Page 2 |
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:
#13 - The religious meme-virus speaks... - Jul 02, 2005, 02:45 PM
#14 - The difference between religion and BetterHuman.org - Jul 09, 2005, 06:54 PM
#15 - Is BetterHuman.org playing fair? - Jul 18, 2005, 11:25 PM
#16 - Are all religions subject to the mission of BetterHuman.org? - Aug 03, 2005, 08:12 PM
#17 - Does godlessness equal anarchy? - Aug 03, 2005, 08:43 PM
#18 - The challenge of combining reality education with sensitivity - Aug 03, 2005, 09:06 PM
#19 - Breaking free of religions' mental traps - Aug 03, 2005, 09:38 PM
#20 - How can bether be twisted if it is frictionless? - Aug 05, 2005, 10:18 PM
#21 - Religions are vehicles for prejudice - Aug 07, 2005, 10:38 AM
#22 - When a loved one falls victim to religion - Aug 07, 2005, 02:32 PM
#23 - Can religious people really see angels? - Aug 07, 2005, 07:49 PM
#24 - Further clarification of BetterHuman.org's tenets - Aug 07, 2005, 08:14 PM
#25 - The definition of 'life' - Aug 07, 2005, 09:07 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#12 - Achieving immortality - June 29, 2005, 09:20 PM |
Mr. Waterdoor wrote:
> "What should the ultimate goals of the human race be?"
This is another way of asking one of life's fundamental questions: what is the 'real' purpose in life? The definition of purpose and happiness is uniquely described in the confines of each individual person's instinctual balances. We should all be allowed to pursue what we each consider our own pleasures in life, without prejudice or oppression, 'unless' there are victims. Likewise, not everyone likes chess, or skinny-dipping, or karate, but there's no reason why those that do enjoy these outlets should be forbidden such endeavors; again, unless there are innocent victims of those pursuits. That is the underlying motive for every single aspect of the BetterHuman.org version of utopia: live and let live, as long as there are no victims. This does not mean a world without some form of societal 'enforcement'-based oppression, meaning your freedom to think and act will necessarily be somewhat restricted in scope, but any of this kind of introduced oppression will stem from the intent of serving the greater good, and never from ego, greed, or tyranny.
> Can one not achieve eternal life in the minds of his fellow and future man, have Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. not achieved this? As atheists can we not still imagine purpose for the human race?
As human beings, you have correctly identified the only form of immortality we can ever hope to accomplish, by becoming a lasting memory in the minds of others. There are many ways to achieve this, but not all of them noble. You seem to have connected the notion of 'conquering' with the notion of 'immortality', as if being a leader of great power was the greatest form of accomplishment that humans can achieve. A significant portion of my motivation for the creation of this website and book, Meme, is to eradicate exactly this kind of conquering-greatness mentality. There is no nobility to tyrannizing another society's power through war.
These men aren't great in my eyes, they are prime examples of our primitive egos devastating millions of innocent lives for political/monetary gain. Their immortality will be an eternal symbol of human barbarism as its worst; not very inspiring if you ask me. The fact that most people hold these human symbols in high regard even today is a strong reflection of the lingering intensity of our very ancient instinctual drive to conquer. What people need to realize is that it is very easy to satiate this conquering instinct without the need to damage, oppress, or steal from others. Sports, games, exercise, running a company, enforcing the law, etc; all of these forms of conquering are 'fair' and utterly satiating to the conquering instinct, as well as socially endorsed.
> I imagine a world free of religion, a world completely efficient! A ... this ideal world. This utopia is not real because theists bicker over morals, false ideals and false gods.
Religion is but one of the many challenges that humanity faces in our ongoing psychological evolution, and it happens to be the one that I am focusing on. The elimination of religion alone, however, will only reveal how much of it was superficial, and that the real evil is ultimately intrinsic to us as humans. There are still many other pieces of the puzzle that need to be solved before we can all truly live in peace, and that path starts where our egos stop.
(Next letter)
I'm paring down your next submission because of its length, and I think I've addressed your core point already in my original response. I will however address key points in your second letter.
> As you yourself suggested we all pursue or own goals in life,
As long as nobody gets hurt.
> Religion quite simply is, and has been, the human race's quelling of their own urges towards immortality,
Correct, nobody wants to die.
> ...the idea of an afterlife seems a primary "goal" of religion.
Another way to look at it is that religions manipulate with the fear of death; and I think this take on it more accurately exposes the motivations of people seeking immortality: to escape confronting the notion of death.
> ...For example Eienstein, Mozart, Churchill, the conquers previously mentioned and even the more modern Bill Gates.
These are some better examples of desirable immortality, thanks.
> You, though more subtly, accused me of being a modern barbarian.
Forgive me but I only stated that your original list of immortals were examples of barbarism. You're expanding my comment beyond its original intent and applying it as a wound to yourself with the attempt to redefine it as an insult from me, thereby positioning us against one another. This exposes to me that I offended your ideals, despite that perhaps the intent of your first letter was to commune with my atheistic philosophies. I did not mean to offend you, but you must recognize that the pure state of atheism alone is not the sole criteria by which I consider philosophical congruency with others.
BetterHuman.org's philosophies are founded upon atheism, but also greatly expand upon this to reach a perspective that drives peace and contentment for all of humanity; something that atheism alone fails to define. Having said that; the tenets of the societal structure that I wish to impose will sometimes require our egos to suffer in order to facilitate the desired ultimate communion of humankind. The core elements cannot be violated, and one of the most critical core elements is the elimination of tyranny. Sure, immortality can be achieved along many channels, but achieving immortality for the sake of immortality alone is not always the path we must pursue. Immortality founded upon altruism is the only noble form that BetterHuman.org endorses.
> On a slightly different note, I ask you Sean Sinjin, would you not fight for your beliefs, your ideals?
That's exactly what I'm doing, as hard as I can, and within my principles. I will not resort to primitive means of coercion (killing, torture, etc.) as a primary mechanism for ideological expansion, I choose instead to utilize my intelligence and empathy as a guide when trying to connect with and teach my fellow humans about the true nature of reality, and how to find purpose within that reality. The ancient world that manifested our ego-derived conquering instinct has gone forever. It's time to reformulate our environmental feeds for this obsolete instinct so that it can no longer devastate as it is designed to do.
> Currently it seams that all you have done is written a book, as you mentioned before, and manifested this "blog".
The memes I present here are the swords of education, the bayonets of purpose, and the bullets of altruism. It may not seem obvious but BetterHuman.org's philosophies are the ultimate war machine to destroy all hate, tyranny, and misery by simply holding the truth out for everyone to see; the rest falls into place by itself. Words are the most powerful weapon ever manifested. Don't think for a second that I myself do not have a conquering instinct to satiate. I just choose to conquer by putting facts into people's heads, not bullets.
> it seams that you have yielded to these barriers of society.
I have not yielded to anything, I am exactly pursuing the most efficient path to accomplishing BetterHuman.org's mission, and that path is defined by altruism and truth. There are no barrier-breaking actions that I can possibly take that could benefit this mission. I fear the consequences of what you are implying, which can only be a tragic pursuit given the following statement...
> "...obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken." Adolf Hitler 1889-1945, Mein Kampf
I don't mean to offend you, but I fail to see how this rather vague and contemptuous quote can even begin to inspire, especially in the context of the author.
Adolf Hitler was an egomaniacal tyrant that leveraged simplistic ideals to justify global imperialism at the cost of millions of lives; and lost because of it. Why would anyone want to go down for all eternity as one of the most misguided and barbaric persons ever to have lived?
As a note to my readers, certain people often confuse atheism with Nazism, communism, etc. I'm only allowing this thread because I want it to be absolutely clear that BetterHuman.org exists to prevent exactly this kind of tyranny, and that atheism is a completely separate ideological state of mind from anything political.
Thanks again for your comments, you have allowed me to demonstrate a greater depth of structure to my philosophies.
Sean Sinjin
#13 - The religious meme-virus speaks... - July 02, 2005, 02:45 PM
Mr. Bracelean wrote:
> The only truth is Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible.
The real Jesus Christ may have existed, but he was very much just a normal human being like the rest of us. The church decided to deify his name because of the overwhelming symbolic power it could wield. Since then, the 'myth' of Jesus Christ has grown out of all reasonable control until today where it reaches the current fanatical definition of him. I think if the original Jesus was alive today, he'd be blown away at how insane his whole image has become.
As for the 'Holy Bible', a large portion of it contains somewhat accurate recounts of historical events, along with many embellishments, exaggerations, and falsehoods. The Bible is but 'one' book in an 'ocean' of information. To only limit yourself to the historical/fantasy world that the Bible represents is an exercise in stunting your intellectual growth. Please give consideration to expanding your knowledge base to include the wonderful diversity that exists in the sciences and arts (and even other religions in order to understand them better) that are so ulteriorly excluded by your faith. Don't be afraid to learn.
> We cannot do anything on our own. We owe it all to Him. People are searching for something. We are a sinful nature that only the blood of Jesus can redeem us. Think about this. All that we are physically, is from a higher authority. It has to be from God; the exact spot where our planet is so we can survive, our brain, body, the flowers and plants. Food to sustain us, air to keep us alive.
My dear friend, you need to learn more about the universe before you can begin to rationalize how all of your dialogue above is generated by the ethereal/religious meme-virus in your head. There are rational explanations about our origins that preclude the need for a god, there is more nobility and morality outside of religion than within it, and all you need is love from your fellow human beings, and an understanding of our instinctual minds, in order to find peace and contentment.
> Go to the only truth, the Holy Bible. This will explain everything.
The Bible is the syringe of ethereal addiction
> I will pray for you guys to open your hearts to Him.
I will open my heart to you. If and when you feel you can give opportunity to advance your perspective upon reality, I will be here. In the interim, I would ask you to consider reading my book, Meme. It answers a lot of questions that you may not even realize you need to ask.
> God Bless you all,
Best wishes my friend,
Sean Sinjin
#14 - The difference between religion and BetterHuman.org - July 09, 2005, 06:54 PM
Ms. Clothbland wrote:
> ...i have a difficult time understand what you get out of this cult that you manage.
If you will please indulge my need to project clarity, I would like to use the word 'movement' instead of the word 'cult' when referencing BetterHuman.org because the word 'cult' is typically applied in a religious context, and we are not a religion; 'movement', however, has a more applicable disposition. I often receive emails from people that believe I am trying to be deceptive when I resist the notion that we are just another religion. While it is true that the simplest definition of religion might also encapsulate BetterHuman.org's movement, it is not accurate to define us as a religion without also indicating that it is only within the simplistic definition of religion that is synonymous with 'philosophy'; not the default and typically understood definition that is synonymous with 'cult' or 'faith'. There are some automatic associations that people commonly make when hearing the word 'religion' out of context, (faith, ethereal entities, worship, cult, etc.) that none of which does BetterHuman.org subscribe to. So, in the effort to be clear about what we represent, we preclude the word 'religion' and instead choose the word 'movement', a term which singly best represents our desire for humankind's progress towards understanding reality and rejecting mythology as a way of life.
As for your question, I gain great satisfaction in being able to provide answers to people that have questions about the true nature of reality. I wish more people had the courage to confront their religions with faith-challenging questions rather than passively accepting their religion's mantra. Still, there are many people that do tend to see outside of religion's shell and have asked their religions to answer some tough questions (Why can't I see God? Where do the dinosaurs fit in? etc.), but historically there haven't been a lot of satisfying answers. This is why I wrote Meme, to provide answers they seek so they can find purpose in their lives without the need to believe in mythological creatures such as your god.
> i believe with everything in me that you should love one another and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
BetterHuman.org believes in this as well. That philosophy is not exclusive to your religion.
> whether you want to admit it or not, as you dont obviously, you and your "group" of followers are a religion.
Forgive me, but I believe you are confusing the word 'religion' with 'philosophy'. We are not a religion because we do not have mythology as a foundation, we instead utilize science and facts to define our perspective. This is what distinguishes us from any and all religions, we don't need 'faith', we need proof, which is the complete opposite of religion.
> you should read the bible and you would see otherwise.
I have already read significant portions of the Bible. I believe you should read Meme and you might see otherwise.
> ...you try very hard to sound calm and collected but if you dont mind me saying it is not hard to see thru you.
I truly am calm when articulating these responses, it is not an act. You have to appreciate the sheer volume of emails that I receive that exactly mirror yours; it would be exhausting and pointless to react with abundant emotion to each one. I think you are more disappointed that I am 'not' angry or confrontational in my writings because you are obviously upset with me and you want me to feel the bitterness that I made you feel. The truth is my friend, only you are responsible for making yourself angry, not me. You choose to react in this way, just like I choose to react in mine. I'm very sorry to disappoint but I won't engage you or anyone from an impassioned frame of mind. You see, my position is founded upon logic, and to pursue our mission with obtuse emotion would be contrary to BetterHuman.org's philosophies. I'm a firm believer that a very logical and dispassionate position will carry far greater credibility than an emotionally-charged ideological battle ever could.
> ...you seem to be someone like the joke from waco texas that made his believers understand all his beliefs too and then well we are know what happened.
Again, we are not a religion, we are a science-based philosophy. I believe if you read my website thoroughly, you'd understand that the cultism is 'precisely' what I am trying to prevent. You point a strong damning finger at this Branch-Davidian cult but what you (and all religious people) fail to see is that there is no difference between David Koresh and the Pope; they are both purveyor's of humankind's ethereal addiction to mythology.
> i am a military wife living day to day knowing that my husband is in harms way and he might never come home the same, but when i trust in God, He gets me thru it. if i believed as you do, i would think that i could stop the war or something crazy like that.
This is the root of your contempt for BetterHuman.org. You view us as trying to take away the only perceived influence (praying) that you can exert towards keeping your husband safe. In respect for your situation, I will not comment further on this.
> i did not know much about scienctology and now, i know all i need too.
Scientology is a particularly ulterior cult that utilizes very extreme psychological manipulation tactics to convince recruits they are in need of the kind of mental help that only Scientology can provide. Once they've become members, they are demanded upon for as much money as can be rendered and are kept in a perpetual state of believing they need more and more help. I know this for a fact because I have spent considerable time speaking with someone that was a victim of Scientology for a number of years. He was quite marked with the psychological harm that was done to him and since his 'escape', he has had to work very hard to recapture his self-esteem and purpose. Very tragic. His story is but one of the many people that have inspired me to write my book and to start the BetterHuman.org movement.
Thanks again for taking the time to write us.
Sean Sinjin
#15 - Is BetterHuman.org playing fair? - July 18, 2005, 11:25 PM
Mr. Streamart wrote:
> I am a christian although former atheist and you are atheist, hence I understand that our idealogical differences of life and understanding the spritual and physical world around us are so far apart...
I'm very sad to learn that you have fallen victim once again to the false charms of religion. Perhaps your original position of atheism was only due to your dissatisfaction with religion, and not truly a full understanding of what it means to be atheist. You see, once you are truly atheist, it is impossible to switch back into a fantasy world because atheism implies that there simply is no fantasy world to jump into. I do not mean to insult your intelligence, but what you describe would be the equivalent of not believing in unicorns, and then one day deciding that you might as well believe in unicorns after all. What I'm ultimately saying is, you were probably never a true atheist, but perhaps just nonplussed with religion and decided to experiment with another perspective.
I am the first to recognize how empty and cold atheism is by default, and that is why I wrote Meme, in order to utilize the foundation of atheism to build a much more complete, meaningful, purposeful, and fulfilling perspective of life. I wish I had met you during your initial exposure to atheism, perhaps you would have had a better exposure to reality and never have felt the need to pursue a mythological solution.
> I am willing to tolerate your secularist and post modern views.
You seem to desire a state of mutual tolerance between our two ideologies, a convenient notion for those that would be challenged by the views of BetterHuman.org, but the reality is that we do 'not' tolerate any religious perspective because billions of lives are being wasted in the insane pursuit of gaining protection/immortality/affiliation with mythological creatures. Our intolerance will never become extremist or violent, but it will be as effective and dynamic as it can be within a peaceful context.
As for your presumption perhaps that BetterHuman.org is the sole antagonist of intolerance, I have received dozens of emails from many religious zealots that have found it necessary to threaten, harass, damn, curse, demonize, and otherwise express their contempt for BetterHuman.org's philosophies. I feel sorry for these people, for they attack without understanding, without empathy, without compassion. They simply attack from fear; not of BetterHuman.org itself, but from the prospect of having their already challenged faith further tested. These are the people that suffer the most from trying to live within a mythological perspective because they are terrified of losing the promised 'afterlife', and they generate phenomenal resistance to any concepts that nullify this afterlife.
What you may find interesting is that you already completely agree with our philosophies, whether you realize it or not. Undoubtedly, you wouldn't let your child join the Earian's cult for the same reasons we wouldn't; meaning that you are as equally intolerant of fantasy education as we are, especially when it comes to someone close to you. The only difference between our two positions is that you simply haven't made this fantasy association with your own ethereal world; and that is why BetterHuman.org exists, to point out that 'all' religions foster fantasy worlds for their followers in order for said religions to retain their monolithic power structure. Of course everything I have just written will strike you as very 'loaded' but as I write this, I am not trying to insult, unjustly oppress, or 'load' anything, just educate. It is your interpretation of my writings through your 'faith' goggles that tends to alter my intent and magnify the intensity of my writings. However, your strong reaction is a good thing because it demonstrates to me that I am being effective in carrying my message.
> I belief you show an unconisous bias in your writing which I believe borders on propaganda,
Make no mistake, there is nothing unconscious about the bias in my writings. I am very much against religion, and despite the typically negative connotation of the word propaganda, I do spend a great deal of time manufacturing the presentation of my work in order to increase its effectiveness. However, I do exercise some degree of restraint, for example, I will never tell someone that they will 'live forever in heaven' if they decide to believe in my work. I will also never tell someone that they will 'burn in hell' if they disagree with my concepts. I simply couldn't respect myself if I resorted to these types of lewd and outrageous propaganda techniques.
> I believe it is fair to abstain from attacking the other viewpoint with these loaded words.
I'm sorry my friend, but I disagree. Just like you used the word 'attack' here, instead of the word 'contradict', and you used the word 'fair' to suggest that I am 'unfair', the perception of loaded words will always be in the eye of the beholder, and impossible to avoid. So, in order to continue the effectiveness of my writings, I must continue expressing BetterHuman.org's position with the same frequency of thought-provoking metaphors and analogies as appropriate.
> and make a concious ever not to descredit other viewpoints
Again, I don't think you quite understand our motivations. BetterHuman.org's mission is to educate the masses 'away' from religion, not to 'tolerate' religion. Our very purpose is to denounce religion, to firmly discredit any notion of fantastical ethereal entities, and to teach a fulfilling, empathic, and purposeful life outside of a religious manifold. This may seem antagonistic to you, but that's only because my work disrespects your faith, and hence you believe I must also lack respect for you. I know you may never believe this but I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, and all of my fellow humans. I would give anything to be able to help you understand that your fear of death is forcing you to believe in the afterlife, and by default, the rest of the religious and ethereal structure that accompanies it. If you could accept the sole, simple fact that you are going to die forever some day, then maybe you could begin to confront that fear of death. This process would take a very long time because you haven't ever dealt with the notion of 'true death' before, and it will be very terrifying, but it can be done, and over time you will accept that death is just another part of life, inescapable, no matter how much you want to 'believe' otherwise.
Once you have reached a state of acceptance of your inevitable death, you will eventually begin to see and unravel the ulterior mechanics of religion and finally understand that it is all lies, all nonsense, all driven off of fear of death, and all for the sole purpose of power for the leaders (who themselves are just as addicted to the faith narcotic). Having reached this level of understanding, the subsequent rationalizations will enrage you, force you to try to tell the world about the biggest lie in the history of humankind, but alas, it falls upon deaf ears. Perhaps then you accept that the world is insane and there's nothing you can do about it, or, perhaps you write a book that describes reality for what it is, and then make a website, like this one, to try to reach the masses and help as many as you can to see reality without fantasy such that they can break free from their ethereal addiction and can start living the incredibly full and robust life that lies outside of the windowless box of religion.
But despite your efforts to educate, there will be those that remain severely addicted to fantasy, whom will send you many, many letters laced with contempt because they don't see you as trying to help them, they instead see you as an evil person trying to take away their promised immortality. They will slander, hate, and everything else to try to break your spirit, all the while not understanding how victimized they are by religious fantasy, or how much of their lives are wasted in their ethereal addiction; but you can't turn your back on them...because that used to be you.
There's more depth to BetterHuman.org than meets the eye.
Please feel free to write us again,
Sean Sinjin
#16 - Are all religions subject to the mission of BetterHuman.org? - August 03, 2005, 08:12 PM
Mr. Viewgain wrote:
> You have surplanted one bad idea - hastily constructed for some political/social experiement with another. Judeo-Christianity has left an incalculable legacy of lies, half-truth and propaganda, but to smear other religions without having studied them and then to presume to instruct others about your new theory
The goal of BetterHuman.org is to expose to the world that there is no such thing as God, or gods, or any other form of ethereal entity. If any religion professes the existence of such an entity then that religion is (despite even with the best of intentions) miseducating its followers, and as such that religion falls within our mission's focus. It is not necessary to acquire a complete exposure and understanding of every one of these religions in order to discount their validity (like you have done above to Christianity) no more than it is necessary to completely understand ancient Greek mythology, or a tribal witch doctor's perspective, or Santa Claus, in order to understand these as mythology.
All modern-day faith-based religions that are premised on an ethereal entity, or ethereal concepts (e.g. afterlife, reincarnation, etc.) are the result of nothing more than humankind's colorful imagination blaspheming our instinctual desires and fears over many millennia into these elaborate religious power structures; however, they all share a few basic tenets: they promise some form of afterlife or rebirth (easing the fear of death), they promise ethereal protection (easing the fear of life), and they define a purpose for its followers (that only truly serves the religion). With these false hopes and fears, religion turns humankind into unwitting slaves to these fantasy perspectives. This meme-virus (religion) of the human mind is what BetterHuman.org wishes to eviscerate, while leaving behind a perspective upon reality that is fulfilling, moral, and purposeful.
> Faith is certainly subjective, but it is experiencable
My friend, I know this may be difficult to grasp from within the addiction, but 'faith' is a virtual narcotic. By definition, all narcotics are sensory and their primary function is to alter one's perception of reality.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
#17 - Does godlessness equal anarchy? - August 03, 2005, 08:43 PM
Mr. Shinglewound wrote:
> What point of veiw does this Idealogy take on Murder, Considering that we are nothing in the big picture (same goes for our victims), then our actions (not Necessarily ones of anger or dislike) are similarly irelevant.
Great question! I was wondering how long it would take before this question surfaced. I've sort of answered this already in my earlier posting 1.2, but I would like to address this murder perspective specifically. I'm not sure of your religious position because of the brief nature of your letter but I would like to draw upon my first exposure to this question: A fellow sitting beside me once asked me what my religion was, to which I replied that I wasn't religious, I was atheist. Somewhat taken aback, he then asked me, "So you think it's alright to kill people then?" I was baffled. I can't even begin to understand how the concept of atheism has any intrinsic attachment to murder whatsoever. So, I asked him, "So the only thing keeping you from killing me is the fact that you believe in a god?" And of course he rhymed off a dozen other reasons why one shouldn't kill someone else, all of which could easily apply to an atheist perspective, and yet he still couldn't resolve the fact that I had enough self-control not to indiscriminately kill people.
The point that I wish to draw out of this is that religious people tend to believe that anarchy exists outside of a religious manifold. They believe that the moral conscience that holds society together can only be a product of being constantly observed and judged by an ethereal overseer. The worst part of this perspective is that it blindly ignores the statistics that an inconceivable number of people have died in religious wars all throughout history, long before the concept of atheism ever found a significant following. Even today we continue to have many examples of killing in the name of religion.
Cold, logical atheism in no way qualifies or justifies murder. Murder is entirely a personal decision, and no matter what one's faith (or lack thereof), one can find a means to justify it. The question above seems to imply that when one is an atheist, one can act in a purely logical fashion, completely dehumanizing us and removing the emotional repercussions of our actions, allowing for scenarios of emotionless petty murder. The truth is, you cannot remove the human element. Religion is not what makes us human, nature is, and nature has designed us with certain inescapable instinctual consequences for any given act. A purely logical decision that emotionlessly results in murder is well beyond our capability.
The Bad:
Since life first began on our planet, evolution has been driven by the simplest of concepts: supply and demand. Any abundance (of food, shelter, land, etc.) that nature provided, would quickly be overwhelmed by the overzealous reproductive instinct that is inherent to virtually all living creatures. This meant that for the majority of history on Earth, there was intense competition for resources, and this type of competition meant life or death. Countless eons of evolution in a resource-lean environment has forged a very powerful aggression instinct into our psyches, rendering us instinctually hostile in a variety of scenarios: protecting one's young, acquiring food, defending space, etc. Sometimes these scenarios required a competitor to die. Only the strongest and deadliest would perpetually survive. Sounds very rough, but that's where we came from, and a lot of those instincts are still firmly rooted in our psyche's, forcing us to at least 'consider' what it would be like if an offender was dead, whether we act on it or not.
The Good:
Nature also provided us with a strong altruism instinct, which gives us mannerisms and behaviors that facilitate strong social harmony. Altruism is much more powerful than the desire to harm, and we have generally constructed our societies such that altruism overrules virtually all aggression; in our laws, in our religions, and especially in our hearts. Good truly outweighs Bad, and nature had evolved us into this form long before religions ever existed.
These moral instincts are what most religions attempt to claim ownership of, allowing them to cleverly administer their faith drug as a camouflaged parasite attached to the reasonable and instinctually congruent moral values that they profess. Religion hides behind piety.
Make no mistake, I have many, many, many times encountered scenarios where my deepest, most instinctual reaction was to kill, absolutely. Every single person on the planet has had this similar experience. It's perfectly normal. The thought alone however, is a very long way from the fulfillment of the act, and there are a great many instinctual moral/altruistic barriers in between so in order to actually kill someone, you will put yourself through a great deal of mental pain and anguish; virtually impossible for most people to overcome.
Have faith in Mother Nature, my friend, she wants us to love.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
#18 - The challenge of combining reality education with sensitivity - August 03, 2005, 09:06 PM
Mr. Waveclimb wrote:
> I just wanted to as a Christian sincerely apologize for the ignorance, and hatred that you have experienced while dealing with people from the Christian Worldview.. I don't hate you,
Thank you for the kind words. I would like to point out however that I don't believe for a second that any of these angry letters I receive are founded in hate. Anger is 'always' a natural reaction to pain or fear, and in this situation their anger is based on the fear that there may not actually be a god, and my writings are forcing them to confront that possibility. From this perspective I cannot be offended or intimidated when someone defiles me because all I hear is their fear, and I feel terrible for them because they suffer so deeply from the conclusion that naturally follows a godless reality; the conclusion of 'true' death.
> You Believe in the non-existence of God by FAITH... I think you need to fix your site and write what can actually be said and that is that you dont believe God exist.. The only evidence you give is your own word..
My friend, this is simply not true. I have written the book, Meme, based upon a very large amount of research from an unimaginable array of scientific and literary resources, and not from blind faith. As well, the very first entry in my book is to empower the reader with the option to reject anything and everything in my book, but only by countering it with evidence; not passion, faith, ignorance, ego, hearsay, or otherwise; because only evidence will suffice as a counter-argument. I would please encourage you to give Meme a read prior to blindly condemning my work as nothing more than an opinion.
> I'm very disappointed that the best you can do to convince your readers that belief in God is illogical is to compare it to the belief in fairy tales.
Forgive me, but I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make with that comparison: God 'is' a fairy tale. I'm comparing apples to apples in order to demonstrate the strong congruency of mythological elements they both share. This seems perhaps patronizing to those that have a faith in the existence of ethereal entities, but there's no way to teach someone that they believe in mythological creatures without exposing the fact that they've been misled, and unfortunately this can only be received as condescending and disrespectful to those that suffer from ethereal addiction. I wish there was a well-tolerated way of informing people that they are very misguided in their beliefs, but alas, the human ego has been the handle of religion for eons and people are simply not going to like having their religion opposed, no more than a drug addict will like having their drugs taken away.
> ...cannot Prove the existence of a meme there is no hard evidence.."the plausibility of the meme is grounded in a questionable analogical argument, not in overwhelming evidence and observation". You speak as though it undeniably exists...
I have had this come up before but I thought it was just a misunderstanding. I'm starting to see now that there is a small segment of people that have an incorrect definition of the word, 'meme'. A meme is simply an idea, or subset of an idea, that is transferred from person to person. For example, if I had a clay pot, and told my neighbor how to make one, I have effectively given them a meme (idea). If the neighbor adds a handle to the pot, this is called meme evolution. There's nothing to 'believe' in when it comes to the word 'meme', any more than you have to believe in the word 'vowel'; it's simply a definition, no faith required.
> Ps. If your going to put this email up on your site please do me justice and put the whole thing on there so as not to pick and choose what you want to respond to....Thanks
I'm sorry my friend but there's a couple reasons I can't do that. One, your letter was extremely long and space is at a premium on my website because I want to be very concise. Secondly, the vast majority of the arguments found in your very passionate letter have already been addressed in my weblog and I do not wish to repeat myself. I would encourage you to read all of it to see my replies to other people that have had the same position as you.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#19 - Breaking free of religions' mental traps - August 03, 2005, 09:38 PM
Ms. Timecrate wrote:
> Hello. I'm an 18 year old female from Texas. Like I've been subjected to the teachings of christianity. Also, up until a little while ago, I believed wholeheartedly what I was being told. But I had become, to be completely honest, enraged by what I'd read in the bible.
I'm very impressed. I know exactly how challenging it is to stand in the face of so much propaganda and mass participation, and still be able to hold your ground with a position of incredulity. You have taken the first, and the hardest, step out of ethereal addiction.
> Mainly, the parts about women and "their place" in society and the family.
There are many religions that oppress females, not all of them, but there are some pretty obnoxious ones. It's a sad reflection of the oppression that women have suffered for centuries in a male-dominated world. The reality is, though, it's only been in the recent past that intelligence has become a more valuable commodity than the physical strength and aggression that has typically served in more ancient times. Now that the playing fields for power have been leveled, more women are finding their paths to significance. Most religions that still exist today, however, have their roots in the barbaric mentality of the ancient times in which they were conceived, and as such reflect an oppression that is preposterous by today's standards. For anybody to take these ancient standards in any way, shape, or form, as applicable in today's world, will find themselves socially handicapped, abrasive, and ignorant.
> ...bible. I felt that a document that must have been written by misogynistic homophobes should not be treated with such reverence.
Perfect.
> I'm sorry to say that christianity keeps getting its claws in me. What I mean by this is I'm sometimes afraid I might be wrong to speak against it.
Again, it's extremely challenging to stand in the face of so much propaganda and following. Social congruency is often led through guilt and shame tactics. Don't be afraid to think for yourself, and don't be afraid to speak up against nonsense when you believe something is nonsense. I was also very young when I stood up to the world and proclaimed that I will no longer submit to the mental manipulation traps that religions utilize. That was the first day of my life that I felt truly free.
> ...But then, maybe not even five minutes later, I think "What if I'm wrong?"
Fear is but one tool that religion manipulates with. It's this simple: religions make money from their followers, so how do you prevent them from questioning things or leaving? You scare them. That's all there is to it. Don't allow religions to manipulate you with fear.
> The only time I have peace is when I don't think about it..."
That was a million dollar statement.
> Perhaps it's just me trying to deal with death. It's a sad thing to think that death is final(don't get me wrong, I don't dwell on death at all). But if that's the absolute truth, I am more than willing to accept it
We're the only creatures on the planet that have enough intelligence to even begin to ponder the awesome ramifications of death. I've have a considerable amount of information in my book, Meme, that can help us deal with death, but the essentials are: envision how you'd like it to be (not the funeral, the death itself), imagine what you want to have accomplished in life by that time, and once you've accepted your inevitable death, start living, keep yourself busy with a wide diversity of activities and plans that make you happy, and don't waste any time dwelling on death because you have absolutely no control over it. Distracting yourself with a positive and healthy lifestyle, is the only effective antidote to the fear of death.
> I like to put my name on what I have written (or typed), that way I feel like I'm being completely honest
It's a policy of BetterHuman.org to protect the identities of our contributors. As noble as your gesture is, there are many people that are quite fanatical about their beliefs, some downright dangerous, and it would be an injustice to expose you to the possibility of some religious person's misguided reprisal against my work.
However, your honesty has shone through brilliantly.
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.19, 3.37, 6.84, 9.133, 22.324}
#20 - How can bether be twisted if it is frictionless? - August 05, 2005, 10:18 PM
In regard to my gravity excerpt, Mr. Snowlit wrote:
> If the bether of the "Meme" perspective is "homogeneous" and "absolutely frictionless" how can it be twisted. The twisting would require one get a hold of this frictionless stuff and exert some kind of force on it.
The frictionlessness of bether (please refer to the gravity excerpt to understand what bether is) that I describe applies to particles moving within it, and you're correct, from within bether (which all matter is), we cannot 'grasp' bether and twist it.
The twisting forces responsible for having created all the matter in the universe occurred during the exansion of the universe in the Big Bang. During the brief period of the Big Bang, the universe bether was exploding from a compressed form into its currently expanded form. The bether endured fantastic twisting and pressure forces from the irregular and uneven force distribution during this expansion, much like a vehicle's air-bag expands in a random shape until it reaches full capacity. It was this chaotic expansion of the bether that generated the regions of twisting responsible for particle creation.
I hope I was able to explain that clearly enough.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
#21 - Religions are vehicles for prejudice - August 07, 2005, 10:38 AM
Mr. Wheatstart wrote:
> Let me begin by saying that not all religions can be right in fact all can be wrong. I believe that Christianity is the one true religion.
Forgive me, but all religious people say their religion is the one true religion. However, no single religion represents more than half the people on the planet, so no matter what faith you subscribe to, there will be more people against you, than with you. This link may prove useful.
> I do not believe that statement "most of the people (priests)" can be substantiated and this generality is therefore unfair. My personal experience is that "most" share their world views because they care about people.
I would not claim to hate priests, because they are just as much a victim to religion as the followers, but despite the fact that their motivation to preach is often perceived as a result of their altruistic desire to enlighten (which to some degree is true) and save their followers within the context of their beliefs, there's a much more selfish purpose to their becoming a leader in a faith. The typical personality of a priest is one of megalomania, their abrasiveness cushioned somewhat by their projection of ethereal piety, but ultimately they quest for status. They love the power, they love being as high as possible on the ethereal narcotic, and they can justify it all with their faith. This is no different than a drug dealer that is constantly high on the narcotic of choice, and distributing this narcotic to others in order to control them and acquire their commitment and power.
Unfortunately, the knowledge and historical information that priests often draw upon in their diatribes is consistently laced with mythology (the narcotic) in order to keep the ethereal addicts in a constant state of fear/desire/submission. It is true that most religious literature represents a long legacy of historical events, but the degree of bias, interpretation, inaccuracy, and agenda, makes it a poor resource for teaching.
> Terms such as propaganda, addiction, virus and evil are very negative and show no respect or tolerance of other views.
Correct, BetterHuman.org does 'not' tolerate mythological views because tolerance for mythology is the fundamental problem. We choose to address the disease head-on (by spreading ethereal-addiction awareness), instead of ignoring it. Please read this prior post: 2.15.
> What does religion professes to protect you from, fantasy and fear-based coercion, I do not understand?
Most religions offer to protect you from evil and give you ethereal rewards if you submit to their faith. Christianity for example, manipulates you with a manufactured fear (hell) and the promise of an unbeatable manufactured reward (heaven, immortality). It would be absolutely inconceivable for a young child learning this system to even begin to challenge these notions because they were taught the terrifying ramifications for doing so. This small child grows into an adult with the same boxed-in disposition, having spent a lifetime staying away from the 'curiosity fence'.
> oppressive or inapplicable, I think not. To say that biblically based standards are not applicable in today's world is misinformed
I disagree, my friend. There may be many tenets of religion that are congruent with a reality perspective (generally those that best represent our instinctual inclinations to altruism), but the integration of mythology in a lot of religious tenets that only serve to propagate the religion, or its leaders' power, are the ones that need to be eviscerated.
> I admit the women are placed in submission to the husband concerning authority it does not infer that they are of any less worth.
Your statement exactly identifies the 'accepted' oppression of women that some religions profess. Women do not need to submit in any form to any kind of male authority. How can women not feel worth 'less' if they don't have an independent voice?
> The bible does take aversion to homosexual practices which is characterized the same as many others practices such as cheating and stealing.
Typically, homophobia is founded upon a heterosexual's instinctual aversion to the perception of receiving sexual attention from the same gender as their own, forcing the heterosexual to act in an ostracizing manner to homosexuals. In my book, Meme, I call this the 'repulsion fringe', which is an instinctual reaction of dislike toward anything that is recognizable (like another human) but is perceived as ugly or unfamiliar. This ancient instinct forces us to strictly define the parameters of an ideal mate such that reproduction is not randomly distributed among all members of a species (which leads to genetic entropy). Unfortunately, this 'repulsion fringe' instinct is also the foundation of an unimaginable degree of senseless prejudice in our world, and homosexuals suffer the brunt of it.
A few facts: homosexuals are not taught to be gay, they are born that way, nature has produced them, not evil. They are normal human beings that deserve all the same respect and privileges as any other human being. There is nothing genetically wrong with them, they are not mentally defective, they are not sexual predators, freaks, drug addicts, denialists, rebels, or have any other conceivable physiological or psychological genetic defect in any ratio that differs from the heterosexual segment of society.
My friend, if you are revolted by homosexuals, you are simply afraid of what you don't understand, and you are reacting to this aversion much like a caveperson would, not very inspiring considering the mass of your brain. For any philosophy (religion) to teach this form of hatred (or any form of hatred for that matter) towards anyone, singlehandedly invalidates that philosophy's worth.
Respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
#22 - When a loved one falls victim to religion - August 07, 2005, 02:32 PM
Mr. Shipbite wrote:
> I discovered your website last night and by 10:30 am this morning I have read every word on your site. It was a real pleasure reading things that make so much sense to me.
Thank you for the kind words
> My wife has been slipping deeper and deeper into her Catholic Faith. Morning Mass M-F and Sunday, Bible study Tues nights, Prayer groups Wed afternoons, Pilgrimages out of the county, etc, etc. ... Not sure how to communicate with my wife about all this. Whenever we try, she does put up that wall and she reacts just as you described. We've been together for 24 years and are now both just 42 years old. I lover her dearly and I know she loves me.
I'm so sorry my friend. Your wife may be having difficulty adjusting to aging, or perhaps she has become enamored with the false prospect of divine purpose. I do hope you can help her to accomplish what she perceives is missing in her life without her slipping into the trap of religion. Perhaps if she read some of BetterHuman.org's literature, it may at least put a dent in her willingness to submit to the ethereal addiction and may help her to discover more accurately what she is pursuing.
> I'm not sure what organization to join.
One of the most important things I try to teach in my book, Meme, is that 'you' are the temple you need to worship. You will find many constructive tenets in it that contribute to the 'wholeness' that you can become without the need for an ethereal element. You already have all the answers in your head about how to be happy and content in life; the trick is to be able to identify and remove all the nonsensical religious fluff that obscures these answers.
> I'd love to find out some real statistics about the growth in the non religious population vs. the religious population. Do you have any info on that?
Click HERE to see a current snapshot of the distribution of religious beliefs around the world. I'm sure the Internet will reveal other sites that demonstrate trends over time.
Good luck my friend,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 2.22, 12.164}
{All letters from this contributor: 2.19, 3.37, 6.84, 9.133, 22.324}
{All letters from this contributor: 2.21, 3.32, 3.35, 3.41, 5.70, 10.136, 12.159, 12.165, 13.171, 13.175}
{All letters from this contributor: 2.22, 12.164}