[extropy-chat] Still confused:)

[Rik van Riel]

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Because this is the native language of the majority of people
>>> that we want to reach.
>> Could that be religious?
> 
> Define please.  I don't see why a shift of language modality is or is  
> likely to be religious.

A lot of people seem to think and talk in beliefs, not
necessarily reasoning.

>> If I phrase my own transhumanist beliefs in a religious framework,
>> I end up with something like the following (feel free to copy it):
>>
>> "If we are God's children, I believe we should grow up. If there
>>   are no gods (yet), I believe we should try to fill that void."
> 
> I have been asking "What happens when the 'children of God' grow up?"  
> since I was 10.  The question is usually not taken kindly much less  
> pondered.  Religions largely don't seem to be about any real  
> exploration or truth seeking, oddly enough.

They're about beliefs...

>> Yeah, I realize that might not actually help much to convince
>> the masses :)
> 
> Increasingly I believe the masses are irrelevant and the attempt to  
> convince them is an utter waste of precious time and resources.

What I wonder is whether extropian goals can be achieved without
the momentum of supporters/believers.  Not necessarily the blind
faith believers you see in many other religions, but it might be
useful/necessary/fun to organize extropian resources a little
more.

OTOH, anything organized tends to take on a life of its own, and
eventually run counter to its original goals and philosophy...

-- 
What is important?  What you want to be true, or what is true?