Page 19 |
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:
#263 - Slandering religion - Mar 17, 2007, 09:15 AM
#264 - Understanding Einstein - Mar 17, 2007, 09:22 AM
#265 - Evil alruism - Mar 17, 2007, 09:31 AM
#266 - Wow - Mar 17, 2007, 09:37 AM
#267 - Mind-crushing intimidation - Mar 17, 2007, 09:39 AM
#268 - Perilous parenting - Mar 27, 2007, 11:11 AM
#269 - Big questions - Mar 27, 2007, 11:17 AM
#270 - Ethereal energy - Mar 27, 2007, 11:20 AM
#271 - Insincerity - Mar 27, 2007, 11:29 AM
#272 - Pointless existence - Mar 27, 2007, 11:32 AM
#273 - Hesitations - Apr 03, 2007, 07:56 PM
#274 - Recovering posture - Apr 03, 2007, 07:57 PM
#275 - Oversimplification - Apr 03, 2007, 08:00 PM
#276 - Superhero? - Apr 03, 2007, 08:02 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#262 - Bombardment - March 17, 2007, 09:11 AM |
Mr. Twinlob wrote:
Hi David, and thanks for taking the time to write back,
> Mate, I have read a fair bit of your weblog and can't really find the answers to my questions and I don't have all night to read it.
This translates into, "I don't care to educate myself about you, so I will treat you with blind prejudice". My friend, don't give up because you're frustrated with me. Forget about me and instead focus on the information contained on the BetterHuman.org website. Reality education is 'very' complex, and requires a great deal of concerted effort. Instead of reading the weblog, can I suggest you read the book, Meme, from our Literature page? You can download it for free. It will appear to have a much less antagonistic position than you perceive the weblog to have.
> Quite frankly your pretty much giving me the {censored}
I apologize for that. I'm sincerely only trying to help.
> I don't like a lot of your smug responses
Can you describe the difference between 'smug' and 'direct'? And how would you describe your disposition?
> and I think your stuff about religion being a drug is crap. You are merely describing what is physically happening to a person whilst they experience a spritual moment - not a real breakthrough if you ask me. No literal drug has been ingested yet the person still receives a feeling of peace and contentment.
I don't think it's any secret that my drug analogy, is an analogy. I've also frequently addressed religion as a virus of the mind, which is also an analogy. Is there something inaccurate about those analogies? I don't believe most people think an analogy is meant to be taken absolutely literally.
> I have seen so many people turn their lives around by just reading the gospels and following the teachings of JC.
I have seen many people addicted to drugs as well.
> It has really ben positive for them, they experience a damascus moment and forever leave behind their old wasteful lives and go on to lead full and happy ones.
Most drug addicts would express how happy their drug of choice makes them. My friend, it seems like you're inadvertently helping me support my 'religion is a drug' analogy.
> I'm not really sure why your so wound up about putting people off that...?
Like conventional narcotics, you have to be cured of the addiction before you can understand the profound damage it does to your mind. Insane people rarely know they're insane. This isn't meant to be an insult, or even 'smug' as you put it, it is entirely a statement of fact; if you believe in magical creatures in the sky, and that you'll live forever, you are insane, no less insane than if you believed that leprechauns built your house. I can't think of a more altered state that could be considered more insane than that.
> Anyway this banter is going to go no where
I disagree; though our ideologies clash, you did make the effort to contact me and this suggests to me that I piqued your curiosity, a reflection of that lingering doubt in your faith.
The following statement...
> Also but I still can't get past this one basic question - what if there is a god? what then...
...becomes impossible for me to give you an answer because of...
> and if you can't prove 'no God' in a reasonably short amount of wording then like other things that can't be explained simply, they are in my experience always a load of crap
There simply is 'not' a quick answer to your question. Oh how I wish I could blurt out the magic paragraph that would get a foothold into people's faith, just long enough to keep prying it wider and wider with more knowledge; but, after a lifetime of you receiving 'quick-fixes' and 'canned' responses from your religion, you will be unable to generate the attention-span needed to truly give a science education a chance to mean something to you. I will say it again, reality is 'very' complex, and there is no quick, ego-placating answer that can compete with your obstinate ethereal addiction. It remains in your hands to 'choose' to consider opening your mind to the 'possibility' that there might be more to life than ethereal servitude.
Please, start with Meme, and see where that takes you. And apologies again for not directly answering your questions, for those answers are much too large and are best deferred to the mentioned sources.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 18.247, 19.262}
#263 - Slandering religion - March 17, 2007, 09:15 AM
Mr. Netwist wrote:
> It is understandable to have your own beliefs, and to discredit other beliefs due to them not agreeing with you. But you clearly slander religion by categorizing it with addictive and harmful drugs such as heroine and cocaine.
Correct.
> I myself believe that, yes, religions have their flaws, being that they are man made and men are not perfect. But by no means are they "harmful drugs" nor are religious people insane.
I disagree. Religion is quite harmful, and it does render people insane. Now I'm sincerely not trying to mock you, but let me ask you, if a very nice and congenial person came to your door and told you about a wonderful magical rabbit in the ground, and that it loved everybody, and that when we died, we would all magically appear in the bunny's underground lair and live forever with the magic bunny; you'd probably label that person as insane wouldn't you?
My friend, it's not the perception that faith breeds insanity that's incorrect, it's that you believe there's a difference between your God mythology, and bunny mythology.
> I am a normal human being. I work, I have fun, I care for others, I laugh at funny things and cry when things are upsetting. But in no way am I insane.
The mere presence of emotions alone doesn't mean you aren't insane. There's no reason the above bunny advocate couldn't say the exact same thing.
Many people take serious offence if not incredulity to the notion that one is insane if they believe in mythology, but my usage of the term 'insane' is sincerely not meant to be an insult, just a genuine evaluation. I don't think its any stretch of the definition of insanity when applying it to people that wholeheartedly believe in and interact with creatures that don't exist, as I'm sure you would apply it to our rabbit-follower friend. Of course 'insane' people can't see that they're insane, 'because' they're insane. If they knew they were insane, they would be able to take steps to address it and then no longer be insane.
The reason 'insane' is such an appropriate term here is that it nicely predicts the 'crazy' behaviors that one would expect to result from an insane state of mind, such as:
- talking to magical rabbits that don't exist
- placing blame or gratitude for things that happen naturally, onto magical rabbits
- maniacally declaring blind servitude to magical rabbits, even in defiance of sound scientific explanation to the contrary
- willingness to sacrifice wealth, happiness, and even life in the effort to increase affiliation with magical rabbits
- willingness to defend said mythological beliefs with powerful emotional manipulation (guilt, terror), or even violence
- injection of completely unsubstantiated abstractions (e.g. spirits) in order to justify perceptions of immortality
And so on. You can perfectly replace 'magical rabbits' with 'God' in the above. For every single reason that you would label a magic bunny worshipper insane, you label yourself insane.
Now, it's very important to believe me when I say that I don't think you are a 'bad' person, or in any way my opponent. I truly am only trying to help you and others like you see the truth, but it's virtually impossibly to accomplish this without you perceiving an attack or insult, simply because the act of challenging your faith itself is 'defined' as an insult because of your beliefs, but again, that doesn't mean I 'intend' to insult you.
To further demonstrate, (the following example will also be received as insulting by you but it is sincerely an objective analogy), imagine you are in the deep Amazon jungle and you come across a tribe of pygmy humans. They accept you in their village and invite you to join their ceremonies. One of their most beloved ceremonies is to try to coax the rock gods to mate with the tree gods, and so they spend a great deal of effort sticking rocks into the crevices of trees.
Realizing just how profoundly ridiculous this notion is, you decide to try to help one of them see the truth, so you invite Jojo back to your home and once he's arrived and toured around your magnificent modern city, you finally begin to tell him that there are no gods in rocks or trees. Jojo becomes extremely upset and insists that all his life he's been putting rocks in trees and now there are all kinds of new rocks and trees around his village. No matter how much you explain to him about other more realistic reasons for his observations, he will vehemently maintain his position that rocks and trees have gods.
Now, obviously you don't hate poor Jojo for his beliefs, nor were you trying to insult him when attempting to educate him. But, any attempt to clear his mind of fantasy was met with powerful resistance and strong emotional backlash. His beliefs have rendered his mind incapable of absorbing contradictory information, and the fact that he maintains his belief in rock and tree gods, means he's insane; insane in the context that he makes irrational judgments based upon this information.
Can you see my position a little clearer now? I'm sincerely, honestly, humbly, respectfully, altruistically, empathically, fairly, anonymously, rewardlessly, and simply...
just trying to help you.
> Yes, I believe in a higher being, but I believe that God has made things scientific.
Look at your chosen words here: you 'believe' that your god has made things scientific. This statement has exactly 'zero' substance to it. The mere point that you 'believe' something to be true, doesn't add one iota of credibility to that idea, it's merely something that you just 'want' to be true. Please review the 'Proof' section at BetterHuman.org so that you can learn about why we have invented the Scientific Method in order to remove the misleading human emotions from our perspective of reality.
> So please, if you wish to be taken seriously by people of religious faith, don't go around slandering us.
Two things: first. I have never slandered religious people (other than priests). I only discredit religion, not the people. Religious people are victims of tyrannized mythology and so my heart goes out to them, and this entire website is dedicated to trying to 'help' them see how badly they've been lied to their entire lives. Second, I am only holding the truth out for everyone to see. If religious people don't take me seriously, then there's absolutely nothing I can do about that. But what you'll never see is my accommodating their ethereal addictions in the attempt to appeal to them. That would be the same as saying that heroin isn't all that bad.
> I have never slandered an athiest.
Sure you have...when you said I slandered religious people.
> I am always willing to listen to other's opinions, but not when it is blatently insulting.
Have I been insulting? Or have you chosen to 'feel' insulted? There is a 'huge' difference.
> the writing, such as religion being a drug (which i still don't understand how it can be compared to something like heroine, where as heroine destroys the body and disolves the mind, and religion has done nothing but better my life)
My friend, the most unfortunate thing about your drug, is the degree of oblivion it induces into your sedated mind. But trust me, your belief in magical creatures in the sky, and your profound dedication to fantasy, IS dissolving your mind. So much so, that your capacity to understand the 'real' reality has been handicapped to such a degree that you may never be able to recover far enough to once again be capable of learning about reality. If fact, heroin addicts have much less ground to recover in order to get back to a reality perspective, than a faith addict.
> , I don't believe you will be heard as much as you would like to be.
I don't believe you want to hear what I have to say, whether I'm right or not.
> That's just a little friendly advice from a christian man who isn't crazy, he just wants to look out for his fellow men and better their lives.
Well my friend, at least we have the same underlying motivations.
Be safe,
Sean Sinjin
#264 - Understanding Einstein - March 17, 2007, 09:22 AM
Mr. Blinkpage wrote:
> I can say I admire your passion, however I think it is misguided. I am writing specifically because I noticed you attributed something to Einstein. Incorrect information that he was indeed an atheist. I offer the following quote; When asked whether he believes in the God of Spinoza, Einstein is supposed to have replied as follows:
> "I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is."
As quoted in Glimpses of the Great (1930) by G. S. Viereck
> It hardly serves your purpose to state as information as facts, which are indeed false. ... I felt compelled to shed light on your belief concerning Einstein.
My beliefs about Einstein's religiosity remain largely intact, despite your evidence to the contrary. Einstein's religious convictions will forever be poorly understood:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Because of his very religious upbringing, Einstein carried with him a powerful sense of awe and respect for the universe, that he continually redefined throughout his life to best fit his evolving understanding of it. Yet, despite his very religious youth, Einstein eventually became quite anti-religious:
"I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet."-- Albert Einstein, letter, 1954
Throughout his life, Einstein was very much a poetic man. He adorned the cold concepts of science with a multitude of religious euphemisms, not only to help make sciences more appealing to the masses, but it also helped him to reinvent his own religious passions that were ignited when he was a very religious youth, and this allowed him to continue exercising those passions into a 'contemporary-god'-less universe. This isn't to say that Einstein didn't subscribe to some ordering force, but Einstein's god, is nothing like your god. Those of you wishing to use Einstein as evidential support for your beliefs, will have to look elsewhere, for he'd be the first to identify your immortality-giving, fearsome god as nothing more than ego-derived fantasy:
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
Einstein did not believe in a conscious God that had the collectiveness to be aware of humankind, much less to be interactive with us, nor did he believe a higher purpose exists for us. Despite Einstein's religious vernacular and frequent religious analogist references to the nature of God, his words were only meant to encapsulate the unknown nature of the universe, much akin to the concept of Spinoza's god that is nothing more than an organizing 'force' permeating the entirety of the universe.
Albeit, my concession here today will end poorly for me, as I'm realistically forced to relinquish my tight hold on Einstein's atheism, if for only one reason: Einstein ultimately considered there to be an underlying design to the order we see around us, a source of which he couldn't justify, nor possibly imagine the nature of. In my opinion, this is his best attempt to reconcile his G.O.D. instinct against his scientific observations. It might seem easy to say that Einstein subscribed to Intelligent Design, but Einstein would easily recognize the hidden immortality-seeking agenda of Intelligent Design advocates and most definitely would separate himself from that paradigm. No, his god was Mother Nature, and her orchestral symphony of generating order into the universe, from the laws of physics that define it. It was his fascination with the source of those laws, whatever that source may be, that begged him to speak with religious alacrity; and not his need to define a creator, nor to seek safe passage beyond death.
Einstein's god was uniquely his own, and not to be confused with the gods of humankind. From a religious point of view, Einstein was effectively atheist because everything the masses understand as God, he rejected. From an atheist point of view, Einstein was spiritual, which simply means he hadn't discovered the true nature of the G.O.D. instinct, and instead was helplessly propelled by it's musings, injecting artificial intellectual substance into our mindless blob of a universe.
Some interesting reading:
www.positiveatheism.org
wikipedia.org
www.ctinquiry.org
wikiquote.org
> proved to be wrong, theories that are full of holes and missing links, presentations provided by "experts" full of half-truths, or hoaxes where skulls are attached with ape jawbones and monkey teeth, involved with the scientific community.
Science bears the same human flaws as any other discipline, but for the same reason you are unwilling to discredit religion entirely because of these flaws, so too must you extend the same opportunity to the rest of science that isn't flawed.
> In much the same manner that I had to correct another atheist regarding the Shroud of Turin recently. An individual stated the Shroud had been "soundly" proven to be a hoax. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's not a hoax, it's a misinterpretation of observations. It's irrelevant how old it is.
> I think turning away from scripture and focusing on clergy for information has had disasterous results through the ages. Something, I'm sure you'll agree with.
I think information of 'any' religious source is disastrous.
> I urge you to seek truth with an open heart. If you are still led to be an atheist, then I guess there isn't much one can say.
You need to understand that I used to be an ethereal addict just like you, and I expanded my knowledge-base enough to get outside of that shell. It was very painful, but BetterHuman.org is here because of that journey.
> Oh, and before I bid farewell, perhaps you should seek the latest "scientific" data concerning the evolution of earth as we are told by "scientists". I'll give you a hint--it somewhat involves the mysterious hole in the Atlantic Ocean. A hole that is thousands of square kilometers. Known for the last 5 years, it was only recently that this hole was found to be the gigantic size it is. But the information I urge you to seek, will or should open your eyes to the fallability of our science. In my opinion it pretty much squashes the Pangea "theory" as we currently know it
Actually my friend, it 'reinforces' plate tectonic theory because that is the most probable cause for this hole to be exposed, as theorized by experts in the field. Also, I'm not sure what your motivation was in presenting this to me. Does this somehow discredit science because the word 'mysterious' was applied? Does this mean your ethereal entity created this hole? My friend, plate tectonics is a very well-established scientific discipline with an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. Please, don't be intimidated by the degree of education required to understand it, instead, use your Internet connection to fill your mind about the fantastic advances in this scientific discipline.
> Another hint--look for the oldest fossils found on the ocean bottom or the estimated age by experts of the abysses of the deep. Compare it to the estimated age of the earth's crust and fossils found up here. It really disputes much of evolution's claims.
My research reveals that 2.7 billion years represents the oldest fossils on record, though it is theorized that the first living cells may have began forming around thermal vents approx. 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth's crust (called the lithosphere) formed at the time the Earth cooled, approx. 4 billion years ago. No contradiction here.
www.nature.com
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#265 - Evil alruism - March 17, 2007, 09:31 AM
Mr. Pacthair wrote:
> I am rather prejudiced against certain words, such as altruism (altruistic, etc). Could you just really briefly define what you mean when you use this word?
It's hard to imagine a justifiable prejudice against the word itself because it's meant to be a pious term, but perhaps it would be simpler for you to use the words, 'rewardless acts of goodness' in its place, because this is virtually synonymous to our usage here at BetterHuman.org. I am curious though as to the nature of the default reaction you have to this word. Would you mind elaborating? I have heard that Ayn Rand has expressed limited value for altruism (please correct me if I'm wrong), and perhaps you've bought into the justifications for such a dismissal, but I believe she overlooked the effect of altruism's influence onto civilization as a whole. Without altruism to keep society noble, there would be no courtesy, there would be no charity, there would be no hope of ever recovering lost items, nobody would ever give you directions when you are lost, etc., etc. To discount the value of altruism, is a huge oversight of the role it plays as the glue of civilization.
> It would help a lot, because I automatically get a negative emotional response when I hear it, and clarity on terms would help.
I feel that way about the word, 'religion'.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#266 - Wow - March 17, 2007, 09:37 AM
Mr. Deunide wrote:
> you people are ignorant freaks.... why do you care to tell people that God isnt real.... is it doing them any good?........and do me a favor.....if God comes down and points his finger in your face one day and says "Be assured, I am real" believe him....it might be your last chance.... but if you dont, you will burn in hell, where non-believers go.... you still have a chance............but until now youre still ignorant freaks
My friend, does your religion teach you to verbally assault people that don't share your perspective? Please do this for me: print out this email and show it to your church's priest when you next visit. I am curious as to what their response will be.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#267 - Mind-crushing intimidation - March 17, 2007, 09:39 AM
Mr. Leftluck wrote:
> Psalm 53
> (1) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> (2) God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
> (3) Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
> (4) Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.
> (5) There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.
My dear friend, look at how prejudice and manipulative these passages are. It blindly condemns anybody that questions the existence of your mythological creature. Is this really the kind of hateful philosophy you want to follow with all your heart? I wish you could see this for what it really is; a powerful control mechanism that keeps victims like you blind.
Now I know that you probably had the good intention of trying to warn me about the risks I am taking when I defy your mythological creature, but what you are really exposing here is the fear that 'you' are being manipulated by. This passage must seem intensely frightening to you, and you would not ever dare oppose it. How very sad, for they are only words, written by humans a long time ago, with no other purpose than to control people.
Don't let this passage intimidate you my friend, I know it seems terrifying to you, but don't for a second believe that you will come to harm if you allow yourself to explore knowledge outside of your religion. Religions purposely control you with fear, but they can't hurt you, I promise. Please read more of the BetterHuman.org website to introduce yourself to the sanity that lays outside of your fearsome fantasy perspective.
With much respect,
Sean Sinjin
#268 - Perilous parenting - March 27, 2007, 11:11 AM
Ms. Canegive's mother wrote back:
> I am Ms. Canegive's mother and read your reply. Ms. Canegive has a real and living faith that has been the only reason she has flourished since this dark time 3 years ago. What ever your "better human" organisation is about I dont believe trying to undermine someones faith in God should be part of it.
Ahh, I do believe I have come directly to the source of her problem. Surely you can't possibly suggest that your daughter's self-mutilating inclinations have been remedied by a belief in mythology do you? For this would be nothing more than an exercise in denying the 'real' underlying issues that gestate her masochistic behaviors. Please madam, it is 'very' important to recognize the indirect harm you do to your child by fostering a faith-based solution to her deep-rooted psychological problems. You cannot pray (deny) this type of problem away. She needs help, and forgive me for being blunt, but you are preventing her from getting the help she needs. Yes, you are hurting her by your inaction. She doesn't have to give up her faith in order to see a professional counselor so please, put aside your complacency, and do what's in her best interests.
> Would you have said this to a Muslim or a new age devotee?
I will always say what needs to be said, regardless of sensitivities. I am not interested in politics, I am only interested in helping people.
> Her life has turned around 180 degrees since she heard that sermon and felt God's loving touch.
You are burying your head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. What are you going to say to yourself the next time she hurts herself? Who are you going to blame then?
> Allow me to say that it is I that am deeply concerned for your well - being as we are only on this earth for a very short time but our (Ms. Canegive and I) eternal life has begun now, It is your faith in humans that ultimately will not save you and I say this with conviction and compassion for your soul and it
Focus that concern on your daughter, and stop competing with me, a perfect stranger, when the most important person in your life needs you now.
> is I that asks you to give this some thought and I know your life could improve literally "out of this world"
Indeed.
I'll beg of you one more time, please get her to some professional counseling, before she's gone. The time to prevent a tragedy is now.
Most sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
#269 - Big questions - March 27, 2007, 11:17 AM
Ms. Ronework wrote back:
> I looked at the BH site and wanted to know if you could answer or direct me to decent info on Evolutionists ideas on "The Beginning" or Big Bang
In my book, Meme, you'll find the answers to these questions.
> and the differences in our DNA and monkeys and the time table with diagrams.
Was surprisingly difficult to come up with something concise and yet palatable to non-scientists. I believe this page was pretty close to what you're looking for:
http://www.cartage.org.lb
> memories of Darwin, which I never respected and the fact that no one has recreated "The Beginning" or 'Bang'. I am aware of a place in Europe where they are trying.
Trying to recreate the Big Bang is like trying to create a nuclear bomb out of match. It will be simply impossible to simulate. However, computers have gone a long way toward simulating the Big Bang, and testing all sorts of theoretical beginnings.
> A house takes a skilled designer and can't recreate itself if we threw all the items together so why would the Universe and especially Earth and all its creatures go without a skilled designer?
Go to the 'Contact us' page at BetterHuman.org, and at the bottom of the list of commonly-asked-questions, you'll see a reference to intelligent design. You'll find your answers there.
Sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 17.242, 19.269}
#270 - Ethereal energy - March 27, 2007, 11:20 AM
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> In spite of your denial, your ideas seem (to me) to lead to energy as a basic irreducible assumption, as there seems no concrete way to define it without reference to moving objects, or waves which I consider immaterial, etc. and because it is the ingredient that first manifested in the postulated "big bang." In my understanding, space/time came into being at that moment, and as energy is the first thing we know about, I (and I think, Einstein) am assuming it probably appeared with space/time as space/time/energy
My very unqualified theory is that the Big Bang was responsible for giving dimension (space/time) to our universe. I theorize that the Big Bang was the 'impact' between two spinning super-particles (gigantic singularities in 'Infinity', explained in my book, Meme) causing the dimensionless super-particle material (super-particle material is defined as dimensionless because no particles, energy, or time can exist in the compressed super-particle material) to absorb that impact force which caused it to expand into bether form (the transparent rubbery space material), where particles (and space/time) can exist.
The notion of 'energy' in its purest form, in the context of bether, is a zone of high or low pressure bether. Remember, the term 'energy' means only the potential to do 'work', in the form of some balancing of unbalanced bether. For example, to push your hand into a foam pillow is to add energy to the foam under your hand. The definition of energy here is entirely meant to describe the 'imbalance' of the compressed foam under your hand, compared to the rest of the pillow (yes, even energy is relative). To say this hand indention has 'energy' is exactly equivalent to saying that this hand indention 'wants to spring back'___exactly. There is no ethereal quality to 'energy', nor even abstraction, just an imbalance of pressures. Energy = imbalance.
Many people perceive 'energy' as a mystical juice that flows around, changing forms, but always invisible and dimensionless. This is the etherealized version. The bether version of 'energy' is nothing more than regions of low and high-pressure bether, and when this disparity tries to correct itself by equalizing these pressure differences, that is energy 'flow'. The simplest form of energy is light, which is nothing more than a wavicle of energy, a contained 'pressure' wave in bether. More complicated forms of energy always boil down most fundamentally to disproportionate bether pressure zones that want to equalize themselves.
> From what I've read so far, I can't distinguish Blether from the concept of a field, and as I haven't been able to understand a field as something "material," I can't comprehend blether as a material, rubbery or not, unless it is an imaginary material, and that puts me back into "idealism" again; an imaginary "rubbery" material.
I believe Bether (without an 'L') is the merge point between the concepts of abstract and material, meaning that it is both abstract and material at the same time, if for no other reason than bether is the lowest common denominator for both concepts. As for its rubbery nature, if you can imagine sound waves in water, then you're a long way towards understanding light waves in bether, albeit bether itself is particleless.
> In my understanding, for materialism to be correct, the existence of something concrete, or irreducibly particle-like is required, yet in my view, abstract concepts (or concepts based on immaterial items) are at the basis of everything and there... I am focusing on the existence of both the concrete and the abstract. One can embody the idea as materialism vs. idealism though I see no conflict between them because I (temporarily) see the abstract as the basis for the concrete, and not as the opposite of materialism.
Abstract concepts always boil down to some physical underlying structure and therefore the two are not independent. For example, the abstract concept of a god, is nothing more than an inaccurately defined set of neural pathways (a thought or memory) in the minds of people that believe it exists, despite that they may profess it to exist externally to themselves. The notion of a god simply 'cannot' exist without people to believe in it and thus is entirely physically represented. I challenge you to define an abstract concept that does not have a physical representation
> I see materialism as built on quantum probability waves, there being no irreducible particle, because we always find ENERGY, bursting into existence instantaneously, as a full grown particlewave, which we then call a PARTICLE, this "particle" can suddenly disappear and reappear, probably in the next orbit of an atom but with a faint probability of reappearing in Andromeda. It appears more and more to me that we live in a Matrix-like hologram.
I think your understanding of energy has unjustified qualities my friend. Again, it's not a 'juice' that can be squeezed from matter, it is an unbalanced 'state' of bether. Particles do not appear or disappear unless involved in some sort of collision, annihilation or caught in the throes of massive gravitational fields (near black holes). Particles created in Andromeda have nothing to do with particles destroyed somewhere else. I've heard this idea before but it's quite unsupported by scientific merit, and virtually impossible to prove.
> I was also thinking of time from the Einstein (and others) "block time" point of view, (I'm reading Bryan Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" which elaborates on the idea) in which everything that ever existed exists at once.
The concept of 'block time' is nothing more than an abstraction of four dimensions into a single construct, akin to holding a recording of a two-hour movie in your hand. The physical recording is a temporal summation (a block time) of all events that will happen during that movie. Actually playing the movie is the fulfillment of that temporal space, much like living our lives is the temporal fulfillment of our existence in the 'block' perspective of the universe. However, it is quite incorrect to extend from the block time perspective and state that everything 'exists at once' because it is usually necessary to define the existence of most things as having a temporal vector (e.g. it only existed today). When you say that everything exists 'at once', you are forcing the temporal vectors of 'everything' to be equal to infinity, which is simply not the case, and should not be inferred from the 'block time' abstraction. All that the 'block time' abstraction provides is a snapshot of all that ever, or will ever exist, and nothing more. My research reveals that many people confuse this concept for implying that the future and past are meaningless.
> I also think a simple formula was somehow generated by and/or imprinted in the "big bang,"
You and Einstein both, though we are all talking about the same thing, I believe this 'formula' is the nature of bether itself. It is the very simple and few properties of bether that (mindlessly) manifests everything we see.
> many dimensions) wave growing from a point began manifesting harmonics and breaking up into smaller bits down to the "strings," or little membranes of theory, then, as the universe cooled, and the "laws of nature" mysteriously appeared, the simplest particles, or "wavicles" or "particlewaves" began gravitating about each other in ever larger clusters forming centers of attraction..
String theory has always struck me as a compromise between intuition and math. I will always regard string theory as an abstraction of observations, with its many dimensions being nothing more than an exercise in fudge factoring. That's not to say it isn't a valid or even inaccurate predictive theory, but I do believe it will eventually become highly reducible as our mathematics and physics evolve.
> I can accept the reality of insubstantiality, or the insubstantiality of Reality, but what I've wondered since I was a kid is: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING?
That's not the question you should be asking because it implies that there must be a answer, and there's no reason to believe there is one. It's the pursuit of answerless questions like these that lead us to false paradigms of mythology. What you really need to ask is 'how' there is anything, accepting the possibility that humans may not ever be capable of knowing the answer.
> I can accept our "reality" as a hologram, but how can a hologram with its illusion of time space and energy grow or pop out of nothing in the middle of nowhere?
I don't subscribe to a hologram perspective so I cannot give any meaningful response to this. Again, Meme outlines a very concrete perspective of the universe that removes the necessity for abstractions such as these.
> This is what really gets me. And it gets worse. If insubstantiality is a fact, (show me irreducible billiard balls if you don't accept it) that means this poor little imaginary awareness is actually not only unreal, as the psychologists and neurologists and Buddhists all say, but this non existent me is actually in the "void," rooted in the middle of nothing. To me, this is as true as the fact that everything exists, and so I've declared it the basic paradox: The coexistence/resolution of Nothing and Everything.
Start with, "I think, therefore I am", and use the Scientific Method to work your way out of nothingness from there. You do exist, my friend (at least in my mind).
> I do not envy your debates with the religiously afflicted, as I'm sure that by now you've realized that logic can only make a mark on the immovable object of "true belief" in very rare cases.
I've learned to utilize a gamut of logical and emotional tools to appeal to the religious, and whether they will openly admit it or not, I know I'm making a difference. Ultimately, I'm here by choice, so believe me when I say that I am getting something back for all my efforts.
> "... The metaphor of Indra's net may justly be called the first bootstrap model ..."
Indra's net is a great analogy for the Internet, or a neural net. It's a base-primitive concept upon which many concepts extend, though giving credit to Indra's net for the Internet is like giving credit for the wheel to the first person to draw a circle.
Always a pleasure,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
#271 - Insincerity - March 27, 2007, 11:29 AM
Mr. Quinaid wrote back:
> (((SEAN))) Big hugs 4 u myfriend!! Ya know.... I can't help but say this. I like you! I care about you. But.... presumptious is putting mildly. The way you have attempted to pigeon hole me. If I did not know in my heart, your intentions were pure.... It might really hurt my feelings.
I doubt it possible that anyone could interpret my intentions as in any way intended to wound you my friend. It would entirely be 'your' decision if you experienced hurt feelings; your choice to feel that way. But make no mistake, I have no intention of conducting our conversations in a manner that is tolerant of your ethereal addiction, for that would be insincere on my part, and ultimately wouldn't help you at all. Also, apologies for pigeon-holing you; nobody likes to be examined and exposed, but we are reaching a very crucial apex in our relationship that will become an inevitable point of conflict, that being my determination to expose your affliction and the resultant hostility that you will predictably surface in defense of your affliction, as demonstrated by the following:
> Lets just agree to disagree without the ass-umptions.
I'm saddened by your loss of composure here my friend, for this name-calling demonstrates your inability to contain your overwhelming distaste for me, which single-handedly invalidates the sincerity of all your other gestures of respect and love for me. How can I believe you care about me if you find it valuable to try to 'slip in' these jabs that are purely meant to insult? Can it be that you are not being entirely honest with me? Why is the charade necessary?
What this kind of statement says to me is that you 'don't' like me (I'm an 'ass' in your mind), and the only reason you exert any effort whatsoever to try to deceive me otherwise, is all for the false portrayal of respect that you believe your mythological creature will positively judge you for. So, let me ask you, if even I can see through your insincerity, don't you think your all-knowing entity would be able to as well? Wouldn't it also see the subtle character defamations embedded in your dialogues?
My friend, please believe me when I say that I am unwounded by your intentional insult, for as I've learned over much time in my pursuits of educating people about reality, I will not be loved for what I do. I am trying to take away people's drug of faith, and it terrifies and confuses ethereal addicts. I have been unable to find a way to educate religious people out of their dream without the necessary painful step of having them hate me for it, but rest assured my friend, I know it is truly not me you hate, it is the fear of the unknown that what I teach represents.
Read my website and my book, Meme, my brother, for it contains the key to happiness, freedom, and truth. Unless you allow your mind to explore, you will waste your life in a dream.
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
{All letters from this contributor: 17.242, 19.269}
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
{All letters from this contributor: 17.244, 18.246, 18.251, 18.257, 19.271, 19.274}