X-Message-Number: 26545 From: "David Pizer" <> References: <> Subject: A few brief replies Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:18:28 -0700 I will try to keep these replies brief. David Reply to Mike Riskin Mike said: It is my opinion that Dave Pizer's target ( organized religion) is incorrectly chosen. The real problem is not what organized religion may say or promise, but the manner in which individual peoples think about what is said or promised. David: I have no problem with this opinion. But don't you think that "How" religions present their beliefs as guarantees influences "the manner in which individual people think about what is said or promised." And it is this "How" religions present their beliefs that is all I have a difference with. Mike: The great majority of people are concerned with and deal with the difficult idea of one's personal death by ( take your pick): preoccupation with other earthly matters that seem more understandable and controllable; genuine belief that they do not actually want more life here on earth than the approximately 80 years given to them David: I have no problem with this opinion. But it is the "Why" they feel this way that I am wanting to find a way to fix. Reply to Scott Badger SCOTT: My problem with your persistent use of the word guarantee is that, in the minds of most, the word evokes the idea that there should be some form of remedy offered if the customer is dissatisfied with the product or service. That seems different to me than claims, assurances, or even promises. In your opinion, they re saying something to the effect of it being a guarantee. Why be so picky about these various terms, you ask? Because the courts will likely be even pickier. DAVID: I can't think of any other word that better describes what I am complaining about. My Webster says: "Guarantee: formal assurance (esp. in writing) that procuct, ect. will meet certain standards, last for a given time, etc." "teed, -teeing. give guarantee of, for somethin; secure (against risk, etc)." I am open to using a better word if I can find one. SCOTT" I previously said: Another big problem with your argument is that you assume that this alleged guarantee is THE reason people choose to be religious, but that's a fallacy. There are many other factors that contribute to religiosity which you are not taking into consideration. (ONE EXAMPLE GIVEN) Cryonics is just another example of a medical procedure. The fact that our case isn t strong enough to convince people of this yet is pretty much our fault. I think when cryonics is demonstrated to be a medically valid procedure, Christians will flock (pun intended) to our doors just like everyone else. DAVID: You do give other reasons why they might choose religions (below) but no argument why these other reasons, and NOT the eternal life reason are the real reasons people choose religions. > Finally, your analogy doesn t really address my point that there are > many other factors besides the promise of a heavenly afterlife that > affect religiosity. The need to explain the universe, the need for a > forgiving father, the need for a powerful intermediary to intercede on > our behalves in dire times, the need to relieve our feelings of grief > when loved ones die, the need to know that those who get away with > murder will ultimately be punished, and on and on. I think that all these reasons are extra perks, but that the real reason that religion has lasted so long and that people choose it today is the promise and guarantee of eternal life and that all else is just an extra. But even if the guarantee of eternal life only caused 50% of the followers to choose religions (and therefore believe they don't need cryonics) that is still a lot of people we could help if we could make all the players only promise what is knowable at the present time and only guarantee what they can know for certain they can deliver. SCOTT: My real point in the previous paragraph is that those who are drawn to cryonics tend to score relatively LOW on a religiosity scale. Even if you forced churches to provide a caveat that they might be wrong, all the other factors that contribute to making a person religious (possibly even including their personality type) would still result in them tending to score relatively HIGH on a religiosity scale. DAVID: And your point here seems to prove my point. Only people who don't believe in religion's guarantee are signing up for cryonics. If your point is correct, and I think it is, if we can cause people to more realistically understand the truth about what religion should only be promising, then more people would be like us, not positive that religion leads to eternal life in Heaven, and so they might also choose cryonics. This would give them two possible ways of obtaining more life after legal death. Flavonoid: Subject: Would David Pizer Please Restate the Text of Both of His David says he now has two arguments, not one, though all I have seen is the re-editing of one argument. I would truly love to see the logic behind what appears to be flagrant emotionalism, so would David please state the current text of both arguments, separately and clearly, so that readers can see and comment? I will withhold comment for a reasonable time until and if any important flaws are not mentioned. David: OK, but I don't have time to do it right this moment. I need a day or two. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26545