The Religion for Everyone

[Bill Van Fleet]

Okay, I withdraw the complaint about contradiction since your REUEP is axiomatic. But skimming your site, I see little concrete content to comment on. Where are your 10 commandments? And where is the connection to science?

I will give a concrete example. Feminism causes genetic decay which causes suffering. This is concrete and based on science that I explain on my website. So based on REUEP, you should oppose feminism. This is one concrete example. Do you have concrete examples like this?

The problem is the skimming. Otherwise, you would not ask about commandments. Have you explored the Belief Manual?

See, I think you have not grasped the concept yet. Whatever I believe, or you believe, is not Humanianity. I am Humanian, by definition, but my specific viewpoints are not necessarily optimal within Humanianity. The only belief I have that makes me Humanian is the REUEP.

I am very respectful of and appreciative of science.

 

[Avi1001]

I agree with this, but came to rather different conclusions. You can compare my religion to yours.

A Rational Reactionary Religion | ReligiousForums.com

Your religion is self contradictory in its support for humanity. This contradicts evolution which teaches that we are in genetic competition. So I support that part of humanity that I think is good for my genes, which turns out to be a very small fraction. And simply on an emotional level, I hate humanity. So my emotions are consistent with science and my religion.

Humanism is basically like a cultural cancer that embraces all of humanity in order to seduce it to its ways. It then denatures those cultures it infects, much like cancer does. Like a disease, Humanism spreads rapidly but ultimately destroys the host with its evil liberal values.

Fred, I think you have shown a good understanding of Humananity here...would you be willing to take the lead as our Humananian Religious Leader...for the purpose of this thread ? I think the next steps are to request a Humananian DIR...and explain to the folks why Humananism is the same as Humanism.

 

[mystic64]

Guys we are now having fun! We have now achieved "debate" ! We are in Religious debates subtitle science and religion. And proselytizing has to be done under the guise of debate and discussion. In an ideal world . Mr. Van Fleet has presented a concept that he wishes to advertise and promote in a debate format environment to presumably reality test this concept relative the mind of others. Now please correct me if I am wrong (I am not as learned as you guys are), Mr Van Fleet is presenting a concept that is a religion where a moral ethical code is worshipped and the concept of God in any form is not necessary. "Join us to make the world better and give us validity with follower numbers." The debate is, "Ya right and why?" And maybe, "Why not somebody else that is doing the same thing?" Humm?

The approach, "Join us and add your colorings to our coloring book!" was the same approach that the communist folks were using back in the seventies on the campas of the institution of higher learning that I was going to at the time to get people to join their group with the understanding that you would be envolved in helping them to create a better world. And if the truth be known, that approach is a time tested tried and true approach to developing a follower base in both religion and politics. It is simple and it appeals to the need to belong. But Mr. Van Fleet, "Where is the beef?" And who are your "management staff"? A good management staff is absolutely necessary for any organization or business to be successful and effective. And where does the funding come from? Nothing is done without funding. I am a premium member of this message board because I like what Rex is doing. Mr. Van fleet, what is it going to cost me, in both time and money, if I like what you are doing?

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Guys we are now having fun! We have now achieved "debate" ! We are in Religious debates subtitle science and religion. And proselytizing has to be done under the guise of debate and discussion. In an ideal world . Mr. Van Fleet has presented a concept that he wishes to advertise and promote in a debate format environment to presumably reality test this concept relative the mind of others. Now please correct me if I am wrong (I am not as learned as you guys are), Mr Van Fleet is presenting a concept that is a religion where a moral ethical code is worshipped and the concept of God in any form is not necessary. "Join us to make the world better and give us validity with follower numbers." The debate is, "Ya right and why?" And maybe, "Why not somebody else that is doing the same thing?" Humm?

The approach, "Join us and add your colorings to our coloring book!" was the same approach that the communist folks were using back in the seventies on the campas of the institution of higher learning that I was going to at the time to get people to join their group with the understanding that you would be envolved in helping them to create a better world. And if the truth be known, that approach is a time tested tried and true approach to developing a follower base in both religion and politics. It is simple and it appeals to the need to belong. But Mr. Van Fleet, "Where is the beef?" And who are your "management staff"? A good management staff is absolutely necessary for any organization or business to be successful and effective. And where does the funding come from? Nothing is done without funding. I am a premium member of this message board because I like what Rex is doing. Mr. Van fleet, what is it going to cost me, in both time and money, if I like what you are doing?

Yes, very good questions.

I can tell you that you can do a lot at zero cost. There is no cost for participation in the Humanianity.com website, including participation in the Belief Manual. There is no cost in joining a Meetup.com Humanian organization, unless that organization decides to accept or require members to contribute. There is a cost to be an organizer of a Meetup.com organization. It's about $80.00 every 6 months to be an organizer at Meetup.com, and this allows you to be the organizer for three organizations. For many years I have been the organizer of the Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group, and more recently the organizer for two Humanian organizations. I have never requested reimbursement from those groups. The two Humanian organizations have not gotten off the ground. The CPDG has occasionally, recently taken up a collection to help me with the cost of paying the $100.00 per month for the two meetings per month at Amelie's, but that is just for the CPDG, not a Humanian organization. One of those has occasionally met at a private home, or in a public place at no charge. Recently, a person who started a Humanian group in Illinois, and therefore must have paid to be the organizer, abandoned the group, and in order to not allow the group to die, I paid to be the organizer of three more groups (~$80 per 6 months), and took over, hopefully temporarily, being organizer of that group. I have paid for the Humanianity.com and HomoRationalis.com websites for many years. Some of the cost of that has been to also own the .org and .net urls. I believe those run about $20.00 per month. So I am paying for everything currently, and I am gladly doing it as my religious tithing. And there is no staff, just me.

But what about the future? If what I am trying to do becomes recognized to be valuable, and takes off, there will be the necessity for others to take over. I am not an IT person. I wrote the Belief Manual program in PHP and MySql and HTML, with the occasional but important help from an IT person (the one who abandoned the Illinois Humanian organization). If indeed this project takes off and in the coming century or so becomes world-wide, obviously I will not be able to handle the IT part of it. In the Belief Manual, one of the outline headings has to do with the website itself, and the belief posted there (by me) is "This website should be devoted only to the development of the Belief Manual, and should not be used for advertising or other commercial efforts." If the website eventually becomes something like Facebook, there will obviously have to be many people working on the project. I would want them to be fully identified with the project, with the idea that it is for us all, and should be completely transparent as far as cost and organizational structure is concerned. In fact, I just suggested the following (ethical) belief to go into the Belief Manual just under the one quoted above: "This website should ultimately be managed by individuals fully committed to Humanianity (the REUEP), and the decision-making regarding it should be fully transparent to everyone." And I welcome other ideas as to how to keep this whole project transparent and protected from hostile attempts to interfere.

There will come a point when I am no longer around to keep paying for the two websites (though I intend to continue as long as necessary and as long as I am able). When it becomes appropriate for the payment for the websites to be taken over by some sort of "management team," I would expect them to work out an acceptable way of distributing the cost widely, and assuming that the number of people participating would be very, very great, I would imagine the cost would be extremely low per person. But I do not have the vision as to how that would take place. Right now, there is no problem. I am just trying to get something started that will ultimately drastically reduce our human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death. It is something that for some reason, with my particular life experience and circumstances, I am able to do, and it is my effort to pay forward for all that others have done to give me this wonderful life.

I will be happy to answer other questions regarding this whole project.

 

[Conceivia]

Hi Bill,

I've got the same basic idea on religion, except I call mine Gaian. I believe God is a super intelligent super organism made up of all life on Earth. I believe God has a plan for World Peace, which will end poverty, global warming, an setup paradise on Earth.

See, people over complicate things. It is really quite simple and logical. We need to listen to our instincts.

Imagine that there is a person alive today, who has the ability to save mankind, IF, and only if people will listen and help him. Under normal circumstances, that would mean we are all dead. Under normal circumstances, there's really not the chance of a snowball in Hell that the people would listen. Even getting a few dozen people to listen is near impossible.

There is less than 10 plans for World Peace in the World. Let's say that one plan has a one in a million chance of working. That makes that plan worth the lives of 7,000 people, because if that plan worked it would save 7 billion people. If there is a one percent chance that a plan would work, that plan is worth the lives of 70 million people. 'Course, if no one dies, you get a really good deal on it.

Yet, you people won't give my plan a few hours of your time. Is that rational? Of course not! See, that is why God created the Bible, to fix this problem. To get you people to listen to that one plan that will save your lives and all of humanity.

When I tell people I have a plan to save mankind, they think nothing of it. Same thing when I say I have a plan to bring about World Peace. Those two, mean the same. Say the same thing in a different way, which still means the same thing, and they think I'm crazy.

The word "Christ" means "savior", which literally means someone who has a plan to save mankind that will actually work. The word "Jesus" means "anointed" or chosen by God. So "Jesus Christ" is literally a title, which means one who is chosen by God to save mankind. Someone who God has given his "stamp of approval".

There is less than ten people in the World who have come up with plans to bring about World Peace. One of those plans will work. Just by that, there is already a 10 percent chance that I am the Jesus Christ, the one chosen by God to save mankind. Just by that, my plan is worth the lives of 700 million people, so even without listening to God, we should work extremely hard on my plan. If people did that, worked very hard on all of those plans, not just mine, than there would be no need for God to say or do anything.

The problem is you people judge. You think you are smart enough to decide if my plan will work or not. As Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Jesus was talking about Judgment Day when he said that. It is purely human judgement that is bringing us closer to Judgment Day. You need to work hard on the plan whether you believe in it or not, you need to go simply by the fact that there are no better plans out there.

Ask people if they had a choice between a million dollars and World Peace, and most will chose a million dollars. That means people would sell their children's future and the future of mankind for a million dollars. Many people would also push a button and kill every man, woman, and child, for eternity in Heaven.

You people are not even getting a million dollars, nor are you getting eternal salvation. You people are just throwing it away and getting just a few hours of your time in return. That is really not a bargain.

Jesus died so that the thoughts of many hearts could be revealed. I believe this means that while your words and your mind say that you "love God", the thoughts of your hearts say that you do not. When people truly love, than we will have World Peace, and God and I have a plan to make that happen.

Jesus told us the entire purpose of the Bible is about setting up this new system of society that will bring about World Peace.

It doesn't matter what religion people study, or even if they do not study religion at all or believe in God. We need to trust our instincts, gather knowledge from all religions, and from stories and legends, and use that knowledge to save mankind.

World Peace is about making us into one gigantic human family. Making us one. That is what the word Holy means. So the idea of creating one religion is great.

I would say it is basically about removing the idea of calling ourselves "Christian" or "Muslim" or whatever. Eliminating those boundaries, and just simply saying "I mostly study this". I am not a "Christian", rather I mostly study Christ. There is a huge difference in those two statements.

We need to stop thinking we know everything, and start actively seeking solutions and actively working on those solutions.

Tony
TeamWorldPeace.org - Making the people strong enough for Peace

 

[mystic64]

World Peace

Well guys with Conceivia's post (#125) things have gotten both scarry and interesting! Scarry because he is presenting the concept of sacrificing a few for the good of all and Interesting because he has created a new DIR possibility. A DIR that is a place for people to present and reality test and discuss in a group debate environment their ideas/movements/oganizations that are dedicated to creating "world peace" (religion, non religion, or both at the same time). There would probably be a lot of loose wing nut stuff that the viewers and members might find interesting, but at the same time there might be things that are presented that are worth thinking about. Either way it should be a hot DIR because everybody has an opinion on how that should be or can be done that we members can reality test as possibilities . In a civilized debate format of course.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

What basically is this DIR concept?

 

[mystic64]

I will be happy to answer other questions regarding this whole project.

Humm ? Bill I am inclined to like you, and I seem to have no defence against that . And what you have posted in your last post (#124) seems to be very streight foward. If I joined your movement/group it would only be because I liked you personally and it would have nothing to do with what it is that you are attempting to accomplish. I am on this message board because old minds, mine specifically, need to be intellectually challenged and exercised in order to be maintained into one's old age and this message board has a lot of gifted minds at play on it to create that challenge and exercise. Joining one of your intellectual groups would be too slow for me, so if I did join it would be just because of you and that I liked you. No other reason.

 

[mystic64]

What basically is this DIR concept?

Basically it is a forum for discussing something in an orangized setpattern way. Everything in its place and a place for everything. The main problem is why take up bandwidth if there is going to be little or no activity in it. You see Bill this topic really has nothing to do with science or religion or the conflict between the two. The probem is that there is not really any place to put what you are presenting with this topic. But, because science vs religion is a slow forum nobody cares, because activity is the life of a message board. From there the challenge is, "How do we manipulate this into a 'hot' topic?" Should we wish to do it as an intellectual exercise. How do you give people an opportunity to get posting credits and give them some permission to kick some tush . In a civilized way of course. Activity is the life of a message board (ideally activity that attracts viewer interest). And of course if what you are promoting/inviting gets some notice, "darn", these things happen sometimes .

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Mystic, I feel reassured that you like me, but of course that is not at all a reason for studying, participating in, and advocating for Humanianity. The only really appropriate reason for doing so is an increasing belief that this is a good contribution to our species' future combined with a wish to contribute. On the other hand, if liking someone is the door through which one can find an important and good path in life, then that in turn is a good thing.

I understand that the effort to make this Forum function at all, you have to make it entertaining, and that our species, unfortunately, values very highly fighting. So making it a place where people can come to fight, or at least watch other people fight, is an understandable necessity. I have no objection to being in the position of being subject to hostile, demeaning attack. That goes with the territory. But I do want to get beyond that to an actual examination of the actual ideas, to see if they are on the right track. I still am not clear on the DIR mechanism. Are we talking about a high-level category for threads all having to do with Humanianity? That sounds like it would be a good thing. Earlier, you or someone asked me if I would like to be at the head of it, and I think I said I was too busy. I probably would be able to do something like that very soon. (I am retiring, emptying a house, moving, etc.)

I, too, am concerned about the aging problem and the need to keep the mind alive, so having dialogue with others is of help to me in that personal way.

Actually, this topic does have to do with Science and Religion. That is almost the heart of it. You might be interested in the chapter on Rational-Ethical Religion, though I wrote that some time ago and wonder if some of my ideas have changed a little since then. I just re-read it, and I am not quite sure. For the most part, however, I still believe the same way. The concept of "pseudobelief" is a little unclear and worrisome, but it is speaking to an extremely important set of issues.

FOR EVERYONE: Rational-Ethical Living | R-E Religion

Actually, to really understand that chapter fully, one would have to read the whole book up to that point, but I know that no one is going to do that without having really gotten interested in the basic set of concepts.

 

[Straw Dog]

Humanianity is, I believe, the way to go,

I believe there are too many vowels.

As for the central ethical belief...

WE SHOULD DO THAT WHICH WILL PROMOTE NOT ONLY THE SURVIVAL OF OUR SPECIES, BUT ALSO AS MUCH JOY, CONTENTMENT, AND APPRECIATION (JCA) AS POSSIBLE AND AS LITTLE PAIN, SUFFERING, DISABILITY, AND EARLY DEATH (PSDED) AS POSSIBLE, FOR EVERYONE, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing as a species.

I don't believe in a religion for everyone or any monoculture. Life naturally diversifies.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I believe there are too many vowels.

As for the central ethical belief...

WE SHOULD DO THAT WHICH WILL PROMOTE NOT ONLY THE SURVIVAL OF OUR SPECIES, BUT ALSO AS MUCH JOY, CONTENTMENT, AND APPRECIATION (JCA) AS POSSIBLE AND AS LITTLE PAIN, SUFFERING, DISABILITY, AND EARLY DEATH (PSDED) AS POSSIBLE, FOR EVERYONE, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing as a species.

I don't believe in a religion for everyone or any monoculture. Life naturally diversifies.

Yes, and the REUEP does not say "no pain." It is important to understand the whole thing that is being said.

Also, there is no assumption of monoculture. And to really understand what is meant, you have to read that home page, or at least some of it. HUMANIANITY HOME

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes, and the REUEP does not say "no pain." It is important to understand the whole thing that is being said.

Also, there is no assumption of monoculture. And to really understand what is meant, you have to read that home page, or at least some of it. HUMANIANITY HOME

Fair enough. I'll check it out more.

I still think there are too many vowels, though.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Fair enough. I'll check it out more.

I still think there are too many vowels, though.

Thanks!

(BTW, little known fact is that the inner sanctum of this religion consists of a very small group of gifted individuals that are able to pronounce it.)

 

[Straw Dog]

Is that the final test to get into the inner circle? How do you pronounce the name of our religion? LOL

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Is that the final test to get into the inner circle? How do you pronounce the name of our religion? LOL

Yes. There is an associated ritual.

 

[Conceivia]

I'm not actually talking about sacrificing people for the good of all. I'm trying to set a value on World Peace plans, to show people how irrational they are in not doing anything.

I realize that no one wants to set a monetary value on a human life, but... I can ask how much much money would you be willing to pay if you knew for absolute certainty that the money would prevent 7,000 people from dieing. What if it was not money, but rather your time that was required. How much of your time would you give, to prevent 7,000 people from dieing?

That is the kind of question people should ask themselves in the case of World Peace.

I used to have a donate button on my website, but I took it off, 'cause I discovered it just makes people feel guilty, and they don't donate anyway. My brother called me and rambled on for half an hour, showing very obvious guilt, saying if something is from God that it shouldn't need money. I kept trying to comfort him, telling him don't worry about it, but he just kept going on and on about it. My brother is very religious. So I thought, if it makes people feel that guilty, and they still don't give money, than I don't want the donate button.

See, people are totally irrational about it. If they see someone bleeding to death on the street, most people will stop and spend hours trying to help that person, but for World Peace, they won't even spent 15 minutes watching a video or something.

I'm actually quoting these values very low. A one in a million chance at World Peace is worth a hundred times more than 7,000 lives, because there is a time factor as well. If the human race goes extinct, we loose more than just 7 billion people, we loose all future humans as well.

Tony

 

[Straw Dog]

Every -ism is a -wasm. It's already in the past. That's why I don't identify with any organized religion. It's already stagnating and I live here-now doing this, changing, flowing...

 

[mystic64]

I'm not actually talking about sacrificing people for the good of all. I'm trying to set a value on World Peace plans, to show people how irrational they are in not doing anything.

I realize that no one wants to set a monetary value on a human life, but... I can ask how much much money would you be willing to pay if you knew for absolute certainty that the money would prevent 7,000 people from dieing. What if it was not money, but rather your time that was required. How much of your time would you give, to prevent 7,000 people from dieing?

That is the kind of question people should ask themselves in the case of World Peace.

I used to have a donate button on my website, but I took it off, 'cause I discovered it just makes people feel guilty, and they don't donate anyway. My brother called me and rambled on for half an hour, showing very obvious guilt, saying if something is from God that it shouldn't need money. I kept trying to comfort him, telling him don't worry about it, but he just kept going on and on about it. My brother is very religious. So I thought, if it makes people feel that guilty, and they still don't give money, than I don't want the donate button.

See, people are totally irrational about it. If they see someone bleeding to death on the street, most people will stop and spend hours trying to help that person, but for World Peace, they won't even spent 15 minutes watching a video or something.

I'm actually quoting these values very low. A one in a million chance at World Peace is worth a hundred times more than 7,000 lives, because there is a time factor as well. If the human race goes extinct, we loose more than just 7 billion people, we loose all future humans as well.

Tony

Tony, is what you are promoting a licenced/registered non profit organization? Just for the record .

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I'm not actually talking about sacrificing people for the good of all. I'm trying to set a value on World Peace plans, to show people how irrational they are in not doing anything.

I realize that no one wants to set a monetary value on a human life, but... I can ask how much much money would you be willing to pay if you knew for absolute certainty that the money would prevent 7,000 people from dieing. What if it was not money, but rather your time that was required. How much of your time would you give, to prevent 7,000 people from dieing?

That is the kind of question people should ask themselves in the case of World Peace.

I used to have a donate button on my website, but I took it off, 'cause I discovered it just makes people feel guilty, and they don't donate anyway. My brother called me and rambled on for half an hour, showing very obvious guilt, saying if something is from God that it shouldn't need money. I kept trying to comfort him, telling him don't worry about it, but he just kept going on and on about it. My brother is very religious. So I thought, if it makes people feel that guilty, and they still don't give money, than I don't want the donate button.

See, people are totally irrational about it. If they see someone bleeding to death on the street, most people will stop and spend hours trying to help that person, but for World Peace, they won't even spent 15 minutes watching a video or something.

I'm actually quoting these values very low. A one in a million chance at World Peace is worth a hundred times more than 7,000 lives, because there is a time factor as well. If the human race goes extinct, we loose more than just 7 billion people, we loose all future humans as well.

Tony

Tony, I think you and I have the same personal goal in mind, namely, to do what we can to help with regard to ALL of our human-induced and human-preventable problems, a total approach that covers and assists all the many, many individual approaches to those problems. I am not fully understanding some of what you are talking about, however. And I don't understand your basic method. Perhaps you could clarify by reducing it all to a basic outline.

My approach is to advocate that we humans work on a basic ethical philosophy for our species, that is always under construction, always improving, always modifiable as we learn more, and always transparent for everyone. The most important tool at this point is the Belief Manual.

Participating in Humanianity

The phenomenon that you have written about, the lack of interest despite the importance of the effort, is I believe attributable to a pervasive pessimistic, cynical attitude that the vast majority of people have with regard to our species ever coming to a far better way of life than we have known of so far. An additional factor is that we are much more readily looking for entertainment rather than opportunity to contribute, and one of our strongest forms of entertainment has to do with fighting. So efforts to foster contribution are often met with efforts to convert such discussion into hostile debate (where the goal is that of winning rather than that of deeper understanding).

At any rate, I would like to see if we really are working on the same thing, and what your thoughts are about our respective methods.