[extropy-chat] Still confused:)

[Samantha Atkins]

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.

> 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.

>
> 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.   I do  
not like this conclusion of mine but that doesn't entitle me to reject  
it.

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

Importance may only be assessed in a context of values, possibilities  
and so on.  What we want is part of "what is true".   Please clarify  
what you wanted to ask.

- samantha