X-Message-Number: 18376
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:03:56 -0500
From: Keith Henson <>
Subject: Re: A humanist's flirtation with Immortalism

At 10:00 AM 19/01/02 +0000, you wrote: "John de Rivaz" <>
wrote:

>References: <>
>Subject: Re: A humanist's flirtation with Immortalism
>Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:05:10 -0000
>
>----- Original Message ----- > Message #18366
> > From: "Mark Plus" <>
> > Subject: A humanist's flirtation with Immortalism
> > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:34:19 -0800
> >
> > continue even today, Christianity will deserve the "credit" for putting at
> > least our grandparents' generation, and our parents' and our own in their
> > graves. How many more will be lost before the conquest of death?
>
>Why single out Christianity? Is not all religion similarly responsible -
>diverting effort from what really may solve the problem of death into
>pointless ceremony and ritual?

Memetic reasons.  This is an article with the point of bringing Humanists 
around to our view of the world, call it progressive as opposed to the 
dominant view some years ago of "liberal guilt," that it was unfair for a 
few selfish people to live while all the poor died.  Some of you may 
remember the very hostile reaction cryonics got (we were asked to leave) a 
Humanist meeting in San Jose ten or twelve years ago.  Unitarians shared 
much of the same ideas, a Unitarian minister was defrocked for speaking out 
about cryonics about the same time.

Anyway, if you want to convince a Humanist readership that cryonics is a 
good idea, then blaming religions for it being delayed is a tactic.

Keith Henson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18376