|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2006 : 14:00:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
In the spirit of being thorough, I just wanted to be sure
that all points were tallied. I believe the following were
overlooked.
(1) A -5 point starting credit.
This was implied:
(16) 10 points for arguing that a current well-established
theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point
against it.
And please don't shortchange me of this prize:
(37) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory
but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Lots of fun my friends, take care,
Sean Sinjin
BetterHuman.org Authenticity Code:
31feaa23-473e-4832-b957-dc9375487cd3
Dammit, Sean, you're not supposed to have a self-depreciating sense of humor, if you really wanna score high as a crackpot! That's 20 points off, fella!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:59:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
And please don't shortchange me of this prize:
(37) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory
but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Okay, then we really can consider your ideas (especially the "bether") as religious as the religions you rail against, and you just as insane as your Earians. That's going to save a lot of time, thanks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 17:43:22 [Permalink]
|
What an unexpected turn in the conversation.
*amused* |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 03:49:58 [Permalink]
|
An understatement, Martha.
Wouldn't "religion" imply some kind of worship, Dave, not just one's view/theory/hypothesis of the Universe? Otherwise science would be a religion. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 05:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Wouldn't "religion" imply some kind of worship, Dave, not just one's view/theory/hypothesis of the Universe? Otherwise science would be a religion.
According to SeanSinjin,Religion – A philosophy and perspective of reality that stems from a faith-supported belief in the existence of an ethereal entity. The "bether" fits his own definitions of "ethereal entity," and since he admits he's offered no testable predictions, then the existence of the "bether" is nothing more than a "faith-supported belief."
These are his definitions, not mine. But that's my point: the whole thing is massively inconsistent and hypocritical. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 06:13:53 [Permalink]
|
From the tenents of betterhman.org http://www.betterhuman.org/
What a wonderful thing to teach our kids:
quote:
We are all equally worthless in the big picture of the universe.
quote:
In order to elect leadership, the voting power of any individual should be calibrated against their level of intelligence, education, and empathic disposition, granting more electoral power to those individuals that have pursued excellence in all of those categories.
So much for democracy. I cannot find what crireria he suggests using to see who is fit to vote. Most likely those who conform to these tenents.
quote:
Freedom of speech should be a privilege instead of a right; to the degree that prevents someone blind with ignorance from misleading an innocent or susceptible audience.
Not much freedom of speech. Who will grant these rights to speak?
quote:
All fantasy and mythology should solely be presented as fiction, especially to children; again, to avoid the possibility of religion creeping into our society's reality perspective
What will happen to parents who teach their children about religion?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 06:58:43 [Permalink]
|
Robb, those quotes convinced me: Ultimately, having a limited number of (purported) Atheists deciding who gets power, who gets to speak, and who gets to say what to their kids, is as elitist and bad as what the Christian Reconstructionists want to do with their "God's Law on Earth" theonazi bullshit. It's saying that only a few people have the smarts to decide things, and all others should be silenced. Essentially in its elitist, anti-democratic stance, this is a fascistic idea.
This stuff is advocating a very real tyranny. I do not propose stopping such advocacy, nor do I think that it is anywhere near as likely to happen as the establishment of a fundie Christian regime, but I surely disagree with it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 10:05:38 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, there are really only two forms of government I could get behind--myself as ruler of everything or a democracy. Since the first is doubtful, I think I'd prefer to keep freedoms of speech and religion as they are.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/07/2006 10:06:08 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 12:35:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
From the tenents of betterhman.org http://www.betterhuman.org/
What a wonderful thing to teach our kids:
quote:
We are all equally worthless in the big picture of the universe.
quote:
In order to elect leadership, the voting power of any individual should be calibrated against their level of intelligence, education, and empathic disposition, granting more electoral power to those individuals that have pursued excellence in all of those categories.
So much for democracy. I cannot find what crireria he suggests using to see who is fit to vote. Most likely those who conform to these tenents.
It sometimes disturbs me when Robb and I actually agree on something. This is not one of those times. This scheme of voting seems like a throw back to where blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person. Only now, there is a highly subjective test to be able for your vote to hold full sway. In effect, a manner of disenfranchising a whole class of people who disagree with the movement. This is the antithesis of a Constitutional Republic.
quote:
quote:
Freedom of speech should be a privilege instead of a right; to the degree that prevents someone blind with ignorance from misleading an innocent or susceptible audience.
Not much freedom of speech. Who will grant these rights to speak?
Again, this is a railing against the rights contained within the First Amendment. Again, Robb and I agree. Freedom of speech is a right because dissent is the motivating factor within Democracies and Constitutional Republics. Otherwise, we just have the Politburo.
quote:
quote:
All fantasy and mythology should solely be presented as fiction, especially to children; again, to avoid the possibility of religion creeping into our society's reality perspective
What will happen to parents who teach their children about religion?
I think the current laws and rulings in place are sufficient to keep religion out of science class. By what authority granted by the Constitution would the government interpose themselves within the private lives of citizen and demand adherence a specific answer to philisophical questions? By what right would the government interfere with the parents duty to raise their children as they see fit?
It's the fundamentalist argument for religious instruction in schools completely reversed to prevent religion in the privacy of the citizen's home.
One major question for SeanSinjin, how does this scheme differ from the Communist Manifesto provisions for religion? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 13:05:05 [Permalink]
|
This all reminds me of one of my primary sources of social knowledge, "The Simpsons." In one episode, an obscure old town law was dredged up after Mayor Quimby skipped town, mistakenly thinking his corruption had been discovered. In such a situation, the law required that Springfield be run by its most intelligent citizens, thus putting the local chapter of Mensa in charge. Naturally, these geeks manage to make a hash of the job, with much the same attitudes demonstrated above.
The very best thing about the BetterHuman screed is that it's about as likely to be adopted as is L. Ron Hubbard to win a posthumous Nobel Prize for his theory of evolution. It reads like a jerk-off pipe-dream of some nerd who was beat up by knuckle-walkers in school. Certainly such a position has an attraction for certain people, but not for many, especially in an era when intellectuals are often held in suspicion, if not in prison.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/07/2006 13:06:34 |
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 08:17:47 [Permalink]
|
Hello my friends, I sincerely hope I am not intruding once
again.
Since our last discussion, I have spent much time studying
your responses, trying to understand just how it was
possible that your first impressions of the BetterHuman.org
website could be as they were, when my intent is absolutely
nothing like your interpretations whatsoever. I came to
realize that the philosophies I present require a great deal more
qualification in order for them to not be misconstrued; and
to this end, I have spent the better part of my absence in
the direct pursuit of clarification of all my tenets and
philosophies. Forgive me when I say that none of you have
the correct perception of BetterHuman.org, but that it is
also entirely my fault because I didn't present enough
information for you to be able to properly understand my
motivations.
I know it is a lot to ask, but I sincerely need
keen-minded, logical people like yourselves to healthily criticize my
work. Please, with a fresh mind, can I re-introduce you to
the completely reorganized and radically more informative
BetterHuman.org website?
Also, please believe me when I say that every single facet
of BetterHuman.org is premised upon an anti-tyrannizing,
altruistic, and liberating motivation. Where I fail to convey
that motivation, I'd love for you to communicate that fact
to me in the way that only my Skeptic friends can. Your
comments are most invaluable.
In due course, I'll attempt a long overdue response to your
comments from before
For Dave:
> Okay, then we really can consider your ideas (especially
the "bether") as religious as the religions you rail
against, and you just as insane as your Earians. That's going to
save a lot of time, thanks. The "bether" fits his own
definitions of "ethereal entity," and since he admits he's
offered no testable predictions, then the existence of the
"bether" is nothing more than a "faith-supported belief."
I'd hope that the introduction of my bether as being a
'theory' separates it from being thought of as in any way a
'religious' pursuit. In contrast, you'll never hear a
religious person refer to their god as a 'theory'. Also, I don't
worship bether. Sorry for the confusion. The definition
of 'ethereal' that I employ would imply something that is
magical, spiritual, or other-worldly (intangible), and that
is how I've applied the term 'ethereal' consistently
throughout my website. Bether (despite having the word 'ether' as
part of it) is in no way intangible, simply because it 'is'
everything. You are immersed in it, like a fish in water
(even though the fish would also be made of water in this
analogy)
>These are his definitions, not mine. But that's my point:
the whole thing is massively inconsistent and hypocritical.
I would love if you could point out where the hypocrisies
and inconsistencies lay. I'm having a hard time looking in
from the outside.
For Robb:
About my tenet: "We are all equally worthless in the big
picture of the universe"
> What a wonderful thing to teach our kids:
Absolutely, I deserve that. I have since attempted to
justify this tenet (and all the others on my tenets page at
BetterHuman.org. Please look
at tenet #15, and then contrast it with #3 and hopefully
this will clear up this seemingly derogatory theme.
About my tenet: "In order to elect leadership, the voting
power of any individual should be calibrated against their
level of intelligence, education, and empathic disposition,
granting more electoral power to those individuals that
have pursued excellence in all of those categories."
> So much for democracy. I cannot find what crireria he
suggests using to see who is fit to vote. Most likely those
who conform to these tenents.
We too promote democracy; it's just that our voting
criteria differs from yours. Contemporary democracy only values
age to determine voter eligibility, whereas we attempt to
add more meaningful caliber to the voting process, assigning
'weighted' votes in proportion to an individual's relevant
character. Please read tenet #24 to understand.
About my tenet: "Freedom of speech should be a privilege
instead of a right; to the degree that prevents someone blind
with ignorance from misleading an innocent or susceptible
audience."
> Not much freedom of speech. Who will grant these rights
to speak?
The ruling body. Please read tenet #25
About my tenet: "All fantasy and mythology should solely be
presented as fiction, especially to children; again, to
avoid the possibility of religion creeping into our society's
reality perspective"
> What will happen to parents who teach their children
about religion?
Excellent question, and I do have an answer, but first, I'd
like you to answer your own question from a different
perspective. What do you believe should happen to the parents
if they give their children heroin? Or teach them to strap
bombs to their bodies in the name of their gods?
Please read tenet #28
HalfMooner
> Robb, those quotes convinced me: Ultimately, having a
limited number of (purported) Atheists deciding who gets
power, who gets to speak, and who gets to say what to their
kids, is as elitist and bad as what the Christian
Reconstructionists want to do with their "God's Law on Earth" theonazi
bullshit. It's saying that only a few people have the smarts
to decide things, and all others should be silenced.
This is an unfortunate and gross exaggeration of our
philosophies my friend. Everything you describe above holds true
in virtually any form of modern government, whether you
recognize it or not. Freedom of speech is an illusion,
equality for all is an illusion, freedom to raise your children
as you believe is an illusion, the 'land of the free' is an
illusion (free to work 40+ hours a week for someone else's
benefit), and pretty much any other perceived 'unbounded
liberties' you may hold dear that the propaganda engines of
society have imbued in our minds, are already subject to
strict rules. Not all is like it seems.
The BetterHuman.org philosophies attempt to define a
culture that 'liberates' humankind from our current social and
political shackles, enabling one with the most 'freedom'
possible to choose, as long as nobody gets hurts. To compare
this to 'theonazi' mentality, is an exercise in extreme
prejudice.
Also, in no way is the assumption that 'all others should
be silenced' accurate. Everyone has a
altruistically-measured voice in our philosophies.
> Essentially in its elitist, anti-democratic stance,
This is exactly the opposite of what we are, we are
anti-elitist (we value everbody, nobody is left behind), and we
promote an altruistic incarnation of democracy. To contrast:
capitalism is the very embodiment of elitism, to the point
at which the vast majority of constituents are enslaved to
sustain the power of those at the top. We wholeheartedly
oppose such a structure. We also vehemently oppose the
notion of the communist 'everyone is equal' stance, simply
because we are not all equal in aptitude and ability.
The weighted voting model easily fits the 'spirit' of
democracy, and though this system has the 'potential' to sway
out of the 'majority rules' definition of conventional
democracy, it would only be a temporary evolutionary shift as
eventually the 'majority' would learn to recognize the value
of decisions made that they may not have been equipped to
see t |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 09:49:48 [Permalink]
|
I must say that even with your clarifications I find major flaws in your philosophy, besides the ones already pointed out. For one 'happiness' is entirely subjective, created by humans and not nessisarily universal. If I were to truly pursue my personal happiness, others I know would become unhappy.
The primary problem is trying to mesh science with philosophy, as soon as you introduce some subjective term like 'happiness', science goes out the window. Therefor if you were to try and teach this bullshit to my children, I might have to call you a child abuser. (I also see Santa/EB/Tooth Fairy as a negative, but not abuse) What makes your fantasy better than theirs?
While we may agree on numerous points, all I see is an attempt to force a chaotic system into your tight pants. (see Jurassic Park for details)
EDIT: It has been pointed out to me by the members of this forum that while teaching about Santa for example may be seen as negative by me (betraying the trust,lying to kids etc.) it may also be seen as a positive (teaching them that even those you trust may be wrong or intentionally deceptive/learning critical thinking) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 08/07/2006 09:54:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 09:54:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
For Dave:
> Okay, then we really can consider your ideas (especially
the "bether") as religious as the religions you rail
against, and you just as insane as your Earians. That's going to
save a lot of time, thanks. The "bether" fits his own
definitions of "ethereal entity," and since he admits he's
offered no testable predictions, then the existence of the
"bether" is nothing more than a "faith-supported belief."
I'd hope that the introduction of my bether as being a
'theory' separates it from being thought of as in any way a
'religious' pursuit.
Why would you hope that at all? As far as I can tell, you've presented no repeatable, verifiable experimental evidence that the "bether" exists as a tangible thing, and so you've got nothing more than your faith that it exists as "evidence" that it exists. Your assertion, without hard evidence, that it exists is no different from the religious assertions of people that angels exist. Labeling it as a "theory" does no more to make your assertion scientific than a parent's asserting to his child that God exists makes God real.
The main problem I had with your website before was that you were obviously unable to address your own faith in unevidenced nonsense, but also obviously think that having faith in unevidenced nonsense is a bad thing. That's the hypocrisy, and using the word "theory" doesn't change that one little bit. In fact, your assertion that by using the word "theory" you somehow separate your unevidenced belief into a different class of meaning than a theist's belief in God simply underscores the fact that you're doing nothing more than creating a double-standard in which your beliefs hold a privileged position over those beliefs with which you disagree.quote:
In contrast, you'll never hear a religious person refer to their god as a 'theory'. Also, I don't worship bether. Sorry for the confusion.
The confusion is entirely yours in thinking that you don't have faith in "bether" when it is clear to this outside observer that you do. Or are you simply making the mistake that the adjective "religious" must refer to some religion, instead of simply meaning like a religion?quote:
The definition of 'ethereal' that I employ would imply something that is magical, spiritual, or other-worldly (intangible), and that is how I've applied the term 'ethereal' consistently throughout my website.
Indeed, and I see no reason to think that "bether" is not "magical, spiritual, or other-worldly (intangible)." You present no evidence that "bether" is any more real than leprechauns.quote:
Bether (despite having the word 'ether' as part of it) is in no way intangible, simply because it 'is' everything. You are immersed in it, like a fish in water (even though the fish would also be made of water in this analogy)
Then tell me what experiments I would need to do in order to detect the bether.quote:
I would love if you could point out where the hypocrisies
and inconsistencies lay. I'm having a hard time looking in
from the outside.
That was the whole point to my earlier posts: pointing out the hypocrises and inconsistencies. I hope the above text clears things up for you more.
Oh, and as far as tenets #24 and #25 go, Ricky is correct in that you're being an idealist whose plans will not work as intended when applied to the real world. #25, especially, needs to be wholly reworked to address the reality that rational, reasonable people can and do disagree about some "facts," and granting the ability to determine "fact" from "myth" to the government will necessarily lead to abuses of power in which certain non-religious ideas will be given "myth" status and censored (for example, the idea that certain governmental leaders are doing a bad job would easily be outlawed by Bush and company today).
And #24 does nothing to establish a democracy, but instead seeks to establish a meritocracy. It will necessarily result in the "merits" used to grant voting power being changed so that those who will be granted the most votes will be those most likely to vote for the people who are in power, maintaining them as long as possible. While "you can't vote until you're 18 years old" may be an arbitrary standard, at least it is an objective standard. Having a "meaningful" (as you call it) measure isn't the problem, it's finding one in which everyone (and I mean everyone) can agree "this person, Mr. X, should have 1.25 votes" (or whatever). An objective measure is necessary, and you present nothing which could even vaguely be considered objective - even "any criminal history" is fraught with problems over how much weight to give to any particular offense, or even the cases where someone was charged with a crime but found not guilty.
This isn't to say that your system is wholly unworkable, or would always lead to the worst possible government. My objections are simply a recognition that the idea that your system would be the foundation of a democracy is absurd. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 12:27:25 [Permalink]
|
Sean wrote: quote:
can I re-introduce you to
the completely reorganized and radically more informative
BetterHuman.org website?
I am very unimpressed. Anyone who defines “Humanism” as “Subclass of atheism that focuses on human needs and improvement” is pretty clueless regarding the history and practice of Humanism. The definition of “Agnosticism” was condescending and inaccurate as well. And the definition of “Science”, horribly incomplete. I guess that any devotees to Ayn Rand would also find the definition of “Objectivism” sorely lacking. Further more, the definition of “religion” is not universal to history or world cultures. But a guess we can just ignore minorities, huh?
In general, the wording on the website is tremendously self-righteous from the get-go, from the title “Better Human”, to the very first sentence: “…reality-based philosophy...” Anyone with a philosophy believes it to be “reality-based”. A better word there would have been “naturalistic”.
Attitudes and opinions expressed by atheists such as those on Betterhuman.org are why I and many other atheists are distancing themselves from that label.
And then the website just starts to go into la la land. Take Tenet #2: We must take responsibility for how we psychologically evolve, meaning that we must cultivate societally-beneficial behaviors that will eventually become instinctual over many future generations.
First of all, psychology itself is a relatively new and soft science. Evolutionary psychology is even newer and highly controversial within scientific communities. We are far from having a well-rounded understanding of human psychology and how it evolved, much less how to direct it in future generations. If humans start engineering ourselves it will happen via genetic engineering long before we'd have time to make a difference using neo-Social-Darwinism. And one more thing: it is difficult enough for homogenous cultures to decide what is societally-beneficial. In the current global climate, a universal consensus would be impossible. And even if they could agree on what is beneficial, they'd still disagree on what behaviors would best support those ends. This tenet is nothing more than a ideological fantasy – it is completely impractical and I fail to see how it could even begin to be implemented.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/07/2006 12:33:58 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
