[ExI] Putting God to Rest

Thu May 3 07:35:29 UTC 2007

I just wanted to say  to Anna Taylor (and anyone else who is interested) that the Mormon Transhumanist Association website would be a good potential place to continue this discussion.  You certainly don't have to be a Mormon or even a Theist to post there. 

  http://transfigurism.org/community/

  Best wishes,

  John Grigg

Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
  Hi Samantha, 

I debated replying to your points as I feel I don't
want to bore people and I don't feel like dealing with
meta:) 
Here are my last thoughts and hope we can continue
this offlist. I did enjoy your points and would like
to discuss it further.

Thanks for your input, 
Anna:)

>I have no need to debate a subject I have studied
>long and hard and reached completion on. I certainly
>have no need to "debate" with those who believe
>nonsense such as bible inerrancy that it is clearly
>erroneous or bizarre notions at blatant contradiction
>with ....

There are a lot of people that believe in nonsense
whether it be in the field of philosophy, science,
math, physics, psychology, the inerrancy is taught to
people. I could see why you would not respect someone
that is harmfully teaching something. I believe most
on this list would not allow anybody to teach
inerrancy.

>Depends on the "Religion". If particular beliefs are
>nonsense and even harmful nonsense then not saying so
>can be tacit support. This does not mean that it
>makes sense to say so in all circumstances. 

I agree but i'm not sure how you are using the word
"Religion". Many people have their beliefs as to what
religion represents to them. I believe as of date,
that there are four factors when it comes to religion.
The books, (scriptures, texts,writings, etc.), the
preachers, the believers and the "unindentified
beliefs". 

>>>>What business do you have speaking about God and
>>>>what God might object to? 

>>>I have taken the time to learn theology so I feel I
>>>have every business discusing God with my mother. 

>>Not the same thing. Context was lost. If you act
>>contrary to your own understanding that is not a
>>good thing. If you do not believe in God and yet
>>speak about what God wants then that is a clear
>>contradiction. 

Yes I agree, I should have been more clear about that.
We can still have rational debate about what
scriptures make sense and we can still discuss what is
being preached. Considering that she is an open minded
individual, we can even discuss Transhumanism,
cryonics, future technology etc. We don't necessarily
discuss "God" as a spirit, as our images don't reflect
in that area:) 

>You said at one time that you are not a believer.
>Then you speak as if you are or see nothing
>problematic about being one. So I am a bit confused
>where you stand on the matter or in my attempts to
>understand your position. No one has the right to
>automatic respect. Respect is earned or it is a sham
>meaning nothing.

Within any religious realm people believe in Something
as opposed to Nothing. They become religious for that
fact. Nothing means to me, "it's of no interest to
me". The belief in unindentified beliefs as opposed to
the disbelief of unindentified beliefs. I can relate
to both. I did give the example that Isaac Newton was
a scientist yet had religious beliefs. I respect both
sides and feel that religious or not, it has no
relevancy to this list.

>I don't know why you want to go down this path of "if
>X then Y" about hypotheticals not remotely in
>evidence. I speak for myself not for the list. Much
>of religion is reprehensible. That is my experience
>and very considered opinion. It came from many years
>of my life diligently exploring the subject both
>theoretically and as a serious practitioner. How dare
>you tell me that my considered opinion is
>disrespectful of those who believe! What a cheap
>shot. 

I didn't want to go down any path of "if X then Y". I
was trying to get the point accross about the common
courtesy and respect for other people's beliefs. I
apologize if that's the way you took it, it wasn't my
intention. (I try not do cheap shots as it's against
my religion:)

>Presumably you grew up in it so you are perfectly
>aware of such. Start with the doctrine of eternal
>damnation for one measly lifetime where the proper
>dogma was somehow not properly believed and go on
>from there. To create imperfect beings and then
>punish them eternally for not being perfect is about
>as definitive of Evil as it gets.

I brought up the fact that preachers in religious
orders may/can/will/want to/etc., be harmful and may
even create evil within the realm of unindentified
beliefs. That does not mean that all religions,
beliefs, and books cause such beliefs. 

>I think you may have an odd notion of what respect
>entails or how and when it should be shown. If I have
>found through my own study that X is ridiculous I
>would no be doing anyone any favors by refusing to
>say so. It certainly would not be any sign >of
"respect". The world of the Enlightenment in under
>attack in the US by many religious organizations.
>Such automatic "respect" could lead to the
>destruction of much we hold dear. 

I know that I respect many on the list no matter what
are their "unindentified beliefs". Obviously I find
many on the list to be rational. In that, how they
choose to label their Enlightment is irrelevant to me
as long as ridicule on either side is taken out of the
equation. There is no discussion within ridicule. I
read that in psychology that ridicule is used to
enhance one's own lack of self-confidence, i'm not
sure if it is correct, but that's what I heard.

>I have no "blatant hate" and it is very hateful of
>you to say I do. Your responses seem contradictory to
>me. 

Yes, my apology, (damn emotions:). Although at times
I feel that your comments are rather harsh, I find
your points rational and clear. 

>No you were not. You were telling atheists in effect
>to shut up. 

Actually I was telling both sides to shut up and stop
ridiculing. What's the point?

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070503/e18f7e18/attachment.html>