Adrian Tymes wrote:
> [Extropian Principles snipped]
> If this is re: debunking religions, the chain of thought appears (to
> me) to be roughly:
> * I believe the EP are good ideals to follow.
> * I believe that a majority of religious powers (not for instance God,
> but people whose influsence derives from religion, like the Pope)
> see the popularity of ideals like the EP as eroding their power.
I think we'll all be real happy when we are considered a threat
to the Vatican. May that day come soon.
> * I back this belief up with all kinds of evidence from history.
> * I therefore believe that these same religious powers direct their
> followers to hate and do bad things to people who believe ideals like
> the EP.
You mean, like the stuff the 700 club brews up? If ever there
were a fit for the antiChrist it would have to be Pat Robertson.
> * I back this belief up with all kinds of evidence from history, and
> from recent statements and - more importantly - actions by these
No offense, but I think we're still too small to appear on most
of their radars.
> * I therefore believe that my belief in the EP puts me in some danger.
> * I believe that we are approaching a point where technology, and the
> inevitable consequential understanding of the human condition, will
I haven't noticed any great strides in understanding the human
condition coming out of science and technology. Evolutionary
psychology is interesting and has a lot to say in some areas but
much of what is said is not too easy to test and some of it is
unfalsifiable. I especially haven't seen a coherent ethics come
out of science and technology yet.
> be so advanced as to render obvious the fallacies in these
> religious powers' religions, and thus motivate all but a few to
> openly denounce all such religions, thus demolishing their power.
I think you are dreaming. There is simply too much of life
science doesn't have a good grip on yet.
> * I believe that they are aware of this oncoming time, therefore I
> believe that their self interest demands that they do everything
> they can to attack technology and those who back it.
> * I back this up with their recent statements and actions.
Then go ahead and back it up.
> * My belief in the EP makes me a poster child technology promoter,
> therefore the danger to my own life will increase significantly,
> becoming one of the main dangers to such if it is not already.
> * (Some of us believe it is nowhere near that dangerous yet, and
> will not be for many years to come. The evidence from recent
> events can be argued either way.)
> * I do not wish to be in this type and magnitude of danger.
> * Therefore, I wish to take action to get myself out of danger.
> * Among the options that have occurred to me to resolve this problem,
> the most appealing is to hasten the demise of these religions through
> making people no longer believe them, thus largely negating the
> religious powers' influence.
If religion was your primary worry this might make sense. It
isn't. The established state and economic powers are the one's
who will notice the potential threat and act first and most
effectively. Your energy is misdirected. Some of the
religious focus and sentiment can actually be turned to the aid
of most of our causes with a bit of imagination. Come out
trumpeting that you will destroy all religion though and you
will probably be squashed quite quickly. Your more powerful
enemies will help quite happily while making it look as if it
came from the religious.
> ...which leads to the debate as to how to do such a thing. Personally,
> my own thought chain offers a different solution: hasten debunking via
> technology, both by exploring how exactly this happens (a good
> understanding of science can already offer much immunity from religious
> memes) and by getting the relevant advanced technolgies into many
I have a good understanding of science. Believe me, it is not
that a effective an antidote.
> peoples' hands (thus making it easier to obtain said good
> understanding, through frequent interaction with demonstrations of the
> principles - for instance, experiencing memories copied into one's
> brain by purely physical processes, which would not be possible if the
> "soul" which contained such was purely nonphysical). A person can be
Who says? This would actually demonstrate very little. And of
course we can't do this today.
> silenced by a number of means (bullet, court order, inflicted poverty,
> etc.); a widely spread meme is more difficult to displace (which works
> both for and against us).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:43 MDT