X-Message-Number: 26512 From: "David Pizer" <> Subject: Fw: replies to various messages 2 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:10:13 -0700 RELPY TO DAVID VERBEKE. VERBEKE: David Pizer and his quest, what a joke. Just think about the following mr. Pizer, as you re looking for arguments pro and contra you re cryo-cruisade: You want to take on religion so the believers would listen to your logical, rational arguments and wouldn t choose anymore for something that promises everything , a promise that s based on air (there you re absolutely right). PIZER: You have misunderstood my intentions. I do not want religions persons to quit choosing to do things that may lead them to eternal Heavenly life - quite the contrary. I want them to have more options. I want their message reflect only what is knowable about reality at present. I don't think reality allows if it can be known at present if Heaven really exists or not. I want the religions to quit *guaranteeing* the eternal life. I want the religions to state their beliefs as just that -- beliefs. That is also the way I want to the cryonics community to state their beliefs. I want both parties to state their beliefs in the same way. It would be just as wrong, in my opinion, for cryonics to guarantee that their technology will bring more life as it is for religions to do this. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but as two options that can double the probablity of extended life. I want to help religions make there message more realistic with reallity so that if there is a mistake in what they are promising the followers will be open-minded to other possible options. VERBEKE But the very basis of religion is that one doesn t need arguments. Religious people want to believe, they don t need arguments. The rational arguments against religion are out there, the rational arguments to take the chance and choose for cryonics are out there, all one has to do is to think for themselves (that s enlightment; Immanuel Kant). But that s what most people don t want to do (or simply aren t able to do). So again, they like/choose to follow like sheep, they don t want to think for themselves, they don t need arguments. PIZER: Religions do respond to the truth, even when it goes against their previous beliefs. Here is just one example: Religions used to teach that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. They even severly punished people who dared to think otherwise. Eventually there was just too much evidence for them to continue to hold this wrongful belief and they changed their policy and apoligized. I am hoping that this can be the case again. VERBEKE So mr. Pizer, don t have the pretention to think that you will be able to change these people, that they suddenly will listen to your rational arguments and come to the conclusion; Oh yes, mr. Pizer is right, we we re wrong all the time, let s run to Alcor or the CI and sign up for cryonics. They will only react with anger and hatred towards you, because you want to destroy the dream they like to live in. PIZER; I agree with you. Good ideas sometimes take a long time to get others to accept. It may not be fast. The better the idea is, often is related to how different from present thinking the idea is. The more different it is (and therefore the better it is) the longer it may take to get accepted. But I think the beneficial changes will come sooner if we start sooner than if we start later. VERBEKE: > So mr. Pizer, wake up out of you re own little dream and smell the thorns. As almost everyone wrote here, your action will lead to nothing, except the fact that you will put the cryonics community in great danger. PIZER: You are correct in your assessment that there is potential danger in this plan. That is why at this time, I am only disscussing in this forum attempting to flush out ideas and possible pitfalls. I would call this a risk ratio assessment discussion. That is why I would also ingestigate the idea in other forums (legal and religious) and then back to this one, before I would dare do anything. PIZER REPLIES TO RISKIN RISKIN 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. PIZER; Thank you. You have just said what I have been trying to say, Mike, and you have helped me to be more clear. Let me try again (while thinking of what you said above). I do NOT want to target organized religion per se. I do NOT want they to drop any of their beliefs. I DO want to only target "the manner" in which they state their beliefs to their followers. Specifically I only want them to state their beliefs as -- beliefs, and not as what they guarantee absolute reality is. I want them to say they hope religion leads to extended life, just as you might say you hope cryonics leads to extended life, but you are more realistic, when you add that you can not guarantee the results of cryonics. I only want them to be as realistic about their beliefs as you are about your own. Nowhere has that been made more clear to me than here on Cryonet (where even some of the top leaders of the organizations misunderstood what I said, honestly misquoted me, accidently built an army of strawmen to beat up on. I am not referring to this exchange). This debating experience has shown me that if I were to proceed to the next bigger arena, I must to do a much better job or trying to explain what my position is and what it is NOT than I did here. And this more clear understanding has to be in the very beginning. RISKIN: >Suing organized religion at worst will mobilize the faithful into retaliative law suits or simply convince them even further that they are right due to the reflex thinking of the human mind to reject processes that threaten them. PIZER: I thought that at first, but I am now not positive that there is not some way to correct this big harm that is being done. I mean here to say that there your comments are well-taken and true in many cases, but I don't think they are always true. I believe this because there have been times in history when someong opposed the standing religious beliefs and eventually the religions were convinced to accept the new thinking. RISKIN Joe Waynick, Alcor's CEO, for example, is an educated but vigorously religious person who understands the value of having alternatives at his disposal. PIZER He is of one, or a very few, in 6 billion. I would ask if he has even been able to convince his wife (also of his religious conviction) to sign up? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PIZER REPLIES TO EIVIND BERGE BERGE: David Pizer asks for more arguments against suing religion. A lot of people have supplied plenty of excellent reasons why this is a bad idea, which is what I believe too. Not just because it would imperil cryonics, but because the whole idea is utterly senseless and silly. Society is already overregulated and overly litigious; we need less of that, not more. PIZER: You are wrong here, sir. And you have identified one of the problems so far, but I think it is getting beter. A lot of people have done only what you have done above, called my arguments names (there are two arguments: 1) There is a wrong that presently exists, 2) what should be doing about it), They have expressed their fears, but they have Not supplied any excellent reasons on why this is a bad idea. I am trying to get people to do just that - give "excellent reasons" on either side. We all assume it might be a bad idea, that is why we are discussing it here. Also, what many people don't do is discuss the possible benefits these actions might be. I think you would agree that we don't want to make decisions based only on what bad things might happen, if we did we might still be swinging in the trees. I would think we would want to assess the risks vs the benefits, to ourselves and to our fellow humans. I have a feeling that you are a person who would like to do some good in the world as I am. I would bet that all we differ on is HOW to proceed. BERGE: Adding insult to injury, I find the notion of suing or coercing someone ostensibly for their own good, extremely offensive. PIZER: It is done everyday in the United States. It is called a class action suit. Our legal system allows one to sue for the benefit of an injured party(s) or to stop potential injury to them even if they don't want the suit filed. I have to operate within the framework of what exists now. I don't like this either, but I think you would agree that it is better than the way religious differences have been settled in the past and still are sometimes now. I don't want to fly an airplane into their church! BERGE: This is the kind of logic that gave us concepts like mental > illness,.............................................. PIZER: But you DO believe that people should not use fraud or force in their persuasion. Further even if that fraud is one that comes from an honest mistake, you realize that the bad results can be the same from an accident as from an intentional harm. The government already has the power. I think you miss the intention of the suit. The suit is to gain the attention of decision makers in religions to cause them to think about the mistake they are making, to cause them to think about an alternative way that their goal of extended life for their followers might be reached. To persuade them with logic and evidence that they are making an honest mistake that might lead their followers away from the goals they want to help those followers reach. I don't think you would object to an action that caused a party to correct a mistaken way they were presenting their case if that mistake they were comitting was harming millions of people, or more?? BERGE: Actually in this case it is not so much scary as laughable (unless you are a cryonicist). America is already famous for absurd lawsuits; this would be the funniest one yet. A uniquely American approach to a very unAmerican purpose. And so what if religions had to include a disclaimer? I think normally intelligent people already understand that when religions speak of eternal life and heaven, they are in fact referring to belief, not assurances. PIZER: Then you would be wrong. I have seen the rejection of cryonics based only on the of the dying person that they were guaranteed a place in Heaven. If you miss this point, it will be impossible to convince you of what really happens. Perhaps it would help if you talked to some other old-time cryoncists like my self who have see this over that last 20+ years? PIZER REPLIES TO PERRY PIZER HAD SAID: > David Pizer wrote: Can you suggest a better immediate (people are dying every day, time is of the essence) way than a lawsuit to get something going that will cause Religions to rephrase their beliefs as just that -- beliefs, and not as absolutetruth? MIKE > Dave, you say you want evidence for any recommendations that are made (including not to proceed with the lawsuit--my recommendation and just about everybody else's). Maybe you should talk to some devout believers who are not cryonicists--I'm not sure where you'd find them but you have contacts. DAVID: You are correct. If I were to continue with this plan it would go something like this: 1. Discuss this within the cryonics community. Get as many ideas as possible. Try to find the major problems with the initial argument and the secondary argument about what to do about it. At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go forward to step two, or continue to do more research in step one. 2. Go to religious leaders and ask them what they think will happen if I file. At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go forward to the next step, or continue to do more research in step one. 3. Talk to legal advisors for advice. At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go forward to the next step, or continue to do more research in step one. 4. Take all this back to the cryonics community to get their take on what I was told in 2 & 3. At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go forward with the suit (or if some better method has been found by then, go forward with that one).. 5. All the time looking for other possible (better) ways to fix the problem. MIKE: Other considerations are that the courts themselves are composed of non-cryonicists, many of whom are religious themselves, and they do consider precedent in arriving at decisions. DAVID: We don't have to win in court. Odds are against that. We need the world-wide forun generated by the suit to respectfully show the world the problem and try to get them to help fix it. Their goals are our goals - more life, more life and more life. We both want to help fellow humans have more life. ===================================== Final note: As you all know (some of you better than I) there are several types of debates, including (but not limited to) 1. Personal debates. Where one tries to win the dabate at all costs. Lying, name-calling, anything goes in this type of debate. This is not the type of debate I am looking for. 2. Negotiating debate. Try to get the best deal you can. This is not what I am looking for either. 3. Perssuation debate. Where you try to persuade the other party, and they try to persuade you. But you want to win your point. We may have to settle on this one, but I would hope for #4. 4. Truth-seeking debate. Each side tries to state their evidence and logic as best they can. They honestly and respectfully listend fully to the other side. When it is possible they grant the other side the benefit of a doubt (For instance, you would grant that the other side's intentions are as just as you own unless there was evidence opposite) This is type of debate I am seeking out here. The results of this debate can affect our lives and the lives of millions of other. In this case, doing nothing has consequences to many other people who may not choose cryonics who might have. It also might harm the existing cryonics if we do not change this wrongful situation, because the success of OUR survival may fail only because there were not enough people in our movement. Perhaps, in some way, your own self-interest may be harmed by doing nothing? I hope you will keep this in mind if you choose to debate further. I also realize that sometimes I don't follow these guidelines - by not on purpose. I sincerely state here that my purpose in staying in this on-going debate is to try to find the truth, as much as it can be known, about the conclusion of my first argument (which concludes religions are doing something wrong, maybe by mistake) and the conclusions of my second argument which tries to explore what is the best thing to do about this harm, (If anything can be done). And to try to discover how to proceed to cause the most good with the less risk of harm resulting. I define "good" here as more people signing up for cryonics. I define "harm" as doing something that causes people not to sign up or prevents cryonics from being practiced.. If I could say it in a nutshell, I would like to know the probability of all possible results of continuing on. I don't think we can know the results themselves, but can we know the probablity of each possible one? David Pizer Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26512