Page 7 |
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:
#87 - Death - Dec 04, 2005, 03:46 PM
#88 - Clarifying the direction of BetterHuman.org - Dec 04, 2005, 04:23 PM
#89 - Are atheists their own gods? - Dec 04, 2005, 04:37 PM
#90 - Macroeconomics and war - Dec 04, 2005, 06:33 PM
#91 - To be a quack, or to not be a quack... - Dec 05, 2005, 09:40 PM
#92 - Severe infection - Dec 05, 2005, 09:53 PM
#93 - Who is Sean Sinjin? - Dec 05, 2005, 10:10 PM
#94 - What motivates atheistic altruism? - Dec 05, 2005, 10:40 PM
#95 - How selfish are we here at BetterHuman.org? - Dec 05, 2005, 10:50 PM
#96 - Exactly how many Jesus' were there? - Dec 16, 2005, 08:41 PM
#97 - The future of human society - Dec 16, 2005, 08:52 PM
#98 - Whoops... - Dec 17, 2005, 10:59 AM
#99 - Rooting for the little guy - Dec 17, 2005, 11:21 AM
#100 - On a more positive note... - Dec 17, 2005, 11:30 AM
#101 - Super-kudos for Meme - Dec 17, 2005, 11:46 AM
#102 - Do disclaimers work? - Dec 17, 2005, 11:58 AM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#86 - Me me? - November 26, 2005, 11:46 AM |
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> You to go one to replace this need to worship God with your version of it with some G.O.D it seems that you are trying to create some inner being at best with some poor imitation of the real thing.
There is no real thing my friend. The G.O.D. always existed in the form that I describe, I merely expose it for what it is, an instinct that evolved due to eons of ethereal misperceptions.
> You to state that Christians place God as their main focus in life and hence shape their life style. People can choose evolution with no aim or purpose in life except for self gratification grow old and just die and become dust.
It is in no way justified to assume that a godless perspective is purposeless. The significant difference with our philosophy is that purpose is instead defined by the 'individual', not a religion. Everyone needs a purpose, something to strive for, a life filled with instinctual placation (the root of true happiness). In my book, Meme, I describe a number of ways to define your own personal purpose that doesn't negatively impose upon others (our core tenet). True, we do get old and eventually turn to dust, but so will you, no matter what you believe.
As for self-gratification, I can't imagine a more self-indulgent personality than from someone that is religious. Even beyond the ethereally-charged self-righteousness, and the ulterior professions of love for a god that they simply 'use' for their own selfish pursuit of a perceived immortality, religious people don't even understand what it means to 'really' help another person. For example, it is absolutely impossible for religious people to perform an act of pure altruism, simply because they perceive themselves to always be under the watchful eye of their ethereal entity and as such this taints their motivations to act 'piously' into one of earning 'brownie points' with their god, rather than truly helping someone else. Only an atheist can perform pure altruism.
> there is more to life then self gratification. And that is to a personal relationship with God.
My friend, can you demonstrate how your personal relationship with your ethereal entity is anything more than self-gratification?
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
#87 - Death - December 04, 2005, 03:46 PM
Mr. Garblimb wrote:
> How, beleiving that there is no god, makes on 'betterhumanbeing'.
A lack of belief in a god makes one a better human for many, many reasons that are too innumerable to write here, though the bulk of these reasons are covered in my book, Meme. I will volunteer the most important reason however, which is that it is impossible to find true happiness when you are trapped in a mythological perspective. True happiness requires a very deep understanding of your individual instinctual balances, and the appropriate placation of those instincts. Religion forgoes recognition of these instinctual needs, and solely focuses on placating the colossal ego and fear instincts with fantasy, in order to manipulate its members into submission and resource relinquishment. Alternatively, having a reality perspective empowers one to best improve their situation, allowing them the greatest opportunity to become a 'better' human, free from the madness of a mythological perspective.
> How come the caveman/cavespeople, converse in English.(or the English the author has mouthed them to speak?)
My example was written in English, but you may translate the language to any verbal form of communication you wish (even grunts and pitches if you like), the example will still remain valid. What's important to recognize is the meme 'information' that is flowing back and forth, regardless of the method of transport (language).
> 'LIFE' what is it?
This requires a very lengthy and complicated answer, which is why I wrote Meme, to exactly answer that question. Please give it a read.
> wnen a man/animal dies what happens?
The point of 'death' occurs when the brain is no longer processing or receiving oxygen for a long enough period of time that irreversible and fatal brain damage takes place. After this, it will no longer be possible for the creature to regain consciousness, meaning that it will never again feel, think, or perceive its environment. If it wasn't already the cause of death, the heart will soon stop beating (assuming of course that there is no artificial life support system continuing the process). Once the blood stops flowing, the remainder of the cells in the body will be starved of oxygen and will quickly cease to function, including our immune system that defends our bodies from bacterial invasion. Almost immediately after our cells die of oxygen starvation, they become easy prey for environmental and parasitic bacteria, not having an active immune system to defend against these predators. Within a period of weeks to months (assuming the corpse was buried), the corpse will be entirely consumed by the bacteria and there will be nothing left but bones and hair. During this entire process, of course the corpse does not 'feel', or 'perceive' anything, for the neurons in the brain that are responsible for these sensations are not operating, and the neurons themselves are also soon consumed.
This is death; painless, natural, non-ethereal, permanent, and unavoidable.
> this thing called 'LIFE" has left his/its body, so this thing called 'LIFE', where it comes from and where it goes?
I'm going to assume that the term 'life' in the above statement refers to the concept of the body containing an ethereal 'spirit'. Death is nothing more than the cessation of cellular processes in the body; the machine just stops working. The concept of the 'spirit' is a very natural extension of our perceived 'oneness', that being our elaborate consciousness. Despite the illusion of oneness, it takes a brain-full of neurons firing off in precise sequences to result in the perception of consciousness. This chemically and electrically supported 'awareness' is what is often confused for the 'spirit'. This 'spirit' concept is ubiquitously adopted by all religions as it provides a necessary means by which to make the possibility of immortality feasible (something that lives beyond physical death). However, there truly is no ethereal 'spirit' within any living creature, and once death occurs, all that remains is a corpse. What people refer to as 'life' leaving the body, simply means that the body has ceased functioning, not that something has literally departed the corpse.
Where 'life' comes from, or when it begins is a tricky question because there never is a point at which a new creature is ever formed from an 'unstarted' state. The egg cells that form in the womb are alive, and the sperm that impregnates the eggs are alive, and the two combining results in a chain reaction of cellular division that eventually produces a fetus. Conceptually this could be defined as the beginning of life, but there was no point at which the power switch was flipped on, just that the already alive pieces were assembled.
> Our present world scientists, have sent probes to Saturn, Jupiter etc, very impressive. Why have theyt not been able to produce some thing like a mosquito
Don't be fooled by its size, a mosquito is 'much' more complicated to create than sending a probe throughout the solar system. Someday we'll have the technology to create life, but for now, that remains science fiction.
> Seeing is believing, no one has seen the 'god', no one has seen the breeze either, you can onlly feel it.
You are misinterpreting your emotions to be of some divine origin. I assure you that whatever 'ethereal' sensations you are feeling is entirely caused from within your own brain.
> Finally, believing in 'god' or what ever name you may give it, e.g. 'nature' etc. is not wrong. BELIEVING BLINDLY is wrong.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Take care,
Sean Sinjin
#88 - Clarifying the direction of BetterHuman.org - December 04, 2005, 04:23 PM
Mr. Blankedge wrote:
> I came here, because I'm an atheist myself and wanted to find out more about memes
Memes are nothing more than subsets of an idea, analogous to a bunch of individual car parts (memes) put together to form a car (the idea). I've actually received negative criticism because my book is called "Meme", and yet the book does not dig very deeply into what a meme is. Those critics are not recognizing that my book is not an analysis of the concept of a meme, but that it is instead 'filled' with memes. I offer a box of chocolates, not the recipe for them. The title is more than appropriate.
> when it comes to attempts to justify opression driven by altruistic will it all falls apart. On what basis do You justify "not letting anyone to hurt himself" ?
It would be the exact same basis that you would use to justify not letting your child play with matches. They are unaware of the danger. It is quite altruistic to help people avoid hurting themselves due to their ignorance.
> Your example of not letting ones daughter hurt herself is wrong when used as analogy to relations between people
I completely disagree, my friend. Age is by no means a useful indicator of wisdom or maturity and as such it remains valid to assist your peers, or elders, to help them accomplish a reality perspective, whether they understand the need for it or not.
> You simply expect all people to feel like one family, a community of men of the same virtues, same vision of happiness etc - where is place for individualism ?
I'm afraid you have entirely misunderstood our motivations. I think you'll find that the philosophies of BetterHuman.org are 'more' liberal than any past or present religious or societal manifold. Individuality, and the right to express it, is one of our core tenets. Please read my weblog for extensive coverage on this issue.
> So any means leading to make someone happy (given Your definition of happiness) are justified this way. E.g. taking away child from a mother who lets her child to believe in some Big Rabbit
Exactly. If the societal oppression of religion is not effective enough to completely stymie religion's growth, then preventing its spread might be the only (and final) recourse. I liken the infusion of religious teaching onto children to that of child abuse; no less damaging than emotional abuse, physical abuse, or neglect. If this final (and I do stress 'final') recourse of decoupling severely ethereally addicted parents from their potentially doomed children, can save children from being dragged door to door by their parents on an ethereal infection binge, or prevent children from learning the plethora of ignorant and hateful prejudices that most religions convey, or can save even one youth from strapping explosives to their bodies in the name of mythology, then yes, it is absolutely justified, humane, altruistic, and necessary to remove those children from their insane parents, no less so than if the parents wholeheartedly believed that rabbits ruled the universe.
> And how then You can say that abortion is the problem and decision [btw how can one make decisions if he has no free will and thus cannot make choices?] ONLY of a mother and not of a whole society ?).
I don't believe I even 'remotely' suggested that the ruling body was to make all decisions for everyone. The function of the ruling body is limited to oppressing religion, and to ensure that any individual's decisions do not negatively impact others (or themselves). Outside of this scope, everyone is entitled to make any decisions they want, without fear of oppression from others. This grants all mothers their individual choice when considering abortion. Please read the weblog for other postings on abortion.
As for your 'free will' point, I am always amazed at how 'fate' can be interpreted as the removal of responsibility for your actions. What is often overlooked is that the responsibility for those decisions is 'also' assigned by fate to those that the decisions are assigned to. To explain, imagine a scenario where an individual committed a serious crime and is now facing a judge in court. The criminal protests that his crime was written in fate and that he cannot take responsibility for his actions because they were predetermined and could not be prevented. The judge says in reply, "Then I guess fate is also forcing me to decide that you are to serve 30 years in prison for that crime that wasn't your decision. Next!"
> (we are not) like some river, because river simply cannot e.g. control itself or other river (and if one cannot control himsels how can he control anything in society ?).
The point of the river analogy was to demonstrate that we cannot control our destiny. We have the powerful illusion of being able to make 'choices', often not understanding that those choices (and the associated responsibility) were determined for us at the time of the Big Bang, and we are just now unfolding those choices. Hopefully fate hasn't planned anything too traumatic for you but in the meantime, rather than sit like a decision-incapable lump, try exercising that illusion of choice in your best interests.
> But the most frightening is Your idea of fighting with religion,
Not nearly as frightening as allowing religions to continue poisoning the mental health of our species.
> (you cannot restrict) peoples freedom of belief by monopolizing education with Your philosophy (isn't that what communists tried to do?)
Does that then make it communist? Doesn't every philosophy use education to propagate its ideals?
> or cretaing feudal-like privileges when it comes to voting (its obvious that intelligent,educated,empathetic and believing people are excluded,
Not excluded, but seriously limited in influence until they better educate themselves about reality, and can wean themselves off of the fantasy-inducing narcotic of 'faith'.
> btw as You said empathy is necesarry for avoiding tyranny so how on earth are You planning to measure one's level of empathy ?
I don't. That is something to be decided by the ruling body such that these parameters can be decided by many minds, and can be reflective of the time in which these parameters are to be enacted.
> Your means of achieving this "better" world are quite the same as used by religious leaders in human history.
Not true. We do not use fear and false hope to manipulate the masses.
> And applying such a rules to society is nothing more than an attempt to programm society, to control it (and who controls those who rule?)
Correct, and precisely how things are currently run today, however, the 'education' that BetterHuman.org endorses will have a more empathic agenda. Your choice of the word 'programming' is nothing more than a negative slant on the word 'education', which all philosophies employ, even yours. And to your final point, the voters control who rules.
> You think it's a bit naïve at least and dangerous at most? Attempt to control, plan etc. such a complicated, dynamical and unpredictable system will only destabilize it rather than make order (and it is destabilized since first state came to be).
I think it's a bit naïve to believe that what we currently have as society is anything but a highly unstable, greed-oriented tyranny. Something as simple as a stock market crash can decimate the entire world economy, with potentially millions of people suffering. It doesn't get much more unstable than that. This instability that I am exposing lies in the fact that the lion's share of power currently sits in very few hands. How can that kind of system be considered 'stable' to the majority of the population that is enslaved to it? It's time to reinvent this greed-oriented slavery system, and build anew with serious consideration to quality of life for all people, without the opportunity for undue indentured servitude.
> also not sure if You see that applying Your philosophy with interventionist politics leaves huge backdoor for abuse of these rules
Can you describe a form of government where rules are not open to abuse?
> opressiom of any irrational belief are also a backdoor to revolutiom,
Revolutions are a result of malcontent and suffering citizens. The system that BetterHuman.org proposes addresses each individual's need for quality of life and as such should remediate any perceived discord. It is designed precisely to do just that, which other forms of society fail to accomplish due to their large focus on greed, and lack of altruism.
> So even if such a country would ever be established it won't last in such state even a percent of percent of time needed for these rules to become instincts.
Incorrect. Our system accurately 'reflects' what are already our current instinctual motivations, much more so than the single focus and facility on the greed and ego instincts that our enslaved populations are subject to today. The existing systems of society that humanity presently employs are actually festering favoritism toward the greed and ego instincts as reproductively selective, and devaluing the altruistic instincts. Our societies as they are today are forcing us to evolve to become greedier, more ego driven, and less caring. Very sad.
> (don't get me wrong, but intervetionism in e.g. education or economy is a socialistic idea) and generally pro-state idea to be driven by a statist meme virus, which is not as old as religion virus but without doubt having its source in it. Why don't You want to see that ?
I completely see your point that any philosophy can be construed as a meme-virus from the context of another. Any entity (even metaphysical) that erodes the caliber of another system, could be considered a viral attack, absolutely. From this perspective, the BetterHuman.org meme-virus is attempting to disintegrate the religious meme-virus by making its host (humans) uninhabitable for it (via education).
As for your statist comment, you have made an incorrect assumption and invested too far into that assumption. BetterHuman.org is promoting the opposite of statism; we are promoting tremendous individual liberty within the confines of reality. The ruling body's role is simply to persist the reality perspective and to define and enforce that individual liberties do not negatively impinge upon others (or one's self).
> History knows of no great tragedy caused by religion (or atheism) without help of ruling ones.
This is such a boldly inaccurate statement that I'll leave it to you to turn to any page in history and disprove it to yourself. Religion is synonymous with tragedy.
> All this "just" opression etc. is in no way something that nature shows us.
Correct. Mother Nature is treading brave new ground by producing higher intelligence and she is ill-equipped to guide us in this new frontier. We are being weaned from her guardianship and it is time for us to bear the responsibility of defining our future course. Should it continue to be a path of the primitive greed and ego-satiating pursuits? Or do we let those instincts fade over time and instead concentrate on the self-fulfillment, empathic, and communion instincts?
> P.S. Please forgive me any errors in spelling etc...and my English is far from being perfect.
Most undoubtedly it is improving daily.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 7.88, 7.97}
#89 - Are atheists their own gods? - December 04, 2005, 04:37 PM
{Note to reader: I'm not sure where my head was when I replied to this one, but I 'completely' misinterpreted this submitter's quote below, so please bear with my 'out-there' response. However, I am most deservedly 'corrected' at a later date.}
Mr. Stylegave wrote:
> "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)
This quote is unfortunately making the assumption that atheists perceive themselves as a god, which, at least by definition, is not remotely accurate. In fact, atheists typically have a much humbler disposition than religious folk due to the fact that atheists do not perceive themselves to be of some divine invention. So, let's rewrite the above quote to expose Sir Stephen Henry Roberts' train of thought and see if it makes more sense:
"I assume that you consider yourself a god because I cannot understand what it means to be godless and that means to me that you must then be worshipping yourself as one. Building on this assumption, I contend that you are too arrogant to understand that you are not a god and it is my ethereally-defined privilege to condemn your perspective without any need to verify my assumption"
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 7.89, 7.98}
#90 - Macroeconomics and war - December 04, 2005, 06:33 PM
Mr. Pointkey wrote back:
> The fact that war is both historical and worldwide phenomena would suggest that it has a evolutionary component.
Agreed, the ego and greed instincts can ultimately surface in their most destructive form, that being war.
> I think this suggest that the solution to war probably lies with understanding and controlling the very small but powerful minority that intentionally trigger war. It may be possible to protect to masses from the their weakness that makes them susceptible to the manipulation of those with the mental defect that drives them to chose war but I think it would be easer to solve the problem of the few.
What you are identifying here are the components of war: the greedy tyrant leadership, the gullible and propaganda-driven masses, and the desire to accumulate the wealth of another land. Of course both sides of any war will always claim to be the victim of the other, and perhaps to various degrees that always holds true, but I find it doubtful that there could be any means by which to prevent those leaders from making a decision to go to war. What needs to occur is a maturing in understanding what leads us into war, such that steps can be taken to prevent it.
In today's world, a capitalistic-based economy (which obviously includes capitalism, but also some alternate society models as well) is considered to be the most successful money-acquiring (populace-enslaving) economic model. Capitalism is very imperialistic in nature, not in the conventional definition where land is acquired by force, but instead in economy acquisition. Literally, capitalism eventually acquires the resources of another land, not by war, but by imposing (through fiscal-containment policies, free-trade, sanctions, etc.) its own economic structure onto them, thereby surfacing their resources into the free market's reach. This not only happens on a commodity level, but with people resources as well. The 'brain drain' is suffered by most countries in the world as a significant portion of the world's best and brightest find their way to the allures of capitalistic wealth, leaving their parent countries short on talent.
Due to the phenomenal wealth that a capitalistic regime procures, this economic model has earned its constituents a global perception of selfishness and gluttony, which has festered such a hate from other societies that seemingly disconnected individuals on the other side of the world are willing to kill to express what they perceive is their suffering at the hands of capitalistic imperialism.
Nobody is really at fault because it is very difficult to understand how your individual oblivious and trivial economic actions here (buying commodities, imposing tariffs) are destroying the fabric of societies elsewhere. But surely, one must realize that when a large portion of the world's population expresses contempt, it has to be more than just petty jealousy; there must be real damage being done. In our defense, most citizens of monetarily-oriented economies 'would' help if they truly understood their connection to others' suffering, but this connection isn't taught to the masses, and so when an act of terrorism crashes into their lives, they are often left absolutely bewildered that they could somehow be responsible for it. The economic engine is to blame, not the unsuspecting citizens.
It is my firm belief that the war against terrorism today is borne of the educationless poverty that many of these terrorists emerge from, and what they perceive as the disregard for and the perpetuating of their situation by the 'rich' countries. How can they not be angry when they are hungry and living in squalor, and yet bombarded with images of our unbelievable wealth through the media, and still we do nothing to help them. It must seem a cold dismissal from us.
Sadly, their deep immersion in ethereal addiction has also held them back in time, stunting any meaningful inclusion into the current world economy. It is often this severe ethereal addiction of the masses that provides a powerful tool for terrorists with a political agenda, to manipulate their innocent youth into performing inconceivable acts of self-destruction, in the misguided pursuit of martyrdom.
So, getting back to your original point, what will prevent war will be the altruistic distribution of wealth. If these poverty-stricken societies had been granted assistance by richer countries to better their lives, I'm certain that terrorism wouldn't be a household term today. The eradication of religion will go a long way towards enabling these poverty-stricken populations to create a foothold in improving their people's situation.
Wealth needs to be altruistically recirculated, not accumulated and defended.
Regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 4.45, 4.54, 7.90}
#91 - To be a quack, or to not be a quack... - December 05, 2005, 09:40 PM
Mr. Undersalt wrote back:
> I don't think Christ would call you a quack, just blind.
Perhaps. So why then did 'you' call me a quack, as opposed to 'misguided'? Is the term 'quack' endorsed by your religion when conferring with non-believers?
> I don't shut out opportunities to learn but I'm careful not to let myself get caught up in deceptive teachings such as yours either.
How are my writings deceptive? Can you be specific?
> I think you're missing the whole point about Christianity. Catholiscism teaches us that humans are very important in the universe... much more important than we think.
Yes Christianity does teach a grossly exaggerated sense of divine worth. I believe this is a very unhealthy approach to building self-esteem because it relies heavily upon the external existence of a supreme being. Should these members of your religion eventually learn enough to see that there truly isn't a supreme being, their self-worth will disappear as well. Very dangerous (perhaps with suicidal results). The truth is, the universe has no value for us, for it is just a mindless massive blob of energy-laced bether, and we're merely bacteria plaguing the Earth within it.
One of the biggest advantages of the BetterHuman.org perspective is that it becomes much easier to accept death as a natural part of life. Knowing that death is inevitable and final allows one to plan their life around this fact, and to find the courage to maximize the caliber of that life while they are still alive. I can honestly say that I do not fear death now 'nearly' as much as I did when I was an ethereal addict. When I was ethereally addicted as a child, the prospect of meeting my maker for final judgment was probably about the most terrifying scenario I could ever imagine. But, ever since I began to understand how religions simply use mythology to manipulate and harvest the resources of the masses, I soon came to understand death as nothing more than the cessation of biological functioning of body and mind. Now death to me represents only a painless, timeless, and permanent unconsciousness; no more terrifying than going to sleep. What a load off my shoulders!
> To dismiss anything spiritual as "imaginary creatures in the sky" is to dismiss a part of yourself.
Only from within your mythological perspective. The definition of spirituality in our perspective is the 'illusion' of oneness (a single consciousness) borne of the sum of neural activity in the brain. Of course our version of a 'spirit' dies when the body dies. As well, we are not dismissing anything, quite the contrary, indeed you are 'adding' an unwarranted ethereal entity that does not really exist. You are misinterpreting the presence of your consciousness as something beyond biological.
> Just because you can't see the spiritual with your physical eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Right, but can you prove that it 'does' exist? Can you provide any kind of evidence whatsoever (which precludes 'faith') that demonstrates the existence of a spirit?
> Heaven is where non-physical beings live, such as God, Christ, the angels and demons.
My friend, what a terrifying and quite literally insane world you perceive. I have much pity for you.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.77, 7.91}
#92 - Severe infection - December 05, 2005, 09:53 PM
Ms. Gardenlike wrote:
> now you say there is no God I am God. You are God. God is all there is. what bothers you so much about this concept?
I'm sure the above statement sounds absolutely beautiful in your mind, almost like a warm security blanket that covers you from head to toe, however, it is nothing more than poetry. In reality, the above simply makes no logical sense, even within the context of your own religion (it doesn't matter which one). What you are demonstrating above is the 'fix' part of your ethereal addiction, as if saying the word 'God' itself was a 'high' received from your faith narcotic. What bothers me so much about the above is that you are potentially going to teach some impressionable child this nonsensical pseudo-'logic', and at the very least confuse them, but at the most, destroying their ability to exercise logic without fear of ethereal punishment.
> why are science and religion apart?
Science encapsulates and describes religion as a psychological meme-virus that misleads its host into believing that mythological creatures exist, whereas religion precludes the vast majority of science in order to retain its simplistic fantasy perspective for its members. They are simply incompatible because they intrinsically attempt to discard each other's validity. Intelligent Design attempts to hybrid these two philosophies but fails because it nonsensically attempts to use a 'more' complex mystery intelligence to explain less complex observations in nature that science cannot currently explain.
> what's God but Love? God is Love. the Woman is the shape of Love. Woman exists, Love exists, Therefore God exists.
My dear friend, I am very sad to read the above, for it represents a nearly complete religious meme-virus infection that has done mostly irreparable damage to your ability to comprehend reality. I hope the degree of your affliction at the very least spares you from the fantastical terrors it imposes. Your sickness is precisely what BetterHuman.org is fighting hard to cure.
> you say there is no God but you seem to support and convey some idea of morals,
Morality is instinctual, granted to us by Mother Nature
> is there an afterlife?
No, we all must die, and then we are no more.
> or can we kill for money?
Many have. Religion (or lack thereof) in no way positively or negatively influences this statistic.
> what is your solution?
BetterHuman.org
> would you like to talk?
Only if you have clearly reasonable questions or discussions about the philosophies of BetterHuman.org.
> I'm interested in EVERYTHING
Then please read the weblog in its entirety. It contains a lot of information that you need to understand.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
#93 - Who is Sean Sinjin? - December 05, 2005, 10:10 PM
Mr. Siderain wrote back:
> I was just curious about, well, you. In the last log you said you werent american. If you dont mind me asking, what country are you from
That information must unfortunately remain undisclosed. I am maintaining a large degree of anonymity for two reasons, 1) I do not want the work being done here to be prejudiced against based upon my biographical details, and 2) there is an inherent risk when telling ethereal addicts that they are insane so I must remain distant in order to have some degree of safety. I hope you understand.
One thing that I think is of utmost importance to explain is that even 'I' am not Sean Sinjin. The writings of Sean Sinjin are an amalgamation of the myriad of influential people's personalities that I have met in my life. I have been blessed with many encounters with phenomenally generous, intelligent, wise, and beautiful people, and I do my best to write 'through' these people, as if they were the ones responding. I will admit to being a very sad representative of BetterHuman.org in that I too constantly need its guidance to point me in better directions. That's why I wrote Meme, it is my 'Bible', and I take steps every day that put me ever closer to its definition of a 'better human'. Like many of us, I too am a work in progress.
When I receive letters from my readers, I have to spend a great deal of time stepping outside of my initial reaction, and allow the essences of those greater people I've met, take hold of my response and generate it accordingly. I know I fail to entirely do this at times and some of my gimpishness comes through, but I hope that's forgivable.
Hopefully I'm not being too presumptuous, but the entire point of my diatribe is to point any credit to where it is due, and that is to those unknown humble giants of empathy, love, and mental prowess. Don't thank me...thank Einstein, thank your mom, thank your neighbor that cut your grass, thank your fireman, teacher, nurse, etc. for their essence is what guides my words; I am merely a conduit.
> Also, I was wondering how you know so much about science, whether it is just a hobby or you went to school for it.
Both actually. I have a tremendous thirst for knowledge and a passion for exposing fraud.
Thanks for the interest,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
#94 - What motivates atheistic altruism? - December 05, 2005, 10:40 PM
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> It's true when we perform acts by helping others in need, Gods word does states that we will be rewarded when Jesus returns. If these acts or deeds are done in selfish ways then people will not be rewarded but instead these acts will be exposed for what they are.
You've actually reinforced my original point that it is impossible for a religious person to perform an altruistic act without acknowledging the implicit brownie points you'll receive from your ethereal entity. You absolutely cannot perform this act 'without' knowing you'll be getting a reward, and so, quite simply, this reward is always part of the motivation to perform this action. This is what I mean when I state that religious people cannot 'understand' true altruism, simply because pure altruism doesn't have a definition within a religious context. It's such a shame too; you wouldn't believe how powerful the altruism instinct is when it rewards you for a 'pure' act.
> We as a church provide meals, furniture, transport and meet many other local needs of our community. This is done in genuine service not to brag or to score points.
Not to diminish the goodness of the end result but, I disagree, for the reasons I stated above.
> For an atheist to do good works for another, what are his/her motives to do so. Self pleasure or to brag or look good like the Christian??
Exercising the altruism instinct results in acts of kindness and goodness but still ultimately is selfishly motivated because these altruistic acts result in an instinctual reward from the altruism instinct. To contrast, it is nearly impossible (for most normal people anyway) to break the neck of a young puppy. What is the difference between killing a puppy and giving it food? They're both just simple actions that require virtually the same amount of energy, and about the same amount of coordination, and with set consequences; but pay attention to the power of the different reactions by the brain to each scenario. Why do we recoil in horror at killing the puppy, and yet smile at feeding it? Our response isn't taught to us, it is our built-in altruistic instinct that defines what is good or bad. The altruistic instinct is very powerful, and can be a tremendous source of pain or pleasure. Hence, despite the benefits to others when we perform acts of kindness, all altruism is selfishly motivated in order to get that 'high' that the altruism instinct generates. Isn't it great that Mother Nature evolved us that way so that we'd want to help each other?
To answer your question, in the context of pure altruism (which means nobody but you knows you did something good) then the motivation to perform an altruistic act is self-pleasure. The altruism instinct recognizes your act of goodness and rewards you with a feeling of contentment, integrity, well-being, and trust in your fellow humans (because we like to believe that other people are doing the same thing). I would be hesitant to compare the strength of this altruistic 'high' against the artificial 'high' of receiving brownie points from an ethereal entity, but at least the altruism 'high' is real.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
#95 - How selfish are we here at BetterHuman.org? - December 05, 2005, 10:50 PM
Mr. Paperto wrote back:
> I recently realized that the highest form of human existence, is in fact self sacrifice. (in the broadest sense) This also happens one Jesus' greatest teachings on human life. A teaching, that he also demonstrated.
A very Christian concept, and you are correct, BetterHuman.org does not subscribe to self-sacrifice as the 'definition' of the greatest accomplishment we can perform. We do not preclude it, but rather our focus is positive self-fulfillment in the pursuit of happiness. The self-sacrifice you describe seems wasteful and heavily leverages the mythological concept of earning one's passage into the afterlife, which essentially means your 'self-sacrifice' is still ultimately selfish, destroying any possibility of 'true' self-sacrifice. How exactly are you sacrificing 'anything' if you believe you are receiving immortality in exchange? It would be the same as saying that I'll give you a gift of $10 to help you, and because I do that then someone else will give me a million dollars. That's not a sacrifice by any definition.
> The reason it reminded me of you, was because it was almost a complete polar opposite to what your mini-manifesto on life and purpose preaches on your website. It states that: "you are the most important person in your life".
And I maintain that position. It is very important to understand that it is virtually impossible to love and care for anyone else if you don't love yourself. If you don't love yourself, then your intrinsic thirst for love must come from others, and this is nothing short of self-serving. BetterHuman.org teaches you how to pursue self-fulfillment so that you can genuinely love others, without the implicit need for reciprocation.
I would also like to point out that there not as much degree of difference between BetterHuman.org's described selfishness and religious selfishness as you may expect. I need you to look at this from both of your perception shortcomings, 1) your lack of recognition of a very strong altruistic thread in all BetterHuman.org tenets, and 2) your oversight of the predominant selfishness inherent to all religious people in their pursuit of immortality. Religious people are 'conditioned' to believe that the acts of kindness they perform for ethereal brownie points are not selfish acts, which is simply denial; these acts are entirely selfish 'because' of the inescapable brownie points.
> It's quite amusing that your book's title actually spells: "Me Me!".
That did work out well, though it sincerely wasn't intended.
> I'm not suggesting that you're all a bunch selfish people,
Yes you are exactly. However, your observations were quite valid.
> It goes beyond merely "helping" people in need, but actually loving them - even if they hate you. Man, it's so profound.
On the surface, the intent of your letter could be interpreted as an attempt to teach me about generosity of spirit, even in the face of contempt, but the underlying tone of your letter was obviously condescending and patronizing and therefore reduces your motivation from its superficial altruism, to that of mere mockery. Very bizarre representation of this generosity you're purporting the virtues of.
As if it needs to be stated again, BetterHuman.org does 'absolutely' value helping others, rewardlessly, in fact more so than what is possible from within a religious context. Please see the umpteen articles on pure altruism in the weblog.
With respect,
{All letters from this contributor: 7.88, 7.97}
{All letters from this contributor: 7.89, 7.98}
{All letters from this contributor: 4.45, 4.54, 7.90}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.77, 7.91}
{All letters from this contributor: 3.34, 3.42, 5.66, 6.72, 6.79, 7.93, 8.113, 14.177}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
{All letters from this contributor: 4.56, 5.59, 5.64, 7.95, 8.108}