being that supernatural abstractions are typically manifested from emotional extrapolation, instead of logical deduction). A meme-virus is simply a negative idea that transfers from person to person. To say that since an 'idea' has no physical presence, it therefore cannot have any 'properties', doesn't make sense since the only thing that defines the existence of anything 'is' its measurable properties, and the influence of an 'idea' is easily measurable. I don't see how this is any stretch of the imagination for you since you assign 'many' properties to your abstract ethereal entity (your god) for which there is no physical presence. In fact, your god is an excellent example of a meme-virus. You, and all faith-oriented people, however, only are aware of the presentation layer of the virus (your god), not the entire sinister entity that it is.
Also, what you may not understand is that a 'meme' actually does have a physical presence, it's just very difficult to precisely define because it can take many forms. For example, a 'thought' in someone's head is borne upon the very exacting chemical and electrical activity in the brain. Passing this 'thought' on to another person is the act of converting this brain activity into muscular activity (the mouth) which sends an encoded sound message (speech) to the receiver (ear) where it is decoded back into brain activity. The entire existence of a 'meme' is completely dependent upon the physical arrangement of all the atoms that form it (a human memory), including those used to transfer it around (the air). There is nothing 'ethereal' about a meme.
> And, if so, how did the virus begin?
There is a very lengthy answer to this question. My Glack excerpt from Meme can describe the origins of the religious meme-virus to you.
> I won't bring up the old-hat complaint that you can't prove something doesn't exist.
It definitely is a popular tactic of the religious, but the truth is, you cannot simply 'state' that something absolutely exists and then throw it out there for others to 'disprove'. This approach leads us to a universe filled with unicorns, Tooth Fairies, Earian gods, and whatever else we wish to manifest into existence, with all of their credibility hiding behind the 'cannot prove I don't exist' clause. This is a nonsensical approach to defining the universe.
Using the principles of the scientific method, and Occam's razor, the exact amount of proof needed to disprove something, is precisely the same as the amount of proof that exists 'for' said thing. Only the 'evidence' that supports the existence of a 'thing' needs to be disproved, not the thing itself. If there's no remaining evidence that hasn't been disproved, then by definition, that 'thing' most likely doesn't exist. 'Faith' is not evidence; millions of people believing in something is not evidence; hearsay is not evidence; religious books are not evidence.
> But after digging through works of philosophy, I keep finding a way around it: don't prove a negative, prove the impossibility of the positive. Show that God cannot possibly exist - scientifically, not via philosophical or semantic tricks.
Again, it will be impossible to use science to disprove the existence of your god, because science only works on things that 'do' exist. Science is incompatible with the world of fantasy. It would be the same as asking what the precise weight of the rock was that you picked up in your dream last night. You will never get the tools of science into your imagination.
> For me, faith is not a crutch to alleviate fear of dying, it's the little question inside that reminds me how little humankind is TRULY sure of in this universe, and the possibility of something divine out there.
Which is a cleverly disguised admittance of your fear of death. My friend, you may never come to understand the fundamental connection between 'fear' and 'faith'.
> I just want you to consider the great leap you take from your excellent foundation of science to the destruction of theology, and most of all the unshakable sureness that you are right in doing so.
I am no less or more sure than you. Can you take your own advice into consideration?
> I join you in rejecting the literal, traditional monotheistic religions. But a God that is greater than the world's hatred, bigotry and violence - I'm not at all sure of it, but I take the risk of faith.
In the context of a meme-virus, you're merely purifying the ethereal high by removing the obvious tentacles of religious tyranny. An intelligent surgery, but you've still got the heart of the virus in your head, that being a belief in the supernatural, which only serves to cover your fear of mortality, trust me.
> Feel free to challenge any point I made and best wishes to you all!
Thank you my friend, for sharing your very congenial and intelligent thoughts with us. Again, most of your points are addressed in the BetterHuman.org weblog and I would encourage you to explore these entries because I believe you are intelligent enough to be appropriately objective and will gain much from the material there.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#211 - Big daddy in the sky - August 22, 2006, 07:33 AM
Mr. Earnblie wote:
> A refreshing perspective. I've been living a happy secular life for years and am pleased by the ideas and concepts of your website.
Awesome! Always nice to hear that there's like-minded people out there. It's sad that there are not more people that can leave their religious shell.
> Religion and religious people are downright scary. Here in the bible belt, where I live, it is truly amazing how many people are morally bi-polor. Prostelyzing in the daylight, and buying lottery tickets, drinking and druggin, in the shadows. Then they go insane trying to mediate the schism this produces in their lives.
I know this all too well. Very obsessive-compulsive behavior. Most people do not understand the role of our morality instincts in driving our need to be pious, and the unfortunate clashing of our more selfish instincts against this piety. And the internal struggle is magnified ten-thousandfold when those instincts are misinterpreted to be of divine origin. Seems like a lot of unnecessary suffering.
> I feel bad for them. They need to let god/daddy/mommy in the sky, go. Let them go.
I hope you find it worth your time to try to help them with such, in a gently caring way. One of the things I try to teach here is how to perceive them, and it boils down to an 'addicted victim'. Once you 'truly' see them this way, the need to 'confront' them goes out the door, and all that is left is a teacher/student scenario. If we can show them that kindness and morality exist on our side, then they will be able to consider the transition more readily.
> On a global scale, the results of religous fanatcism are downright destructive. All the recent centurys of scientific and civil advancement at risk because of beliefs no one can prove.
Can you point to a time in history where the above didn't hold true?
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.211, 16.213}
#212 - Self-defining purpose - August 26, 2006, 09:38 AM
Mr. Tallyvan wrote
> THANKS FOR HELPING THE HUMAN RACE TO UNDERSTAND HIMSELF.
I know of no greater pleasure.
> PLEASE COULD YOU HELP ME TO DEVELOP MYSELF?
My friend, all I can do is be a guide, for only you truly know what is in your mind and heart. Only you can determine what can make you happy, purposeful, and content with life. In my book, Meme, the last third of the book is dedicated to helping you take a look at yourself and attempts to help you find your way.
Of course this is completely different than a religious perspective, because religion 'gives' you purpose for you (worshipping fantasy). But, in a reality perspective, there is no predetermined purpose, we simply just exist. It is up to you to find out what gets you out of bed in the morning, and what makes you happy, and how you can accomplish all of this without hurting anybody, including yourself.
I would encourage you to read the entire BetterHuman.org weblog as it contains many contributions touching on this very topic, and it may help you to reach your goals.
Best of luck,
Sean Sinjin
#213 - The pursuit of spirituality - August 26, 2006, 10:03 AM
Mr. Earnblie wrote back:
> bet you get a prodigious amount of hate mail from the "occupents of the shell".
Definitely, but I consider it more 'fear' mail, than hate, since for the most part, these people are very threatened by what BetterHuman.org represents, and though they project rage, it's really only to cover their fear of losing their faith because of our influence. I have much pity for them because it's only a matter of time before atheism becomes the norm, and religious people will unavoidably suffer terrible confusion and anguish.
> when I mention my agnosticism, I am responded to with sorrow and often disgust.
It's a very common 'shame manipulation' tactic employed by virtually all religions. It's meant to coerce you towards their 'light'. It should be quite easy to identify when someone is using these types of shame/guilt tactics against you and therefore it should become easy not to be drawn down to their level of communication. Always treat them with respect, dignity, and maturity, and they'll immediately realize how ineffective their obvious manipulations are.
{All letters from this contributor: 16.208, 16.209}
{All letters from this contributor: 16.211, 16.213}
{All letters from this contributor: 16.211, 16.213}