X-Message-Number: 26533 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:33:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: Re: Pizer vs. Religions David, Thanks for your reply. 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 said: >I actually have two arguments. The first one is that there is a wrong being done.< Actually, you re argument is that there may be a wrong being done. If the religion is true, no harm is being done. Of course, this can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed which is exactly what would make your court case so weak. 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.> David replied: Example: If you already have a guarantee that your mother will have dinner on the table when you get home tonight for you and all your family, then it is logical that you will not stop at Jack-in-the-Box on the way home and buy dinner for you and all your family. All due respect, but I think this is a bad analogy. Most religions encourage their members to honor their bodies by seeking necessary medical attention when needed and staying healthy so that can better serve their families and their communities. 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. However, I expect the cure for aging to come about long before the technology needed to reanimate suspendees. It s interesting to think about what will happen then. Will religious people take advantage of life extension technologies, or will they be so anxious to head on home to their mother s cooking that they opt for an early (natural) death? I imagine a movement will develop urging Christians to reject artificial life enhancement. It ll be called blasphemous . . . playing God. But isn t choosing to not use life extension technologies equivalent to pulling the plug on patients using life support? A life could have been saved with either one. As Bob Ettinger said, We re all sick. Some are just sicker than others. Even for those who take advantage of LE, I suspect most are going to eventually choose to pass over and join their God. Regardless, my guess is that, the world will eventually be a much more secular place to live in. 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. 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. It s just not where our market is. Or as the salesman would say, Those leads are cold! Best wishes, Scott Badger Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26533