• 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
- - - - -

Religion: The Ultimate Cure for Transhumanism?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Casanova

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 June 2003 - 12:49 AM


Religion: The Ultimate Cure for Transhumanism?: it will be again.

If not, then say goodbye to human dignity, and to humanity, itself. Secularism, athesim, and materialisim, all whirl in a circle. They begin, where they end, nowhere. Human hamsters running on wheels, stoping now, and again, to see if they have gotten anywhere, and then running again, in a mad, frantic, chase to find meaning, purpose, structure, order.
While the secularites debate in a vacuum, their society turns into a pigsty, of sleaze, imbecility, rage, resentment, bad art, etc.

We will return to religion when the devastation created by materialism, secularism, atheism, becomes so horrendous that we can't stand it any longer.
The last 30 years, which has experienced a really good example of materialism, will be seen for what it really is; a toilet kept unflushed by secularism, and aetheism and their pals, post-moderism, etc.

It's time to flush the toilet.
Most of you have been memed into thinking, and feeling, that the unflushed toilet smells great, that it actually is a work of art, that it has deep meaning. You stare, and stare, at it, when the thing to do is to flush it.

Edited by Casanova, 29 June 2003 - 12:53 AM.


#2 Discarnate

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

Posted 29 June 2003 - 03:09 AM

Hi - logging in from TV2003 at the moment, for just a moment. Saw this and had to reply...

Human dignity is protected by more than just religion. It can be religion, true, but that's not the exclusive protection of human dignity. Other examples include but are not limited to mutual self interest - I won't pee in your pool if you don't in mine, morals derived from other than a diety figure (which, in some ways, may still be a religion - see Buddhism, for one, and many online group for others) etc

If we return to INVOLUNTARY religion, we've missed the whole point, everything we've learned as a species. Humans are PRECIOUS, including their rights to make their own mistakes. If you are christian, that's an implicit part of your belief structure - God gave us free will, after all. What good is coerced religion? No good at all. God (assuming He/She/It/They exist) is omniscient, and KNOWS who's been naughty and who's been nice, and for what reason.

The last 30 years has experienced a large degree of materialism, true. It has also experienced a huge growth in religion, especially fundamentalist religion. *shrug* Which came first? Pay yer money, and take yer pick. It's Einstein's world, not Aristotle's - each frame of reference is at least potentially valid. And there is no ultimate frame of reference.

If it's time to flush the toilet, what goes first?

Hatred?

Intolerance?

Bigotry?

Each, IMO, is a much larger problem than materialism, or for that matter, religion. Each is WIDE spread, and each infects many if not all of the institutions of man.

Just my 3 cents worth...

-Discarnate

#3 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 June 2003 - 03:09 AM

Why do the critics of atheism never spell the word correctly?

I cannot defend the behavior of atheists but I know of no reason why the history of religious believers testifies to their moral superiority. I suppose that the author of this thread would rather burn witches at the stake and fly passenger jets into skyscrapers? Even if we granted that religion might have a beneficial influence upon the behavior of people, which is false, most believers do not allow their beliefs to influence their behavior. Self interest, evolutionary psychology, and custom govern the devout, like the infidels, more than fiction.

Edited by John Doe, 29 June 2003 - 03:11 AM.


#4 Discarnate

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

Posted 29 June 2003 - 11:55 AM

Um, John? "I suppose that the author of this thread would rather burn witches at the stake and fly passenger jets into skyscrapers?"

That's ad-hominem. You're attacking the person writing the post rather than the concepts in the post. To keep things from degenerating into a flame war and loosing all meaningful communication, we don't like that here. The rest of your post has some excellent points and critiques, but please don't attack people here - only ideas.

Thanks,
Discarnate

#5 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 June 2003 - 01:00 PM

Um, John? "I suppose that the author of this thread would rather burn witches at the stake and fly passenger jets into skyscrapers?"

That's ad-hominem. You're attacking the person writing the post rather than the concepts in the post. To keep things from degenerating into a flame war and loosing all meaningful communication, we don't like that here. The rest of your post has some excellent points and critiques, but please don't attack people here - only ideas.

Thanks,
Discarnate


Although you may be right, ad hominem fallacies are defined as mentioning irrelevant character traits of the opponent. In this case, however, the moral character of believers, including the author, is highly relevant. If he were arguing that God exists, rather than the moral superiority of theists, your objection might be more valid.

http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

#6 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,027 posts
  • 51
  • Location:Austria

Posted 29 June 2003 - 04:45 PM

Most of you have been memed into thinking, and feeling, that a crucified body looks great, that it actually is a work of art, that it has deep meaning. :-)

#7 Christian

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 June 2003 - 10:13 PM

I don't think it's religion by itself that we need. I think we need a higher cause. Something that's greater than us. Something that we can work towards beyond our own survival and advancement. For me that cause is God. For others it may be humanitarian aid or working with nature or even (shudder) politics. When we work for something greater than ourselves it often makes feel better and it will probably help our society as well.

That's my take on it at least.

Christian

#8 DJS

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

Posted 30 June 2003 - 10:29 PM

Dust in the Wind
Kansas

I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone.
All my dreams, pass before my eyes a curiosity.
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea.
All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see.
Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind.

Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky.
It slips away, all your money won't another minute buy.
Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind.


Oh no, not me. You see, I crave immortality. I refuse to submit to a state of oblivion. Why should I? The prize is within our reach. To turn back now, at this very unique point in history!?! After all of the progress made by humanity, to refuse it all! Never.

When the secret fantasy of all of humankind is presented to it as the new reality there will be no doubt of its decision. Your assessment of human nature and its core desires is flawed. Humanity has always chosen progress, and they always will choose progress.

Religion is past its high point in the western world. Its grip on us will end when our fear of death ends. The tide is turning Casanova, and people with your mindset are dust in the wind.

Edited by Kissinger, 30 June 2003 - 10:43 PM.


#9 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 30 June 2003 - 11:25 PM

Christian,

The reason why humans enjoy working toward a 'higher purpose' is revealed in our evolutionary psychology (re: http://www.psych.ucs...cep/primer.html ). Evolution has selected for those of us who are cooperative toward the clan. There are powerful chemical rewards that are triggered in our brains when we think about helping the group. Plus humans crave peer attention and social status. The best way to get both are to do 'good deeds'. Christianity and other religions have taped into this universal trait and are using it to their advantage. While this may not sound to bad, pipe dreams about an afterlife, heaven, hell, and nirvana are distracting especially if one truly wishes to help people. No angle is going to stop suffering. No god is going to stop aging and death. Only humans.

I suggest substituting a religious following with something that will have much more leverage and do much more good over time such as helping biotech antiaging researchers and/or promoting transhumanist ideas. The immediate social reward will be small, yet over time this too will change as more people embrace a future free from the scourge of involuntary death and suffering.

I agree, however, that we need to create a more cohesive and inspiring philosophy, way of looking at life. The current ideas do not adequately answer all the questions about living forever.. is it possible?.. would it be good?.. etc.. therefore, we're working on some short answers here: http://www.imminst.org/wiki/shortfaq

#10 Discarnate

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

Posted 01 July 2003 - 12:49 AM

Personally, I consider a religious meme-set possibly quite beneficial.

It depends on what KIND of religion interpretation you follow. Do you think your religion makes you special? That you have something you're smugly certain others don't? That you pity those without your insights? This, IMO, is mostly a fractuous persona to offer.

If, instead, your interpretation of religion includes helping people, preferably without those people having to be co-religionists of yours, I'd personally rate that as a benefice.

*shrug* I offer this not to argue over, simply as another point of view.

-Discarnate

#11 hughbristic

  • Guest Hugh Bristic
  • 137 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 July 2003 - 12:51 AM

Although you may be right, ad hominem fallacies are defined as mentioning irrelevant character traits of the opponent.  In this case, however, the moral character of believers, including the author, is highly relevant.  If he were arguing that God exists, rather than the moral superiority of theists, your objection might be more valid.

http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html


I'm with you, brother! I'm not gonna start the ad hominem attacks, but if someone comes a' trolling with hyperbolic rhetoric and slanderous comparisons, I think the options are to ignore it or, if patience wears thin, to point out the flaws of character that might lead one to behave so inappropriately.

Hugh

#12 Psychodelirium

  • Guest Philosopher
  • 26 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 July 2003 - 12:51 AM

You stare, and stare, at it, when the thing to do is to flush it.


Does anyone else feel that this is growing old and tired?

Edited by Psychodelirium, 01 July 2003 - 12:52 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users