• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Transhumanism: The Ultimate Cure For Religion?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 SecularFuture

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 May 2003 - 04:36 PM


• Why do theists believe in a god?
• Why do most theists fight so hard to defend their beliefs?



My personal theory is this:
Most theists believe in a god because they fear living in a world that is without some sort of governing force behind their lives. When you really think about, reality is quite scary. You only have control over yourself, and everything else around you is out of your control. Someone could walk up to you and shoot you without warning, or a storm could come and destroy your house, or an asteroid could come and destroy the entire planet. Through religion (theism), you don’t have any reason to fear or have concern with the world around you because it is all under the control of a perfect deity who loves you. And no matter how much pain you and your family and friends may endure now, everything will have a happy ending in a perfect heaven, as long as you have faith in the deity. The more faith you have in the deity, the more it will protect you from the ”evils” of the world around you. It’s all very childish and annoying.

Even in the face of hard scientific theories and facts, most religionists refuse to bend or question their interpretations of our naturalistic world. And in all honesty, I don’t blame them. Why should they want to give up the perfect fantasy for a belief in a world without order, and the belief that a person’s life will eventually disappear from existence? This is why they fight so hard against atheism.

Transhumanism is both comforting and realistic. It combines Secular Humanism with a greater appreciation for science, medicine, and technology, the three things we will require a greater knowledge of for our survival in the future. Transhumanism is a complete package, all wrapped up in one word. Practically everything you need for a better now, and a better future can be found within the definition of this word.


Adherents of Transhumanism philosophy believe that:
1. Some (perhaps all) limitations of human nature are undesirable.
2. Science and technology, steered by human values, could enable us to transcend our limitations.
3. Transcending the current limitations of human nature will lead to remarkable reductions in human suffering and marvelous improvements in human freedom, happiness, and potential.


Unlike straight atheism and Secular Humanism, Transhumanism promotes the idea of “transcending our limitations” so that we -- our species -- may continue to survive for a very long time, if not forever. And, unlike religion, it puts all responsibility on the human race. If we want progress, it is all up to us, and not some magical deity that most likely does not exist. Transhumanism takes Secular Humanism to another level, and makes religion irrelevant.


What do you think?

Edited by SecularFuture, 29 May 2003 - 04:40 PM.


#2 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 May 2003 - 05:21 PM

Rightly said SecularFuture,

I believe Transhumanism will become the default philosophy for our new age. And in the longer run, Immortalism may become an adjunct philosophy as life extension gains momentum.

For an interesting discussion as to why people hold irrational beliefs and the effects... check the chat archive on Cognitive Dissonance Theory/

#3 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 May 2003 - 07:47 PM

"I believe Transhumanism will become the default philosophy for our new age. And in the longer run, Immortalism may become an adjunct philosophy as life extension gains momentum. "

What is the difference between Transhumanism and Immortalism?

#4 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 29 May 2003 - 08:42 PM

why is it neccessary to 'cure' people's religious beliefs? People hold these beliefs because they WANT to hold them, not because they are rational. What right do we have to cure others of their fantasies?
Can you guarantee that they will be happier after such a cure?
If they act on those fantasies in a way that infringes on your civil liberties that is another issue entirely. But I find the notion that religioius people need to be cured of the mental props they use to invest their life with meaning disturbing not to say ethically questionable.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 30 May 2003 - 11:06 AM.


#5 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 May 2003 - 08:53 PM

What is the difference between Transhumanism and Immortalism?

We're working on that.

#6 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 May 2003 - 09:44 PM

QUOTE 
What is the difference between Transhumanism and Immortalism?


It can be argued to be a type of categoric "subset" . All (secular or pragmatic) Immortalists would be by definition a category of Transhumanist but not all Tranhumanists are of necessity Immortalists. And what combines the group known as Immoralists is probably more tenuous once the "joint venture" of acheivable longevity technology is made reality.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 29 May 2003 - 09:45 PM.


#7 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 May 2003 - 12:43 PM

Utnapishtim

” why is it neccessary to 'cure' people's religious beliefs?”


Most religions -- the three major ones -- put magical thinking before critical thinking, and this is not good. In order for our people to learn more about our natural world, learn more about medicine, technology, and science -- the three things we need most for personal protection and survival -- we are going to need more critical thinkers. We don’t need magical thinkers getting in the way of this progress.

”What right do we have to cure others of their fantasies?’

I have the same right that psychiatrists have to cure the mentally insane.

’Can you guarantee that they will be happier after such a cure?”


No. I can’t make any guarantees. I can make a hypothesis though. What would be more productive to our natural world? - People who believed in the tooth fairy, or people who believed in the power of human ingenuity? Think about it.

#8 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 May 2003 - 12:46 PM

We're working on that.


:) Take your time.

#9 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 May 2003 - 12:46 PM

QUOTE 
What is the difference between Transhumanism and Immortalism?


It can be argued to be a type of categoric "subset" . All (secular or pragmatic) Immortalists would be by definition a category of Transhumanist but not all Tranhumanists are of necessity Immortalists. And what combines the group known as Immoralists is probably more tenuous once the "joint venture" of acheivable longevity technology is made reality.


Thank you for the explanation.

#10 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 30 May 2003 - 12:59 PM

Also, check Robert Perry's 'Forever For All' for a good introduction to modern immortalism.

#11 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 May 2003 - 03:07 PM

The reason I think attacking religion alonng with other nonsensical beliefs, is utterly counterproductive is that they force a memetic confrontation we should be trying to avoid not enter into. Life extension may be an issue in the next 20-25 years. The population is actually aging, making it less likely that you can effect a change in attitude among them. Immigration during that time will probably be from predominantly religious cultures. How exactly do you propose winning this battle?

People are proud and people are petty. Their beliefs also form a central part of their self concept. In lots of ways many people 'are their beliefs'. Attempting to beat them to their senses with rationality WILL NOT be an effective solution.

I also think that you labor under the misconception that magical thinkers desire the same degree of consistency in their world view that you do. Generally speaking they don't, but are quite happy to hold several contradictory views at once.
Most people who participate in this forums like this one have a 'belief system' they have spent some time thinking about and putting together. They are concerned about its coherence and logic. The average person's value system on the other hand is nowhere near that welldefined, being made up of many random influences. I am not interested in a clash of egos and proving to others that I am right and they are wrong.
Their beliefs concern me only insofar as they interfere with my capacity to get on with my own life.

Most amerciasn today practice an implicit atheism. The function of religioin is strictly ceremonial, something that frames their life and may provide a superficial 'purpose' but doesn't really impact their day to day decision making. If an anti aging remedy hit the market today the vast majority of 'god-fearing americans' would leap at the chance. The key has to be convincing them of the feasibility of what we propose not trying smash their existing belief structures.

I do not think I can win that battle against people who do not play by the rules of reason and have no interest in doing so. I have had far too many fruitless discussions with people. As I have stated in another thread the prospect of youthful skin hair and muscles will by far the most persuasive argument in winning converts in my opinion. All this attention on how to counter religious memes distracts from the far more serious issue of how we can convince others that the technological innovations we forsee are a realistic prospect

Edited by Utnapishtim, 30 May 2003 - 03:13 PM.


#12 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 May 2003 - 05:17 PM

Also, check Robert Perry's 'Forever For All' for a good introduction to modern immortalism.

Oh yeah! I know about this book. I wish I had the money to buy it. I'll probably get it later after I take care of a few bills, and fix my broken bank account. Thanks a lot for the book suggestion.

#13 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 May 2003 - 05:18 PM

Utnapishtim
I will get to your post later today. Very - very busy I am, yes. [wacko]

Edited by SecularFuture, 30 May 2003 - 05:18 PM.


#14 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 31 May 2003 - 03:18 AM

Most amerciasn today practice an implicit atheism. The function of religioin is strictly ceremonial, something that frames their life and may provide a superficial 'purpose' but doesn't really impact their day to day decision making. If an anti aging remedy hit the market today the vast majority of 'god-fearing americans' would leap at the chance. The key has to be convincing them of the feasibility of what we propose not trying smash their existing belief structures.


Ironically, I suspect American anti-intellectualism puts limits on how much damage religion can do. American christians respect the people in their churches who work hard to master the scriptures and doctrines, but they also tend to view such grinds for Jesus as being akin to geeks, and thus really "uncool." After all, most American men don't view the clergy as a desirable career, compared with business, engineering, sports, academia, law and so forth.

#15 SecularFuture

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 June 2003 - 06:53 PM

I have not forgotten about this thread, or this forum. I’ve just been really busy working on a short computer animated film for “some studios.” I obviously can’t be too specific right now. lol I will be back in a couple of days. I really like this forum, and I look forward to becoming a more active participant.

#16 hughbristic

  • Guest Hugh Bristic
  • 137 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 June 2003 - 10:58 PM

why is it neccessary to 'cure' people's religious beliefs? People hold these beliefs because they WANT to hold them, not because they are rational. What right do we have to cure others of their fantasies?
Can you guarantee that they will be happier after such a cure?
If they act on those fantasies in a way that infringes on your civil liberties that is another issue entirely. But I find the notion that religioius people need to be cured of the mental props they use to invest their life with meaning disturbing not to say ethically questionable.


Even the tolerant religious practice what the Catholics call a "sin of omission." By believing in what they do, they prevent the appropriate allocation of resources to important things like anti-aging research. Therefore, it is necessary to "cure" them in a sense. I think the issue is what will affect such a cure most efficiently.

I seem to have had most success by appealing to the commonality I have with the religious. We both wish for some sort of transcendence. We both are dissatisfied with the world as it is and the human condition. I understand the unwillingness of most people to accept this. From there, I explain that I cannot rationally accept their proposed supernatural solution, and try to show how transhumanism offers a way to achieve that transcendence naturalistically, through technology. I explain that future advances in technology will change the world and ourselves in ways that we can scarcely now imagine. I stress how empowering this transhumanistic perspective is--how I feel it is ennobling, as it places my destiny in my own hands and the hands of my brothers and sisters in this world.

While I haven't won any converts this way, it does to tend to result in a more tolerant and respectful hearing of my views. Perhaps, as anti-aging research begins to bear fruit, people will be more willing to risk their supernatural "bird in the hand" for my materialistic "two in the bush."

Hugh
Apotheosis by Hugh Bristic: Extropian Transhumanist Neo-Folk Music

#17 Discarnate

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 0
  • Location:At a keyboard of course!

Posted 03 June 2003 - 11:24 PM

An interesting thought came to me the other day as I was driving...

I had a christian radio station on (I tend to be very eclectic in my listening habits, and it was outside NPR's normal time), and the preacher they had was saying that now is the time to glorify the Lord.....

What if we offer these people MORE time to glorify the Lord? Would that go over well, do you think?

-Discarnate

#18 Christian

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 June 2003 - 10:43 PM

Discarnat

I think you have the right idea. Religion doesn't have to be "cured" or "smashed" it just needs to be updated. There is nothing wrong with most religions at there base, indeed, the optimistic beliefs and desire to help each other that is at the heart of many religions is really quite commendable. It's only when we get into the details that there is trouble.

Many religions have changed over the years to adapt to changing times and it is probably time for them to be changed again. We can do this, I'm sure, but only if you stop thinking of Religious people as an enemy and start thinking of them as people who need to see the truth.

#19 Discarnate

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 0
  • Location:At a keyboard of course!

Posted 07 June 2003 - 11:09 PM

I personally dont think it even needs updating. If we can just get 'em pulling with us instead of against us, it'd be wonderful.

Now, I think an immortal evangelist may be bothersome - but to have the chance at immortality myself? Bother is soooo much better than dead, h'mm?

-Discarnate

#20 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 June 2003 - 04:24 AM

Oh yeah! I know about this book. I wish I had the money to buy it. I'll probably get it later after I take care of a few bills, and fix my broken bank account. Thanks a lot for the book suggestion.


Hey Secular Future - are you the same as at the Infidels MB? I am Kip over there.

I would say that the distinction between transhumanism and immortalism can be derived from their names. Transhumanists are committed to transcending natural human limitations, which may or may not (but surely does) including aging, and immortalists are simply committed to not only extending life but never dying at all.

#21 Casanova

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:29 AM

The arrogance, and self-righteousness, of many of the Immortalists, and Transhumanists, is despairing.

They sound just like the people they are criticizing, namely; Bible thumpers, Evangelists, Born-Agains, Fundamentalists, etc.

The word for this kind of behaviour is hypocrisy.
And it is even worse than that.

But I find the notion that religioius people need to be cured of the mental props they use to invest their life with meaning disturbing not to say ethically questionable.


And I agree.

What is being revealed on these Forums, is a crusade; and one of it's weapons is "re-education", by memes. There is a subtle fascist tone in some of the writings of the Immortalists, and Transhumanists.

Atheism has more blood on it's hands than Religion;
Athesim's roll call:

Marxism, and it's brand of socialism, and communism.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and a legion of small fry aethists who continued the butchery of humanity in the name of materialsm.
Hilter; remember him?
And if we are merely machines, made of matter, and there is no God, then all that remains is "power", "might makes right"...

The mountain of butchered bodies, in the last century, that were the direct result of Atheistic/Materialistic political ideologies is testimony that Aethiesm/Materialism are dead ends.

Today we live in an America saturated by Atheism's offspring, Nihilism, and Post-Moderism.
The cultural wreckage is everywhere to be seen, and heard.

Religion has blood on it's hands, too, but at it's best it offers meaning, purpose, and comfort in the knowledge that a creator exists, who is connected to us, who is us, who we return to when we die.
It offers the goal of moral, and ethical, perfection for human beings to strive for, and a Creator who embodies the hightest perfection of those qualities.

And, Religion has given us most of the Finest Art we have. The number of brilliant artists, and their works, inspired by Religion is praise enough for Religion, and it's continuance.
And the soaring heights, of glory, and transcendence, that art inspired by Religion has given us cannot be matched by what Atheism/Materialism has given us.
Art that is a direct result of a godless, souless, mechancial, happenstance, universe, is only inspiring if you can trick yourself into worshiping technology, and science, as the redeemers of meaninglessness.

All that you have done is to pledge your alligance of worship away from a Religious God, to a secular God, but the worship is still there.

Transhumanism will die, just as the New Age, died. It will become a footnote in the history of crankism.

I am not a Christian, but I respect the best of Christianity, as I respect the best of Buddhism.
Religion gives us a moral, and ethical, framework, of a speical kind. We have tried to create non-religious moral, and ethical, frameworks, and they have either failed us, or are in the process of failing.

There are millions of planets out there, with intelligent creatures who also believe in a God, a creator.
God is the Ultimate Intelligence, the Divine Creator of all lifeforms in our universe, and in all universes. It is that Divine Source that all the religions of the universe point to.

Edited by Casanova, 12 June 2003 - 06:34 AM.


#22 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 June 2003 - 03:09 PM

Casanova,

You make an intelligence and forceful argument. Atheists are just as likely to commit abhorrent acts of cruelty and oppression as theist. We all have blood on our hand because we’re all human.

But, I’d like to point out, atheist of the past, and even today contend with the problem of inevitable death and oblivion. This is the reason why atheism has not attracted a larger following. People want an answer to the afterlife question. Humans can not deal with the thought that our existence ceases after death.

Thus, I believe impending oblivion has been the root of much suffering. Religious groups demand that one has to believe in something that is improvable.. a god, reincarnation, spirits, etc.. and atheist contend there's no god and then expects us to die without blinking.

This is where transhumanism and immortalism steps in to offer an alternative. We're not a dogma. We don't force anyone to do anything. We just offerf a new way to look at life. We simply believe that technology will allow us to stay alive for as long as we wish.

This is a profound paradigm shift and will not be easy for most to accept. There will be many of us who'll make excellent arguments and justifications to believe in a god. But is that not just perpetuating a dogma. Can that really answer the most important question-Is there an afterlife?

People don’t adopt new ways of thinking overnight. Humans didn’t evolve to have our minds swayed or our allegiance challenged by one book or one paragraph. Our ancestors held on to believes, logical or not, because it had some evolutionary advantage. That's fine. As a student of evolutionary psychology, I expect and welcome that. To hear objections like yours, Casanova, simple means were doing something right. We’re provoking thought and that’s very important to change. We’ll keep moving ahead and we’ll make quite a few mistakes along the way. But, as long as we're making mistakes, we know we're trying.

#23 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 12 June 2003 - 03:30 PM

Casanova
Interesting post.

I am in agreement with you about the excessive hubris of many of the participants in the transhumanist movement.Many of them are both precociously bright and inexperienced at life. These two traits can often lead to a certain condescension and arrogance. Maturity is a great teacher in this regard.

I think you are wrong to lay the blame for the evils of the modern world on atheistic worldviews however. I am an atheist myself. I do not feel that my moral and ethical framework is weakened by a lack of appeal to the otherworldly or unprovable. Quite the opposite.

Religion has been the cause of countless atrocities through the ages; the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, the slaughter of Christians in the roman colloseum, the Spanish inquistion and the butchery of the crusades, being just a few examples.

The vast destruction we witnessed during the twentieth century has indeed been unprecedented. However war and genocide are far from new. The modern age has seen the industrialization of these ancient evils and the result has been a far greater efficiency in achieving their terrible goals. As a species we have more control today over both ourselves and the world we inhabit than ever before. The results of this have been both good and bad.

I would argue that rather than atheism or materialism, the greatest source of such evil has historically been world views based on assertions rather than evidence.

Religions are merely a subgroup in a larger set of belief systems based on energetic assertion and appeals to faith rather than reason or empirical evidence. Communism and Fascism which you cite as examples of atheist materailism are actually great examples ideologies based on faith

Fascism : The destiny of the master race
Communism: The historical inevitability of a socialist utopia

The division is not between atheist and spiritual worldviews as you suggest but between faith based vs Reason(deductive or inductive) based views. The former have done an incalculable amount of harm in the world

What is needed is abandonment of faith based worldviews, an empirical approach to the world, and a commitment to open intellectual inquiry wherever that may take us.

When these principles are abandoned, excellence, whether creative, moral, intellectual or aesthetic can not be sustained.

Excellence in art has always been linked to reason. An examination of the flourishing arts and literature of both the classical period and the renaissance will confirm this.

Two of the greatest examples of such excellence are 5th century BC Athens and 15th century AD Florence.

Religion has inspired many great works of art. Most of the great religious texts of the world contain passages of literary genius. You are right that they have been an inspiration to creative people throughout the centuries. I am free to appreciate them as Art even while I reject them as dogma.

It is important to remember that the cultural explosion of ancient Greece did not originate in the temple. Similiarly the seeds for the renaissance were sown, by the humanists, secular men of letters rather than the scholar clerics who had dominated medieval intellectual life.

Faith-based belief systems are to the marketplace of ideas, what communism is the marketplace of goods and services; by attempting to restrict and control their flow they ultimately cripple them.

The notion of unquestioned (and unquestionable) truth on which the edifice of religious thought ultimately rests acts as a kind trade embargo of the mind.

Paradoxically the passion for unassailable truth and meaning which religion attempts to fulfill can ultimately succeed only in achieving its own opposite .

The principles of the scientific method, by contrast, acknowledge no absolute truth but only hypotheses. Any theory must be falsifiable in order to be accepted. There is a reason why we talk about the theory of evolution and a theory of relativity, rather than the fact or truth of evolution. Scientific knowledge is always subject to change revision and improvement.

On another note, many of your arguments are concerned with what you conceive of as the practical benefits of religious belief. While I refute this claim I fail to see how this impacts the more central question of whether religious writings are an accurate depiction of the universe we inhabit.

I stand by my earlier remark that I have no right to interfere with the tools others use to ward off existential angst. For some they may even be necessary.

HOWEVER... I thoroughly reject religious explanation for myself. I don’t believe that religions correctly describe the objective world, or provide me with particularly profound moral guidance. They are part of humankinds literary heritage Jesus, Moses and Mohammed stand shoulder to shoulder with Robin Hood, King Arthur Achilles and Odysseus in our literary history. They enrich the life of the mind but they should not be used as a guidepost for what lies beyond its borders.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 12 June 2003 - 03:58 PM.


#24 Discarnate

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 0
  • Location:At a keyboard of course!

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:32 PM

One of the biggest motivators around is belief. Belief in god, belief in death, in life-after-death, in immortality - it's all belief, at the core of it.

This may be one of the reasons why there are so many armchair scientists (specifically including myself) as compared to experimental scientists attracted to these ventures - the armchair scientist takes much of science on faith - which can be translated as 'chooses to believe in science'. Whereas the experimental scientist is often all too aware of the uncertainty and hiccups in the science of the present day.

And one of the biggest problems in belief is intolerance, a desire to hold something as inviolate, as 'revealed' truth. When what it (the belief) usually is, is a wonderful thumbnail approximation for what REALLY happens beneath or beyond our notice, be it psychologically, physically, temporally, whatever.

I don't think we will ever QUITE get to a perfect understanding of anything. The world is both too large & slow as well as too tiny & quick for us to get our here-and-now heads around it. Perhaps - PERHAPS - something along the lines of an AI *might* be able to handle such things differently. Won't know until/if we get one.

Minor quibble w/ Utnapishtim - "Excellence in art has always been linked to reason. An examination of the flourishing arts and literature of both the classical period and the renaissance will confirm this. "

This doesn't explain the power of John Wayne Gacy's paintings, which are truely moving in a horribly creepy way. Nor of the various artworks of other murderers or the like. . .

-Discarnate

#25 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 13 June 2003 - 01:51 AM

Most amerciasn today practice an implicit atheism. The function of religioin is strictly ceremonial, something that frames their life and may provide a superficial 'purpose' but doesn't really impact their day to day decision making.



Yes, yes. What I call "C&E" Christians. I agree that there isn't the same level of zeal that existed, say 100 years ago. I disagree that these Americans are practicing implicit atheism. I feel that they are practicing generic theism. They simply believe in the concept of God, but have no preconceived notions about God's nature (or are even making up their own concepts to suit their personal needs).

If an anti aging remedy hit the market today the vast majority of 'god-fearing americans' would leap at the chance. The key has to be convincing them of the feasibility of what we propose not trying smash their existing belief structures.


I agree. But how do you get the cure without the money? And how do you get the money when [/B]SOCIETY IN GENERAL VIEWS YOUR IDEAS AS FANTASTICAL/IMPOSSIBLE[B]??

This is the question I keep coming back to. Can we convince society of our cause/ideas without presenting the actual aging cure? Probably not, since our notions are so revolutionary. Most people have never even conceived of the prospect of physical immortality.

But to hell with it. We don't need to convince everyone. We need to build a solid base of support that would allow for the creation of a private company dedicated to anti aging. If we can do that then we can avoid the public sector altogether and consequently not have to worry about "fundamentalist" religious influences trying to sabotage the process. All we would have to worry about then would be the government stepping in and interfering in the private sector to prevent us from attaining our goals (which as long as we do not cross any predetermined ethical threshold we should be immune from). Of course, if all else fails there is always off-shore research facilities.

#26 hughbristic

  • Guest Hugh Bristic
  • 137 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 June 2003 - 11:37 AM

Utnapishtim,

On the whole, a very excellent response to Casanova's concerns. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I wasn't looking forward to having to, once again, write a long screed on this topic and you covered, with elegance and clarity, everything I would have.

I stand by my earlier remark that I have no right to interfere with the tools others use to ward off existential angst. For some they may even be necessary.


I must, however, question the above. While, certatinly, I think most in this forum would agree that force or coercion should not be used to change the minds of those who accept faith-based belief systems, this does not mean that we do not have a right (perhaps a duty) to attempt to change the minds of people whom we disagree with through reasoned debate. Beliefs have consequences. As you so rightly pointed out, faith-based belief sytems (Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and Facism, to name a few) are inherently dangerous in that they do not have a method for correction of error, save the slow hand of selective evolutionary pressure. When wedded to a belief system that accepts the use of force, the enevitable result is war and oppression. Indeed, in such a world view, how can fundamental disagreements be resolved except by force when truth is revealed and not open to revision by an appeal to evidence. As I pointed out earlier, even pacifist faiths such as the Anabaptist sects and the Society of Friends within the Christian religion and some strains of Buddhism, pose a danger in that their unalterable beliefs have the potential to prevent needful positive action. Thus they are prone to sins of omission, such as failing to properly allocate public funds for anti-aging research (assuming government has a role in such).

Obviously, faith in religion is deeply satisfying to many people (as it was once to me). However, this should not blind us to its dangers. Often, it is not appropriate to argue with someone about the existence of their God, just as it isn't appropriate to argue with the man who claims his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, when, in truth, she looks like she got hit in the face with a bag of nickels. However, there are instances and forums where it is a acceptable and stands a slim chance of making a difference. This is one such.

I am not denying that there are dogmatic atheists--those who reject the existence of God based on faulty reasoning or because of emotional baggage. Many atheists simply lack good social skills because being social outcasts is what likely caused them to question such fundamental beliefs in the first place. Other atheists (and I include myself in this group) occasionally get carried away with a sense of self-righteous indignation at the intractability of religious beliefs and their potential danger and express themselves in ways that are not always conducive to changing minds. However, this does not alter the fact that faith-based belief systems are a danger and should be argued against forcefully and consistently, though always with an eye towards what arguments will be most likely to change minds, rather than make their advocate feel smart or self-righteous.

Respectfully,
Hugh

#27 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 23 June 2003 - 06:52 PM

What is being revealed on these Forums, is a crusade; and one of it's weapons is "re-education", by memes. There is a subtle fascist tone in some of the writings of the Immortalists, and Transhumanists.


Isn't that the whole point of a mass movement? To convince people of its righteousness... Is there anything wrong with a crusade if it is done utilizing the tenents of humanism?

Atheism has more blood on it's hands than Religion;
Athesim's roll call:

Marxism, and it's brand of socialism, and communism.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and a legion of small fry aethists who continued the butchery of humanity in the name of materialsm.
Hilter; remember him?
And if we are merely machines, made of matter, and there is no God, then all that remains is "power", "might makes right"...


Playing a numbers game with genocide seems pointless. And yes, it does all come down to might makes right, unless you adopt a humanistic view point which values the individual against all else. If the implementation of such a view point were to occur, then the tragedies of the past could be avoid. Please don't group together socialism with atheism/secularism. They are not one in the same. It was not atheism which caused the tragedy of Stalinist Russia, it was the false dogma of socialism. Soviet communism used atheism as a tool to exclude all other potential rivals for power (religion) from having a chance to rise and usurp them. Just like religion, atheism can also be a force for good or bad.

Religion has blood on it's hands, too, but at it's best it offers meaning, purpose, and comfort in the knowledge that a creator exists, who is connected to us, who is us, who we return to when we die.



But one must accept their ignorance of the world around them in order to buy into religion. What meaning, what purpose? To live a good Christian life and die a good Christian death? Is that purpose?

It offers the goal of moral, and ethical, perfection for human beings to strive for, and a Creator who embodies the hightest perfection of those qualities.


Yeah, just go ask the hundreds of pedaphile priests!! [B)] Look, religion is in a state of decay in the western world. It is maintained more out of tradition than earnest belief. Eventually it will fade, at the very least, into a generic monotheist belief structure. Modern religion will give way to a new belief structure just like the old Roman Gods gave way to Christianity. I do not hate God, or the concept of God. I hate outdated religions which hold back human potential.

And, Religion has given us most of the Finest Art we have. The number of brilliant artists, and their works, inspired by Religion is praise enough for Religion, and it's continuance.


That is because most famous artists are from a time when everyone was religious. What are the odds of having a great atheist painter in 1700 when only .0001% of the population was atheist?

All that you have done is to pledge your alligance of worship away from a Religious God, to a secular God, but the worship is still there.


That is an assertion with no basis in fact. I worship no one except myself. I am enthusiastic about the potential of our movement. This enthusiasm may give many of the followers of transhumanism added zeal. This is because we feel that we have some measure of control over our destinies, and that by our efforts we can realize our hopes and dreams. This is superior to anything offered by religion.

Transhumanism will die, just as the New Age, died. It will become a footnote in the history of crankism.


Then why are you here? Why are you wasting your time with us? I think you under estimate the magnetism transhumanism has on people, especially the closet atheist. It offers the atheist hope. All indications are that the movement is growing rapidly, not shrinking.

There are millions of planets out there, with intelligent creatures who also believe in a God, a creator.


Are you an alien abductee? [huh] These kinds of wild assertions are beyond the pale. Were you in Heaven's Gate but forgot to drink the kool-aid?

God is the Ultimate Intelligence, the Divine Creator of all lifeforms in our universe, and in all universes. It is that Divine Source that all the religions of the universe point to.


Maybe, maybe not. Can you prove it to me....? I didn't think so.

#28 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 23 June 2003 - 09:16 PM

Then why are you here? Why are you wasting your time with us? I think you under estimate the magnetism transhumanism has on people, especially the closet atheist. It offers the atheist hope. All indications are that the movement is growing rapidly, not shrinking.

Transhumanism as a vague idea is solidly mainstream - just look at around 25% of the media that teenagers engage in, if not more. Transhumanism as a deliberate philosophical movement is much smaller, taking up maybe .0001% of the ideological pie of America, but I suspect that there exist 100 people who would become more transhumanist (and may even begin to title themselves as such) for every one person who calls themself a transhumanist today. The transhumanist meme is far from reaching the carrying capacity of the ideosphere, and will continue to replicate steadily until it does, at which point frictions will start to build up and our focus might shift.

#29 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 27 June 2003 - 01:50 AM

Before you click on the links below hear me out.

"Science and religion came to an official understanding Wednesday."

There once was a man named Carl Feldbaum and he wasn't very bright. He is the president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization and signed a paper. Upon the the parchment which the ink did dry, a signed agreement, saying that the church/science have the same ultimate goal: to improve the quality of life for all people.

I sit there staring and pondering the holes - Is Carl all hopped up on goofballs?

"Feldbaum said he realizes the political importance of consulting religious leaders in decisions on the direction of the biotech industry."

By no means do I intend disrespect (rolls eyes) but do you really want someone with a degree in mystics to help guide the company of PhDs in Science?

By no means, you dolt.

When I think the nightmare has passed I run into a news article, pure religious talk, to my dismay it continued the onslaught.

For the words in this link I will most certainly try and not rethink - I've said it before and I'll say it again: Religion is a fool's dead end.

(This one is apart of the article above.)
"The New Convergence"

Edited by XxDoubleHelixX, 27 June 2003 - 02:31 AM.


#30 immortalitysystems.com

  • Guest immortalitysystems.com
  • 81 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sausalito, California, USA, Earth

Posted 27 June 2003 - 03:39 AM

Sicknes and death are the bread and butter of religions,
that is why the agents of those institutions are oposed to gene engineering that could lead to the abolishing of old age and death.

We need meme engineering to open the door to physical immortality as a choice.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users