Hey Mom, I'm an Immortalist.

My mother is a very religious person. A crazy Christian, AKA a Jesus freak. Don't get me wrong, she is a great woman and a very kind caring mother. However I have never believed what she believes.

I view organized religion as (how can I put this politely...?) bullshit. Of course I would never tell my mother this. I simple tell her that I am an agnostic. This makes her believe that I am undecided about Jesus. That I can still be won over.

I don't have the heart to to tell her that Jesus can not win me over. That I view Christianity, and all religions for that matter, as frauds. I have also told my mother about my belief in immortality and that there are others out there with the same belief. I am not sure if she truly understands what I am trying to tell her. It may simply be too far outside of her world view. She usually laughs it off. The answers are just so simple for a Christian. (Confession: I go to church once a year... on Mother's Day.)

My girlfriend is more like me, a skeptic, inquisitive by nature. She loves philosophy and has an interest in Buddism. She gave me my first Ayn Rand book. She is not yet convinced of immortality. I find this as a bit of a failure on my part. (If I can't convince my girlfriend, how can I convince the world??) More succinctly, she does not yet consider physical immortality to be a realistic possibility. Maybe she is right on this point, maybe I am being overly optimistic. Anyway, she considers all of you guys to be computer nerds, which if you knew her, is the perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. lol

Enough ranting on my part. Anyone care to give a little insight into how their personal belief in immortality has effected their relationship with their family/friends? Anyone out there have religious parents who can relate to what I'm saying?

Kissinger,

Thanks for sharing.

Susan, my wife, still holds to the idea of a possible afterlife.. Mainly in the same way of Pascal's Wager. She's not a church person, but more of an agnostic. Much like my parents, who simply don’t discuss religion or deep topics.

Heh, I've had 7 yrs of practice and I still can't convince the one person who's the most important to me, that an afterlife is impossible. So, I’ve learned that this may just be the way things are with most people. Humans have evolved a great degree of skepticism even in the face of rationality. This trait was obviously very important in our survival as a species throughout history.

So, my advice would be to understand more of the evolutionary psychology of why people behave the way we do.. it's helped me greatly.

Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer
Leda Cosmides & John Tooby
http://www.psych.ucs...cep/primer.html

When you try to change someone, you are attempting to rearrange their goal system -- a tall order for anyone. Moving from a hardcore Christian goal system to an immortalist goal system is difficult.

I would suggest what I call an affirmation/infiltration approach:

1. Affirm that their beliefs are valid.

This disarms people. You can't argue with someone who appears to agree with you. For example, the next time your mother talks about a belief, ask her to go in depth about the topic. Then agree with her. This takes you to step 2 ....

2. Infiltrate her belief systems

Now that you both "agree," tell her "You know, Mom, my beliefs about TOPIC are like yours." Then make a quick, easily digestable comment that portrays immortalism in a positive light. The key is to make the comment appear to fit within her system without alerting her that it is actually a foreign thought.

What this is doing is creating a syllogism of sorts --

Mom's Beliefs = Your Apparent Beliefs (Affirmation)
Your Real Belief = Immortalism is Good (Preparing for Infiltration)

Therefore, Immortalism = Mom's Beliefs (Infiltration)

Anyway, I just made that up. Use it at your own risk.

Michael -

It's a useful, powerful, versatile memetic combat technique. Personally, I'd feel sleazy using it in most circumstances - it's very similar to what used vehicle salesbeings the polyverse over are trained to do, and a skilled debater knows how to outjudo that particular mental judo. ("Oh, so you agree. How wonderful! That means I'll see you in church more often, right?" is just ONE possible example for this circumstance.)

Kissinger -

IMO, perhaps a better way to address your mom is SOMEwhat similar to the above. That is - Find what you can agree on, and find out specifically why you disagree on other bits. This is (again, IMO) more honest - more suited to a talk with someone you care about. (If all you care about is making your point, then perhaps Michael's technique MIGHT be more suitable - but watch out for her landing on your agreement w/ both feet!)

I'd suggest you talk to her sometime when it's comfortable - a long meal, perhaps, or a nice night on the porch, etc - some time when there's no time pressure or performance required for 'outsiders'. Tell her that you think she's not quite getting what you are trying to explain.

Please, be aware, heart-held beliefs can cause STRONG reactions. This may cause short term problems, but it may also help alleviate long-term misunderstandings. I don't know enough about your situation to suggest you follow this or not - too many possible variables, y'know?

The one thing I'd strongly reccommend is that you stick to the truth. Lies, even lies meant to help someone else, tend to rear back up when you don't expect 'em and bite you most uncomfortably...

Good luck!
-Discarnate

Kissinger,

I found with my own mother that it was only her evangelical attempts to save my soul that brought friction between us. When we were both quite a bit younger, her beliefs were a lot more rigid. The good thing about my situation is that my mother as well as my entire family have inquiring and somewhat skeptical minds. Over time where some of the failings of christian faith have been illuminated by real world situations, especially my mother's perspective on religion has changed, and now she takes what she feels is valid from her faith and leaves the rest.

Another important point is that I personally don't rule out the possibility of some kind of 'god' or 'soul' (although totally against organized exclusive religion) and this gives our discussions a common point of reference. Even if I were a total athiest, the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, provides a starting point for dialogue.

Everybody's situation is different but one thing is certain, there must first be a willingness to understand other points of view before discussions can begin. No one can 'change' anyone and our influence on others without their cooperation is NIL. Without that willingness, energy spent wailing at a wall is better spent living a happy and balanced life. After a while, those who care about us, see that what we believe works for us, and perhaps in time they may need our perspective to help balance their own lives.

I am just beginning to put my views on immortality and life-extension out for discussion with my family (and boy.. does my family like to discuss...). I have met with some resistance... but mutual love and respect as well as healthy curiousity and love for debate we all seem to share allows me my beliefs without being thrown out of the creche which is ultimately the only thing that is important. It would be nice if I could convince everyone to think like me, but it is not a requirement for my happiness. Our families are perhaps the safest testing grounds for our arguments...

Good luck eh..

Edited by kperrott, 17 June 2003 - 03:44 PM.

Our families are perhaps the safest testing ground for our arguments...

That's a beautiful sentence, and quite true from my experience. Family bonds are fairly strong and forgiving... thanks to our evolutionary heritage. Although, I've not put much energy into trying to change my family… I’ve found it much better to simply tell them if the situation arises in conversation and leave it basically at that, unless of course they wish to know more. Which I’m happy to offer, yet, we rarely have such philosophical conversations. Thus, thanks to everyone here for indulging my habitual propensity to think and talk about these topics. ImmInst is my safe testing ground.

I just don't talk about anything with my parents other then small talk. I think they get the point.

Sorry to hear that, DoubleHelix. I hope you have some other people you can confide in and be yourself with...

-Discarnate

Thanks for the feedback guys.

However, I wasn't asking for a way to convert my mother. If you knew her you would understand that that is not a realistic possibility. I was just giving a personal story and hoping to see if others had similar experiences. It goes to reason that almost all of us must have religious relatives. My point was more along the lines of... when an "idealogical dialogue" takes place within your family do you A)engage in memetic combat B) evade C) lie.

With a stanger my response would always be A.

However with my mother my answer would be B or even C. You see, there is no worse a torment in this world than a mother's guilt. Being a Christian is very important to my mother. I think she views it as a failing on her part that I am not Christian.

When I look at my mother, and Christianity in general, I feel a great deal of sadness. I see it as, inevitably, a dying religion. A very beautiful dying religion. I represent that dying. I was presented with the Christian faith and I rejected it. It did not fit my world view. My agnostism is indicative of why Christianity will fail.

To me, religion represents the ultimate mass movement. The carrying on of traditions, beliefs. I am sure all of you have heard the idea tossed around that a God doesn't truly die until the religion that believes in that God dies. Well one day in the distant (hopefully) future I may very well have to go to my mothers grave knowing that her religion is viewed with the same cold historical detachment that we currently view Roman polytheism or an Egyptian sungod.

"Christianity was the last great religion," the tour guide would say as the tour group strolled through the vatican...

When I look at my mother, and Christianity in general, I feel a great deal of sadness.  I see it as, inevitably, a dying religion.  A very beautiful dying religion.

I think that paraddoxically, the fading of religiousity may eventually increase our ability to appreciate the Gospels as the great works of Literature that they are. The great stories of the Bible will always be with us... They are part of our cultural heritage as are the stories of Prometheus bringing fire from the Gods, the siege of Troy, the voyage of Ulysees, the Golden Fleece the labors of Hercules.

Abandoning religion as a basis for explanation or moral conduct, does not invalidate its colossal artistic legacy.

I can gaze at the ceiling of the sisteen chapel and be awed what man can accomplish.

In the absence of objective meaning-imposed from-above, mans striving for order and purpose take on a tragic but also heroic dimension, and our responsibility as creators only becomes greater.

Absent the carrot of eternal bliss or the stick of damnation the moral responsibility that devolves upon us is greater not lesser.

Our capacity to create things of beauty and value seems infinite as does our capacity for brutality ugliness and desruction.

Lets make sure we make the right decisions

Edited by Utnapishtim, 24 June 2003 - 01:08 PM.

I just read this opinion article from someone that is observing a trend that is counter intuitive to what many here would say is rational. I will resist both saying I told you so and thumping a political soap box that the piece suggests. I am not including it here to do either.

I am including it because I suggest many of you are misreading the trends in relation to the vast percentage of the world and the power of theocratic force as a "fundamental politic". I think you are making too many assumptions based on what you wish was happening and not enough about what is in fact happening. Hence there appears to be a certain discontinuity that requires a reality check. This article is such a reality check about the power of religion, in fact I will add a second one that is also important about the overlap of politics and religion.

http://www.nytimes.c...ion/24KRIS.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Cover Your Hair
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

BASRA, Iraq

Still no luck in my quest to help the administration find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But meanwhile, I'm getting the impression that America fought Saddam, and the Islamic fundamentalists won.

For a glimpse of the Islamic state that Iraq may be evolving into, consider the street execution of an infidel named Sabah Ghazali.

Under Saddam Hussein, Christians like Mr. Ghazali, 41, were allowed to sell alcohol and were protected from Muslim extremists. But lately extremists have been threatening to kill anyone selling alcohol. One day last month, two men walked over to Mr. Ghazali as he was unlocking his shop door and shot him in the head — the second liquor store owner they had killed that morning.

An iron curtain of fundamentalism risks falling over Iraq, with particularly grievous implications for girls and women. President Bush hopes that Iraq will turn into a shining model of democracy, and that could still happen. But for now it's the Shiite fundamentalists who are gaining ground.

Already, almost every liquor shop in southern Iraq appears to have been forcibly closed. Here in Basra, Islamists have asked Basra University (unsuccessfully) to separate male and female students, and shopkeepers have put up signs like: "Sister, cover your hair." Many more women are giving in to the pressure and wearing the hijab head covering.

"Every woman is afraid," said Sarah Alak, a 22-year-old computer engineering student at Basra University. Ms. Alak never used to wear a hijab, but after Saddam fell her father asked her to wear one on the university campus, "just to avoid trouble."

Extremists also threatened Basra's cinemas for showing pornography (like female knees). So the city's movie theaters closed down for two weeks and reopened only after taking down outside posters and putting up banners, like this one outside the Watani Cinema: "We do not deal with immoral movies."

"We're now searching all customers as they enter the movie theater," said Abdel Baki Youssef, a guard at the Atlas Cinema. "Everybody is worried about an attack."

Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a more repressive one; it may well be that a majority of Iraqis favor more curbs on professional women and on religious minorities. As Fareed Zakaria notes in his smart new book, "The Future of Freedom," unless majority rule is accompanied by legal protections, tolerance and respect for minorities, the result can be populist repression.

Women did relatively well under Saddam Hussein (when they weren't being tortured or executed, penalties that the regime applied on an equal opportunity basis). In the science faculty at Basra University, 80 percent of the students are women. Iraq won't follow the theocratic model of Iran, but it could end up as Iran Lite: an Islamic state, but ruled by politicians rather than ayatollahs. I get the sense that's the system many Iraqis seek.

"Democracy means choosing what people want, not what the West wants," notes Abdul Karim al-Enzi, a leader of the Dawa Party, a Shiite fundamentalist party that is winning support in much of the country.

Mr. Enzi is the kind of figure who resonates in mud-brick Iraqi villages in a way that secular American-backed exiles like Ahmad Chalabi don't. While Mr. Chalabi was dining in London, Mr. Enzi was risking his life on secret spy missions for the Dawa Party within Iraq, entering from his base in Iran.

Four of his brothers and one sister were executed for anti-government activities, and Mr. Enzi was himself sentenced to death in absentia in 1979. He was once arrested in Iraq on a spy mission, but officials did not realize who he was and released him a month later. I found Mr. Enzi brave, admirable and medieval.

What should we do about this?

I'm afraid there's not much we can do to discourage fundamentalism in Iraq, although staying the course and building a legal system may help. For now, the U.S. seems to be making matters worse by raiding offices of Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, who ran an anti-Saddam organization from exile in Iran and who in the past advocated an Islamic government. Cold-shouldering Mr. Hakim is counterproductive. It bolsters his legitimacy as a nationalist and further radicalizes his followers.

We may just have to get used to the idea that we have been midwives to growing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.


Web text

Missionaries Under Cover
Growing numbers of Evangelicals are trying to spread Christianity in Muslim lands. But is this what the world needs now?

By David Van Biema

She wasn't a Muslim, but she would do for now. Last March, at just about the time American troops were massing outside Baghdad, she shuffled, dressed in a dark burqa, into a cramped schoolroom in the New York City borough of Queens. The class she was addressing was organized by the U.S. Center for World Mission and packed with eager evangelical Christian students wanting to learn how to be missionaries in a foreign country. The black-clad "Shafira" was gamely trying to explain her faith.

"It is not in the heart of all the Muslims to have violence," she said in broken English, alluding immediately to Sept. 11. "So sorry that people having dying. I'm wanting peace for my children. I'm thinking you wanting peace. It's the same." She listed Islam's five pillars of faith and reminded her audience that holy war is not among them. "We have a lot in common," she said, but she did wonder about the Trinity: "God Father plus God Mary equals God Son?"

A student, thrilled at the opportunity to explain, jumped in. After listening patiently, Shafira peeled back her garments and admitted that "I am not a true Muslim." Hardly. In fact, she was a longtime Christian missionary in Muslim lands. She had been hired to explain at several of 150 annual "Perspectives" classes how such evangelism should be done. She gave her real name. (Throughout this article, for the safety of missionaries working in potentially hostile environments or returning to them, pseudonyms are used. They will be indicated on first usage by quotation marks. Many locations will also be omitted.)

Over the next three hours, "Barbara," minus her burqa, dispensed lists of comparisons between Jesus and Muhammad ("Jesus arose from the dead and is alive. Muhammad is dead.") and of dos and don'ts of ministering to Muslims. (Do listen to their story. Don't argue about Israel.) She projected a statement by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on a screen: "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you." After his comment was publicized in late 2001, Ashcroft said it referred to terrorists and not to mainstream Muslims, but the point seemed lost on her. "Islam is the terrorist," Barbara asserted. "Muslims are the victim." The class ended in prayer. "We mourn the loss of life" in Iraq, someone said. Added Barbara: "We pray that the weapon of mass destruction, Islam, be torn down. Lord, we declare that your blood is enough to forgive every single Muslim. It is enough."

For 21 months now, Americans have been engaged in a crash course on Islam, its geography and its followers. It is not a subject we were previously interested in, but 9/11 left no choice, and the U.S. military in two countries continues its on-the-job training in sheiks and ayatullahs, Sunni customs and Shi'ite factionalism. Yet there is one group that has been thinking—passionately—about Muslims for more than a decade. Its army is weaponless, its soldiers often unpaid, its boot camps places like the Queens classroom. It has no actual connection with the U.S. government (except possibly to unintentionally muddy America's image). But in the past few months, its advance forces have been entering the still-smoldering battlefield of Iraq, as intent on molding its people's future as the conventional American troops already in place.

Not for a century has the idea of evangelizing Islam awakened such fervor in conservative Christians. Touched by Muslims' material and (supposed) spiritual needs, convinced that they are one of the great "unreached megapeoples" who must hear the Gospel before Christ's eventual return, Evangelicals have been rushing to what has become the latest hot missions field. Figures from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, suggest that the number of missionaries to Islamic countries nearly doubled between 1982 and 2001—from more than 15,000 to somewhere in excess of 27,000.

Approximately 1 out of every 2 is American, and 1 out of every 3 is Evangelical. Says George Braswell Jr., a missions professor at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary: "We're having more now than probably ever before go out to people like Muslims." Sept. 11 appears only to have fueled the impulse.

Yet this boom has coincided with mounting restrictions on missionary efforts by the regimes of Islamic-majority countries and with swelling anti-Western militancy. The resulting tensions have sometimes erupted tragically: the past two years have seen the arrest and imprisonment of two American missionaries in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and the apparently religiously motivated murders of four more in Yemen and Lebanon. The botched bombing last month of a Dutch-German missionary family in Tripoli, Lebanon, suggests the danger is not abating. Says Stan Guthrie, author of the book Missions in the Third Millennium: "People are beginning to count the costs. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you could be killed. Missionaries have always considered the possibility, but now it's a lot more real."

Next page

BTW, I should clarify I am including these as examples of the "law of unintended consequences."

I suggest that we are having a similar dangerous effect, the more we fight the more that some people feel threatened. I for one support religious freedom, ALL religious freedom, including freedom from religion, but the willingness to believe of faithful is a powerful issue and one that threatens to usurp the science of the singularity for the Religion and Politics of the Singularity, as another small example.

Absent the carrot of eternal bliss or the stick of damnation the moral responsibility that devolves upon us is greater not lesser.

Utna,

I tend to you agree with you, but this is nonetheless a very controversial statement. I am sure many theologians would beg to differ.

First let me state that when I am refering to the "decline of religion", I am refering to its decline in the western world. Ever since the introduction of humanistic principles, religion has been on a slow, almost imperceptable, downward slope. And in the past 40 years the trend has begun to excelerate. That is not to say that religion does not have a negative impact on our relations with other non-Christian cultures.

I have always also contended that the muslem world possesses very few humanistic qualities. I call this unenlightened. Somehow Lazarus, you have found this to be political incorrect on my part. I, for one, can not understand why. Is objective truth not objective truth? (can you tell what I have been spending my time reading ) If a culture does not possess humanistic tendencies, is it not better that we identify it for what it is? Is it also not in our interest to change such a culture for the better, by force if necessary?? But that was never the point of the war in Iraq, we both know that. Both sides of this issue think they know what the cause and effect of this war was, but both would probably agree that the cause was not to bring humanism to Iraq. That may simply be impossible.

A course towards democracy and civil liberties may be out of the reach of much of the arab world, at least for now. These trends may require more time to grow than a five year plan. The occupation in Iraq is as much an experiment as anything else. Can we effect some kind of reform in a muslim nation? Well we won't know if we don't try.

The problem with "enlightening" a culture or nation is that its opponents rule by coersive means. The woman who started wearing the hijab again. She is doing so out of fear of retaliation from the invisible force of fundamentalism. This is a trend which I fear we can not stop. Iraq may become more fundamentalist than they were under Saddam, but are they worse off?!?

I'll be looking for the small victories in Iraq. Some kind of democratic process, the rule of law, and the end to official support for terrorism. These changes aren't going to happen over night, but they are possible. We must remain forceful in showing our committment to these kinds of progressive changes.

That being said, I am not for a long term occupation. We need to set up a governing structure and get the hell out. We will accomplish nothing by having troops patroling Iraq for another five or ten years. We will just be flushing resources and lives down the toilet. We need to let the Iraqis take care of themselves. The sooner the better.

Finally, even after the end of our occupation we will need to have military bases set up at strategic locations through out Iraq. A large base in the Kurdish north may be a definite possibility. This way, we no longer have to rely on SOFAs to project military strength into the region. This was always my main reason for invading Iraq and I suspect it was also the main reason of the Administration (although they could never say so publicly). We need to have an imposing presence in the region that is, at the same time, completely seperated from the civil muslem population.

Lazarus, do you think we can reform the arab world, or no? Can we in any way influence such reform, or will all of our efforts be futile? Either way I think the invasion was the correct choice. If your answer is yes, then we are in the process of helping along the reform. If your answer is no, and the arab world is of no value to the progress of humanity, then we need to keep them in line with a big stick.

Great to have a dialogue with you again,
Kissinger

I have always also contended that the muslem world possesses very few humanistic qualities. I call this unenlightened. Somehow Lazarus, you have found this to be political incorrect on my part. I, for one, can not understand why. Is objective truth not objective truth?

I call this a slight of hand, not politically incorrect; just wrong. You are missing my point entirely and demonstrating your own blind side, from their perspective they are not unenlightened, they are the "true believers."

I was using the example as representative of the power of the religious meme, and you are accepting the hypocrisy they see as the reason to fight, as a definition of unenlightened. Your cultural bias is the only "objective truth" you have proven. My point however wasn't political; it was socio-psychological and still valid.

You are equating the "Decline of Religion" as equivalent to "enlightened", I am uninterested for the moment in the veracity of this claim but you are not understanding that this is not only a problem abroad but domestically and you have taken a side.

I used the foreign example precisely because you recognized it easier, but it is as true of domestic fundamentalists and Luddites as well.

Feel free to start a discussion on the Occupation of Iraq if you like. I wasn't actually trying to do so here, I was addressing the schism between your "unenlightened" mother and yourself, as well as anybody else caught in this dilemma. It needs to be understood that while we may not always go to blows over this within family in our culture that is only because there exists a sufficient level of healthy dialog and trust to go forward. When these factors are lacking often the resulting behaviors are violent even in the West.

In the value scale of a believer's your standards of enlightenment are exactly how "evil" for them is defined. I suggest violence is useless except at best for defense in this scenario; as the more its used the more it simply creates an escalating cycle of violence.

Is objective truth not objective truth? (can you tell what I have been spending my time reading  ) If a culture does not possess humanistic tendencies, is it not better that we identify it for what it is? Is it also not in our interest to change such a culture for the better, by force if necessary??

This statement is false but also this is not the thread to discuss it. It is both hubris and cultural chauvinism that you are displaying, exactly what contributes to the conflict. Islam certainly does possess "humanistic tendencies," so please let's just get past the bias. From their perspective our "enlightenment" began because of them.

Again, I will read further back and later I will come back to this issue. As to objective truth; like they say in the X-Files, I agree its "out there", where is certainly subject to scrutiny.

As I am preparing for the WTA meeting this week I don't have the time to respond to the many other issues you raise right now, and I really do think they deserve their own thread. And yes we will continue to discuss many issues my old adversary. [B)]

Good luck at Yale.

One of the problems in the above discourse is the difference between what the Islamic religion (specifically, the Qu'ran or Koran) states, and how those words are interpreted by some of the more radical followers - and hence, some of the more visible followers.

One classic example is a passage (pardon me, I forget the citation) which states that the upright man shall let his slaves go free, and this will lead him to paradise. This wording is, for many, a clear cut statement saying that slavery is bad. Yet there are some scholars who have in the past (or perhaps currently) state that this quotation REQUIRES slavery - for if there are no slaves, how can a man be proven upright by freeing them?

It is a gross oversimplification of a situation fully as complex as you'll find raging between various sects and parts of Christianity regarding certain Biblical scriptures and their proper interpretation.

Add in the fact that there are some who use the trappings of Islam to underwrite their lust for power, and it gets even hairier.

-Discarnate

I've spoken with a few members of my family about my hope to live forever. Their response is generally, "Good luck!" Though there are a fair number of Christians in my family, they are fairly reasonable people who are in no hurry to die themselves!

I have already established a reputation for myself as the family "weirdo"; since early childhood I've been this tomboyish sci-fi freak nerd girl. People sort of expect me to hold unconventional views, and I'm stubborn, so they generally don't try to talk me out of it. When I announced I didn't believe in God, hardly anyone even raised an eyebrow. My father gave me a bit of grief about it; he isn't particularly religious, but he seemed to think that my lack of belief was based in some kind of egoism. He also expressed the notion that "this [regular human life on Earth] can't possibly be all there is!" I explained to him that there is a very real chance that "this" IS all there is. If that is indeed the case, it does not make sense to stake all one's hopes on the idea of an afterlife. My dad doesn't argue with me anymore about such things. We had some rousing e-mail debates wherein I debunked the "Noah's Ark found atop Mt. Ararat!" hoax for him and explained myself. He seems to respect my views now, and I have a feeling that he might himself question religion now.

My little sister is also an atheist now...I can't help but be sort of proud of her.

I guess I don't feel the need to convince anyone that I'm going to live forever. I really don't care whether anyone believes me or not; it's just a hope I have, and something I am going to work toward in any way I can. The only person I would like to "win over" to the immortalist perspective is my boyfriend: he doesn't seem opposed to the idea, but he also claims to not be afraid of death. He's got sort of a Daoist perspective on life: that death is just part of existence. I can respect this but the idea of him growing old and dying is a pretty terrible thought. I don't think he'd refuse anti-aging treatment; he certainly has no desire to be weak or in pain! So maybe it's not even an issue. He doesn't think I'm crazy for holding onto this hope, and that is one of the many reasons I love him. I am also curious about what sort of love could develop across centuries rather than mere decades! I think it could be absolutely amazing: a deep and powerful connection that we cannot even imagine today.

-azalyn

I find it strange how people think that having religious beliefs and desiring immortality are opposite. In fact, unless people have a very shallow understanding of their religion (which, sadly, is common), their religion should allow for both an extremely long-lived universe as well as immortal soul.

I quite dislike having conversations with people who insist there is a God. Or people who insist that there isn't an immortal soul. Frankly, I've thought about it long and hard. I've discussed the concept with intelligent people. And in the end, I've decided, I don't know. And I don't think we can know. So, to hammer at someone with contrary beliefs (about things we just don't know) is counter-productive. Maybe you can outsmart them. Maybe you can bully them. But you're not doing anyone a favour.

Second, I have an "ideal" about what a religious person should be. I cannot judge their beliefs (as long as they are internally consistent), but I can judge their actions. I find that a "proper" religious person is quite pleasant to live around, have as a friend or neighbour, etc. I really do not resent religious people, as long as they're nice.

I also have an "ideal" about what an immortalist should act like. Strangly, it's quite similar to what a relgious person should act like (except for the strange laws, like not masturbating or whatever).

Basically, IMHO, both groups really should act like they're going to be around for a long, long time, and have to live with the consequences of their actions. If people generally act nice, and try to prevent harming others (either living or future), then I really don't mind them. And if people are happy in their beliefs, there's no real need to alter them.

Okay, about getting people on your side ...

I like "Reason's" technique of introducing the concept of longevity first. Some people are quite okay with using medical technology to extend their lifespans. Some people are quite willing to use extreme methods. I've talk to people who approve of future use of transgenics (on themselves) and people who don't approve.

The people who don't approve? Well, I can't think of a way to reach them.

People who do approve? Well, they're half on the path. They'll keep their eyes out for medical technologies. Maybe (maybe), they'll start to become optomistic about their eventual potential.

It's funny, people who write best-selling books, speak before hundreds of people, and generally affirm themselves communication-ninjas can occasionally barely manage a five minute conversation with their parents. Others compartmentalize their relationships, never telling their drinking buddies they play chess in the park on saturdays, or their girlfriends what they do at work all day. These strange inabilities and divisions seem to be just part of life for some people. The categorization of relationships sometimes constrains us to ridiculous lengths. I've never understood so clearly how easy it is, until some time ago, I noticed the disconnect between what my brother tells me about his day, and what he'll tell our mother. Entirely different stories. The same question. Why?

We decide what kind of relationship we have with people pretty early. And family more so. This typing seems to determine what kind of exchanges are allowed. It also fixes for better or worse, the amount of credence on certain subjects. My mother will follow anything I say about literature, computers, or food without question. But on school, religion, work, gender issues, 'serious things' I have to work hard to get acknowledged. Is this because I'm a fool? No, and I doubt Mom thinks of me as a fool. But she does think of me as a child. And I think of her as a dangerous and threatening authority figure which I must evade. These two preset types interfere with our communication. And unfortunately, they're types that get reinforced with almost every interaction.

This is not to say things can't change. The more you peck at these sort of things, the more aware you both are. And that helps. I've managed to salvage a relationship with my mother despite serious unpleasantness in our pasts. Sometimes the blame lies more on my side than I'd like to admit. But removing my own problems is one step to addressing our problems, and it's the area best under my control, so it's easier to start with that, as disheartening as it seems to my meddling lazy soul. She should change her attitude first! But, results first, wishes second, I always say.

Religion makes this even harder. It's a polarizing issue, and I find it's better to let it lie. Your attention to someone's irrationalities should be proportional to the effect those irrationalities have on their active and important decisions. Luckily, we live in an age where religion is severely compartmentalized and it affects many less decisions than it may have, a hundred or two years ago. As annoying as religious beliefs can be, you're usually better served concentrating on someone's disregard of the scientific method, the concept of proof, the singularity of truth. You'd be surprised at how many people truly believe that multiple mutually exclusive truths can exist. There seems to be some interaction between double-think of various kinds and a bastardized cultural relativity that lets people tolerate the concept of several different things being true at the same time. Or people who take the verbal concept of paradox to mean that physical reality can disagree with itself as well. These kinds of things are generally less polarizing and exhuasting to talk about, and more important anyway.

As Kissinger says above, Religion is dying. Unfortunately, it's kind of taking a long time to die, and we may be treated to a few more permutations of it. Already we see rising neo-paganism, unusual technofetishists, and stranger variants like Tiplerian fantasies of apotheosis and eternity. Inasmuch as religion interferes with someone's ability to make a good choice, like not wanting to die, you should oppose it. The best way is to undercut it's influence. Make it clear that immortality is not a religious issue. With no intellectual dishonesty you can say, religion says nothing bad about helping people. Nor does it say anything bad about helping people an arbitrarily large amount. There is no point where being a better healer becomes a bad thing, unless they subscribe to an unusually detailed or anti-human religion(which I suppose is possible). You dont' need any tricks or tips to say that living is a good thing, which most(save the depressed) will agree with. It's a simple expansion to immortalism. Even including the possibility of an afterlife, the argument remains the same. Afterlives are usually for eternity, so no amount of time you could possibly live detracts from that. You could exist until the heat death of the universe and still have an eternity to live in heaven. Plus you got to live and do amazing things in this world, for that much longer.

There are lots of tricks and tips you can use, like the fact that suicide is considered a sin in all three major western religions, and a stupid idea by most of the eastern ones, but it's best to stick with simple, honest, affirming ideas. More happiness, more friends, more life. The means are irrelevant and often distracting. Don't talk about utopias, dont' talk about technologies. Just say, 'more and better'. Who can disagree with that?

DonSpanton: (If I can't convince my girlfriend, how can I convince the world??)

By no means convince your SELF that you have an obligation to convince OTHERS. Beliefs are beliefs whether or not they are true or hold evidence. After all, would you really want to succumb to such religion traditions such as forcing your thoughts (though they may be based on stories or a "bible") on others? There is no better truth than that found by yourself. On a more personal note I'd like to advise that you might be better off accepting your girlfriend for who she is and what she thinks rather than having her comform so strictly to your point of view. Thoughts and principles change, as will hers undoubtedly, so there is a good probability her mindset could resemble yours in time. Unoffensively I'd just like to help you to keep an open and accepting mind.

By no means convince your SELF that you have an obligation to convince OTHERS. Beliefs are beliefs whether or not they are true or hold evidence. After all, would you really want to succumb to such religion traditions such as forcing your thoughts (though they may be based on stories or a "bible") on others? There is no better truth than that found by yourself. On a more personal note I'd like to advise that you might be better off accepting your girlfriend for who she is and what she thinks rather than having her comform so strictly to your point of view. Thoughts and principles change, as will hers undoubtedly, so there is a good probability her mindset could resemble yours in time. Unoffensively I'd just like to help you to keep an open and accepting mind.

Jason, since I created this thread my position has changed a great deal for a number of reasons. I completely agree with you. Aside from the ethical and practical issues which would now make me hesitate with (most) attempts at conversion, I have realized through a better understanding of memetics and the evolutionary origins of religious thought that such attempts are often futile. Religious meme complexes have evolved in the "meme sphere" for thousands of years to become optimally suited for cultural transmission from one individual to another. Their survival to the present day is indicative of their "virulence" and staying power in the human mind. In contrast, the futurist memeplexes which our community expounds upon are in their infant stage and not designed with the same blind mechanisms for memetic transmission. As foundational elements, our memeplex requires a rational mind set and the utilization of logic -- this recipe for cohesion is very different from most of the worlds religions (which is why I do not believe that THism is religion). Ironically, the only way to make our movement more attractive memetically to the average person would be to incorporate some of the blind mechanisms for transmission which are commonly found in traditional religions. I would strongly recommend against such a course of action.

I now would only consider investing time in a "conversion attempt" on some one who I deemed to have "scientific leanings".

Now if you wish to argue that absolutely no attempts at conveying my point of view to others should be made, then I would beg to differ. If there is a realistic chance of convincing some one of the utility and ultimate truth of our world view - and if such a conversion would result in their contribution to our movement and the furthering of our goals - then I think it would be negligent on my part to not at least make an attempt.

In the end, I agree with you that it is unbecoming (and also pointless) to butt heads with some one who has a drastically different world view. However, if you knew me in real life you would realize that one of my pet peeves is violations of social etiquette. Trust me, even when I first created this thread it wasn't as if I was going door to door like a Jehova's Witness. [lol]

As far as my girl friend goes -- believe me when I tell you that even if I wanted to (and I admit that sometimes I can be overly enthusiastic about my ideas, especially with my significant other) I wouldn't be able to force anything on my girl. She's a very fiesty feminist who can hold her ground just fine.

Nice to meet you

Don

For instance, take religion.  What is it that people find attractive about it?  Forget the actual content of the religion.  You need to find what someone finds attractive about it in terms of their values.  For instance, you might question a very religious person, and you find out that they think they are getting three major values out of it:   (a)  A sense of Purpose and Meaning, (b)  The possibility of transcendence  and ©  An understaning of good and evil.  So a person might like that religion because he thinks that it provides (a), (b) and © for him.  So in order to change his mind, you don't argue against the content of the religion, you focus on these values.  Then you need to show why you think that your own world-view actually does a better job of providing (a) (b) and © than the religion.  For instance you might argue that Transhumanism provides a sense of purpose and meaning in terms of science and philosophy, the possibility of transcendence in terms of becoming post-human, and an understanding of good and evil in terms of Eli's theories.  If you can show that your world-view does a better job of (a),(b),© then the other guy will eventually change his mind, because what he really wanted was (a),(b) and ©, not the religion itself.  You see?  His current volition accepted the religion, but his extrapolated volition was actually for Transhumanism.

1) I agree that all three of the elements you mention add to the staying power of religion. Yet for some people, their religion creates in them feelings of guilt, anxiety and fear. I would argue that the initial assimilation of religious tenets is not entirely arrived at by a rational decision making process. The concept of cultural transmission must also be incorporated into the picture.

2) Also, by "good and evil" I assime you mean a code of ethics. Or are you trying to make a deliberate distinction?

3) I never meant for this thread to be about "conversion attempts", but that is what it has become nonetheless. This is fine, especially since the dialog has been so insightful and constructive.

4) How do I present my world view as a superior alternative to my best friend who lost his father on 9/11? Isn't the comfort and reassurance that traditional religions offer an individual unbeatable in terms of their alluding to a meta physical plane and a continuity of existence regardless of death? I think these questions highlight what has become a growing realization for me -- that naturalism, although almost definitely true, is much less appeal to humans than religions which propose meta-physical solutions to questions of existence.