BiO Spiritualism Newsletter  
Helping our customers help themselves
June 2010
in this issue
If Christianity is bad but not yet evil (again) can the reverse be said for Islam?
Gary's Mathematical-Like Proof that if his non-religion spiritualism-BiO Spiritualism-is not yet proven to be better than ALL religions it is for sure better than both Christianity and Islam.
Another kind of "proof", (kind to be named):
Ho: SfS :does not equal: SfN
The Belmont MMQ
New Customers
Quick Links
Greetings Customers
 If Christianity is bad but not yet evil (again) can the reverse be said for Islam?
The following is the article I had wanted to write for publication but didn't.  The one I ended up writing for publication as Counterpoint to a particular article in my local newspaper is here. (That rewrite--pared down to 459 words, warning all Minnesotans, even reformed Muslims of the danger of Islam--still wasn't good enough it seens to get published, oh well, maybe next time.)

The original article I wanted to write is the one below.
(Allow me to admit here that even with my newsletter and my blog I would still like to get published elsewhere now and then but it isn't that big 'ah deal to me if I don't--it is a deal but not that big 'ah one.  A rehtorical question: Do you think these two magnitudes (a & that) are quantifiable?  And another, non-rehtorical one: How do I know when I am making mole hills out of mountains or vice versa?)
Answers: Yes and tbd.
Subject:  If Christianity is bad but not yet evil (again) can the reverse be said for Islam?
But wait, before we get to my counterpoint article consider these facts.
If I had a religion, which I don't, but if I did it would be called, Selfishness.   Selfishness is a virtue.  Notice how it is that many many many people call me immoral or even evil because of my creed.  I hold to the premise that selfishness is truly a virtue as Ayn Rand, et al. have demonstrated and not a vice as too many others believe and claim and some even say a wicked vice and practically all religions would--if pressed--call Selfishness evil.
So it would appear that it is ok for others to label my creed immoral or evil but it is not ok for me to so label T.H.E.I.R's when diametrically opposed to mine.
This, to speak bluntly, is bullstuff (well, semi-bluntly).
So, I repeat:
Subject:  If Christianity is bad but not yet evil (again) can the reverse be said for Islam.
Consider a recent Commentary Article that my local newspaper (the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota) chose to print.  That article was subtitled, "What reason do Minnesotans have to fear the emergence of Muslims in their state? None." (Stephen B. Young: Islamic and Western philosophy aren't so far apart, Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 28, 2010).
I read that article and I (as an a-theist--one who is without a belief in any kind of diety--Westerner) have to write: "What does this ex-Christian turned a-theist Minnesotan have to fear from Muslims and Lutherans?  Everything."
Everything because truth be told the real battle is between Faith and Reason: reason (validating knowledge based on the presense of evidence) is good and faith (validating knowledge based on the absense of evidence) leads to evil.  The reason Christianity is just bad and not yet evil (again like it was during the Spanish Inquisition Century) is because it continues-to-this day to grant some quarter of mercy to reason whereas Islam grants none, nada, zero zip. (Faith without reason is dangerous, Reason without faith is redundant.)
Islam is as close to pure faith as you can get and since modern philosophy has demonstrated that faith and force go hand-in-hand, Islamists ultimately or I suppose I should say, more rapidly and more unimpededly resort to initiated physical force as the preferred means to getting their way.
And by preferred here I mean, only.  Initiated physical force is the only way remaining to you to get others to accept your view of things once you abandon reason and its use of persuasion as the only way to get others to see things your way. (Individually, developmentally, Islamists more rapidly and more unimpededly abandon the reasoning process when the going gets tough.  In Islam, when the going gets tough the tough beat up their neighbors.  Contrast this with Christianity, here when that same going gets tough the tough beat up their self.)
Reason (our internal Requirer of evidence and logic) relies on persuasion as the means of convincing self and others of the rightness of reason's ways.  Faith (that inner I-could-care-less-about-logic-and-evidence voice) relies on fear of initiated physical force being used against the self as means of convincing the self.  For example, Jehovah--one of the names for the Christian God--threatens me with eternal damnation if I don't take his existence as real and his authority on everything to be the truth.  And if I say, no I don't accept being in hell forever, rather I choose of my own-free-will to go somewhere else (eg, Hawaii say) "god" says, No!, I the all powerfull will keep you against-your-will, that is, by force, in hell, forever.
I mean come on folks, give me a ....

So it appears people learn how to use force (from the masters) as the means to getting their "messages" accepted.
Faith is about internal relationships and essentially relies on the self doing a number on the self before that self moves on to "others".
Faith relies on actual initiated physical force as the means of convincing others. "Once you have them by the b...s their hearts and minds will follow" could be the true sentiment of a full fledged thug except for the fact it is an out of context comment that fails to differentiate between initiated physical force and retaliatory physical force. Initiated physical force is evil, retaliatory is good and moral and right because it is self-defensive and defending the self against initiators of physical force is the only justifiable, that is, moral use of physical force in human relationships.

This is why faith is bad:  because initiated physical force against another is evil and faith and (initiated) force go hand-in-hand.  (Faith leads to initiated force as every intellectually honest and/or adequately self-aware Christian knows through first hand experience with such "action impulses"--impulses they as human individuals are still capable of containing BECAUSE of that quarter of mercy they still grant to reason.)
Today, because of Islam's suicide-murderer bombers (I still have not heard of any Muslims blowing themselves up in the name of their religion standing alone in the middle of nowhere with no one else around) it is easier to see--for those who now reject self-made blindness, it is easier to see--how faith and force do go hand-in-hand.
Faith is a mental process--specifically, a psychoepistemological process. Force is a physical process--specifically, a beating up of one human being by another human being by physical means that results in the actual death of the person being physically attacked or that results in a credible threat to the life of the one being attacked. (I am not saying that all initiated physical force comes from faith-based minds, but what I am saying is because of the link between faith and force all faith-based minds are dangerous and I think that Islam's suicide-murderer-bombers demonstrate the point.  And if we add in Jim Jones' Guyana we have an in-spades demonstrated point.)
Religion then as a faith-as-process event is a mental choice, a mental choice to make ones mind act in a certain way when it comes time to validate ones own answers to fundamental questions of a religious nature or theme.  Is there a god?  Yes.  Based on what evidence?  I don't need evidence, I only need faith. Was Jesus crucified by being nailed to a large wooden cross where he died and then was buried and then latter rose from the dead and came back to life?  Well he has the nail holes in his risen-from-the-dead-now-alive-body's hands and feet to "prove" it.  Can I see them? Oh, yee of little ....
Religion, thank god, is not Politics.
Politics is the systematic, organized answers by the dominant groups within cultures to the theoretical question, How should we help others and/or ourselves get elected or otherwise be appointed to public office? (The more fundamental-identified-by-the-Objectivists Political Science question: How should individuals act in a social context? is usually only something Statesmen consider.  Day-to-day Politicians for the most part are not capable or simply don't have the time and/or resources and/or talents to deal with such a fundamental, philosophical question.  But since We the People do have the time--in fact we can't afford not to deal with fundamentals--we do do so with every election cycle and usually vote--with a for better or for worse sentiment--our conscience into office).
In America, Politics is all of us acting (out) in our own way to get our "people" into public office.
Human beings don't act unless they think they are right.
(If you doubt this, then the next time you are going to go to your local store for some milk and bread convince yourself that if you do you will get in a car accident or be run over and killed and then see how "motivated" you are to go get your daily bread.)
Christianity--to its credit and my safety--has separated Religion from Politics.  When I was a young, growing and developing Christian we were encouraged to see ourselves as above politics and no self-respecting religionist would dirty his hands so-to-speak dealing with political issues.
Hence, separation of Church and State--render unto ... and so on.
But then enter those approximately 1 in 5 or 1.2 billion Islamists the world over (including the 160,000 actual radical Islamic killer terrorists I had estimated in an earlier work) who have extremely large numbers among their billions who think mental processes and physical action should not be separated when it comes to dealing with individuals in societal groups but rather should be integrated--the actual Theocracies of the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
Islam--to its discredit and my rational fear for my safety--has integrated religion and politics.  And notice I didn't say combined but integrated.  Integrated means inseparable.
So until and unless an ever increasing majority of Muslims in Minnesota (and around the world) start preaching OUT LOUD for the separation of Mosque and State this is one Minnesotan who is not going to sleep at night with both eyes closed.
ˇ Gary's Mathematical-Like Proof that IF his non-religion spiritualism--BiO Spiritualism--is not yet proven to be better than ALL religions it is for sure better than both Christianity and Islam.
SOP. (Start of proof):
Count down to and read the 5th paragraph here--the one starting, Based on my own first hand experience ... --and then taking that as a Given, BiO Spiritualism--as a non-religion spiritualism--is better than Christianity and I surmise based on what I can see for myself in the world at large, BiO Spiritualism is also (by a tbn--to be named--kind of moral-mathematical reasoning, BiO Spiritualism is also) better than Islam.
Consider this:  if a > b  and  c > a  then  c > b,  (common sense(itivity) property in moral-logical-teleömetric thinking analogous to transitivity property in mathematics of inequalities; in the latter: if a > b  and  b > c  then  a > c, vis-ŕ-vis a = 7, b = 5 and c = 3).
So for an example of the common sense(itivity) property in moral-logical-teleömetric reasoning (with the backwards slash symbol, \ , substituted for the greater than symbol and standing for "preferred to"):  if a \ b  and  c \ a  then  c \ b vis-ŕ-vis a = sexual self gratification, b = other same sex gratification and c = other opposite sex gratification.
(I concede that most if not all of the foregoing "new" terminology is very very speculative, but since we "wannabe" selfish human beings have to get better at making value(s) calculations--have to that is, if we want to be truely selfish, then--we have to start somewhere to improve on the accuracy and preciseness of our moral-reasoning-thinking-abilities and I am simply saying what better ability to use/extend/extrapolate than our already proven to be great mathematical ability?) 
Based on my own first hand experience, I can introspectively observe that BiO Spiritualism--the integration of Objectivism and Biocentric Psychology in me--is better than Christianity because as a student of the two philosophies (Objectivism, the modern philosophy and Christianity, the primitive one) it is a fact that I achieved authentic happiness from following Objectivism's suggestions, whereas, as a follower of Christian teachings I achieved nothing but an ever increasing muted and repressed existence as an alive human being living on earth.  Objectivism is better than Christianity. (For example, Objectivism parallels life and reality as it--reality--rewards one with continued happy life for his or her personal goodness or virtue--that is, goodness or virtue as in Selfishness is good, selfishness is a virtue--whereas Christianity does not and even goes so far as to punish one for his or her objective virtues.)
Since both Christianity and Islam are religions one wonders, which one is better?  Since Christianity still pays tributes to Caesar (that is, to Reason) but Islam does not and since Christianity gave the world this maxim:  Love thy neighbor as thyself and Islam gave it this one:  Kill thy neighbor as thyself, I deduce that Christianity is better than Islam.

BiO Spiritualism is better than Christianity which is better than Islam so that BiO Spiritualism is better than Islam too.
(End of proof). EOP.
I suspect that Objectivism is better than ALL the philosophy parts of ALL religions and that Biocentric Psychology is Psychology, the Science we all need for better self-understanding.  Here too Biocentric is better, I surmise, than all the psychological pieces of religious teachings.  For example, Christianity says, 'know thyself' ... but what it means and doesn't say is, '... to be a looser'.  Biocentric Psychology suggests we can know ourself so thoroughly and accurately that we can undo or otherwise correct our "sins" of the past ("errors and mistakes"--and perhaps moral breaches too though on these we aren't so sure yet--in our pursuit of perfection) and achieve authentic self esteem.  Authentic self-esteem is something we need in order to achieve authentic happiness.
Since our focus here is more about comparisons-to-religion than to science it is beyond the scope for me to prove that Biocentric Psychology is better than ALL psychologies (including ALL the psychological pieces of ALL religions).
Suffice it to say for now, this is my Hypothesis.
ˇ  Another kind of "proof", (kind to be named).
Hypothesis, Ho:  SfS ≠ SfN 
Taking a lead from algebra proofs, assume the opposite is true, that is, that:
SfS = SfN
1. if equal then sfs/sfn = 1 (anything divided by itself equals 1)
2. but
3. sfs (s omething f or s omething) is finite, it's something and since
4. sfn (s omething f or n othing ) involves that which is zero on steroids, that is, nothing is zero on steroids, we get,
5. finite (sfs) divided by 0 (sfn) is equal to infinity not 1
since it is not the case that SfS = SfN it follows that
SfS ≠ SfN

that is,
Something-for-Something is NOT morally equivalent to Something-for-Nothing so stop treating it as if it is.
And, Yes, sooner would be better than later.
Since I (involuntarily) paid my whole (half a century so far working) life into social security, the checks I am now getting are (partial) pay-back.  And when modern day professional Objectivists confuse the difference between SfS and SfN:
And besides, this issue [of immigrants getting stuff for free in this country] is insignificant compared to the disastrous cost of welfare-state payments to native-born Americans. It's the Baby Boomers, not the immigrants, who are bankrupting Social Security. (TIA Daily, May 24, 2010, The Law of Intended Consequences edition, R.W.Trasinski).
as we can easily see "them" doing once my {in red} comments are added to highlight "their"/rwt's errors:
And besides, this issue {of immigrants getting stuff for free in this country = SfN because they are immigrants and have paid NOTHING} is insignificant compared to the disastrous cost of welfare-state payments to native-born Americans {who paid their whole life into Social Security = SfS}.  It's the Baby Boomers, not the immigrants, who are bankrupting Social Security {without Baby Boomers paying in S omething with lifetimes of blood, sweat and tears there would be no Social Security to bankrupt}. (TIA Daily, May 24, 2010, The Law of Intended Consequences edition, R.W.Trasinski).
So if "they" want to try and take my social security checks away from me by convincing others of their generation to renig on the debt-owed and for me as one who railed against the social security taxation theivery my whole life to simply roll over and accept it as an anti-guilt-by association device then ... well ... then alls I can say is you young folks should consider reconsidering.
Well ... not alls I can say, I can say this too: ... from my dead cold hands ... (all puns, redundancies, reversals and eventualities intended).
Guilt tripping no longer works on me.
Regardless of who tries to employ it.
As an aside let me add that I love RWT's identification of The Law of Intended Consequences.  (Isn't the human capacity for language just the greatest thing in action you've ever seen.  I wished there was a god so I could thank him or her for this but alas, wish in one hand and ... well we won't go there either. (first instance ever): Even if said "law" isn't his creation I still like him for it as he is the first person I heard it through. And no, I didn't fail to notice rwt's creative use of "native born Americans" in the piece, it's just that I couldn't afford to focus on it right then.)
If you want to take medicare away that's ok with me (as long as you preface it with increasing my monthly social security payback checks by a 2.89 times factor as that covers the amount that is really owed back to me) because it is not the bulk of the money  t.h.e.y  stold from me but is or is becoming the bulk of the out-of-control costs of the social security payback benefits.  Then after the movement known as the Tea Party succeeds in reversing Obamacare maybe one upshot will be to get a REAL free-market in health care (though I am not holding my breath on the latter).
Or rather let me put it this way, on the day we get REAL free-market health care in this country is the same day my Selfishness Training Institute will re-open for business.
But like I said, I'm not holding my breath on this and the reason I'm not is because I can't decide if that day is the day before or the day after we get Separation of Economics and State codified into our nation's foundations--i.e., attached to our Constitution as Ammendment N+1.
TBC (to be continued).
I Love Predicting
I Love Predicting
The Belmont MMQ:
Yippee skippee!!!
Naw ... not three exclamation marks ...
Yippee skippee!
Whenever I double my money in 2 minutes and 31.57 seconds--or so--I like it.
My Logical Choice Computer Program/White Sheet's top 5 picks produced a $28 winner at a cost of 10 bucks for a 280 percent return as did my top 5 produce a $144 exacta (72 bucks of which I captured) at a cost to me of 20 bucks for a 360 percent return but my trifecta bets of 24 dollars lost so my total cost of 54 bucks got back 100 dollars which in round numbers is a doubling in under 3 minutes.
Let's see now how many times in a row would I have to be able to do this to equal the 5 million dollar man former Senator Tom Daschle and how long would it take?
Let me see ... 50 bucks compounded N times at a 100% return = 5 million dollars in N * 3 minutes ... equals ... let's see ... calculating ... calculating ... 
Answer:  about 17 times (that is, 16.609640474436811739351597147447 to be exact) or in less than an hour (about 51 minutes) if I could do back-to-back races perfectly sequenced betting online say and ... halt.
This is impossible to do.  Even if they were normal spaced betting events I can't predict correctly and win 17 times in-a-row doubling my money (or any positive return) each time.
I actually tried this on more than one ocassion so I know how hard it is to do. (It's a variation on what's called dutching or due betting and I wrote a computer program - M4 - that turns it into one of the funnest games I've ever done, except for when you loose - which is more times than you win - it's hard to NOT feel like a fool.  But if you can tolerate your inner view of yourself as same is determined by your-view-of-others-view of you then you could have some fun with M4. If not then not.)
The conclusion (I'm going) to draw here is:  I should've gone into Politics.
The World's most consistent Handicapper.
It is my plan that in the f.u.t.u.r.e I'm going to put all this horse racing stuff via Quick Links (see above) at so if you are interested in horse racing stuff go there for more information.
ˇ  New Customers 
As of this time BiO Spiritualism Counseling Centers are only available online.
If you feel you need more than "sounding board" advice as same is afforded you via BiO Spiritualism's Online processes (including the multiple benefits you can get for $$$ FREE $$$ from just reading the content in`s BiO Spiritualism and Gary's Venns websides) you are best advised to seek out a therapist with whom you can establish a rapport and get some serious psychological (that is, psychological as in Selfishness Training) work done.  
For some insight on how you can help yourself manage this aspect of your growth and development go here and click on the "How to choose a therapist" article.

$150 Value for FREE 
  $150 Value for $$$ FREE $$$$ when you become a beta tester:
Agree to be a Beta Tester of BiO Spiritualism's new online process called Reflect'ology and receive 3 FREE additional rounds--each a $50 value--redeemable at any time for a year from the end of your Beta Tester round. To be a beta tester requires you to go to and after you have registered order the eM.One product under BiO Spiritualism Products, enter a problem or two you desire help with and then start the process by returning it to my email address. Initially you pay $10 for the $10 eM.One and then later you pay $40 for the $40 eM.Three and then when you return your feedback, critiquing what you did, did not like about the process and/or suggestions on how you think it would be better, your $50 will be refunded to you and your name noted for your 3 FREE Rounds in the future. So take advantage of this offer that is limited to this development time before the Reflect'ology Process gets finalized.
Offer Expires: When Reflect'ology Process is Finalized