X-Message-Number: 26570 From: "David Pizer" <> References: <> Subject: More replies on July 10th Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:20:09 -0700 PIZER: I am posting these replies here today as a courtesy to those who still express some interest in the exploratory discussion that I originally originated. But PLEASE REMEMBER, several times I tried to clear up some misconceptions. To do that, I posted that I have not meant to say that we should sue religions here and now, what I ment to say, and what I think all I did only say, is that Cryonet might be a good place to discuss this possible action; to consider whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. Further, about a week ago, I posted (after I had considered the replies of others) that I was not planning to sue any religions. It is true that I still think that the way religions absoluteley guarantee eternal life in Heaven may not be the best way for them to accomplish their ultimate goal of helping people obtain more life, but how that might be fixed is not something that I have any confidence about. So again, let me repeat: I am NOT planning to sue any religions at this time. And I am not initiating any new discussions on this. I am willing to respond to anyone who posts on this subject as a courtesy. I think these discussions have run their course and we would be well served to move on. David Reply to Beth Bailey BETH SAID: My response: Because of the nature of the world we live in, the act of signing up for cryonics in and of itself is a HUGE statement of courage. The sheer force of will, organization, and fortitude it takes to be a cryonicist is the antithesis of "helpless." Ask any potential suicide bomber, with sufficient motivation dying is easy. Staying alive takes brains, guts, and heart. I suppose this whole cryonics vs. religion topic has really struck a chord with me because I have been trying to convince my very religious husband to sign up for cryonics. PIZER: This is a nice way to put it. Pizer responds to Kennita Watson KENNITA I think you have hit on a much more profitable tack, both financially and in terms of saving lives. Find verses in the Bible that suggest that Jesus would be in favor of cryonics and become a televangelist. PIZER: One that I always thought was on-point is in Mathew where Jesus says something like: Go forward and heal the sick and raise the dead. REPLE TO MIKE PERRY MIKE: All right, granted we have something of an uphill fight to convince people that cryonics is a reasonable thing to do. We don't expect to win over a great many people immediately, given its unusual nature and much greater cost compared to conventional burial or cremation. DAVID: But this is the main point for the reason for the initial discussion in the first place. If we concede what you want to above, then no discussion of what should we do is neccessary. Why is it that "We don't expect to win over a great many people immediately......?" I suggested that the reason why is the way religions guarantee that extended (extended eternally) life already is available in Heaven is an easier way to eternally extend one's life than the remote possibility of mere unknown-duration, extended life from cryonics. I suggested that religions may be wrong. Would you not agree that if religions only stated their beliefs as beliefs, if they were to say something like "We think our beliefs are true, but we adimt in this present time the final results in an absolute sense are unknowable" that more people might consider other methods of life extension as those possible methods that are the hopes of science. MIKE: I do care about the people of the world today who are going to their deaths, and I would like to see them all signed up for cryonics. But I don't think exactly like you, in that I think cryonics can be justified independently of whether it is necessary for eternal life, *and* people of today can understand and accept this, including religious people, *and* you don't have to challenge their belief in alternatives or ultimate fate or whether death is truly eternal. You propose a frontal assault on something very important to religious people, the *certainty and confidence* they feel about their beliefs, and this I think would be a bigger affront than you realize. DAVID: I guess I just am unable to say my position clear enough, because people keep missing it. Let me try again. You said to me: "You propose a frontal assault on something very important to religious people, the *certainty and confidence* they feel about their beliefs, and this I think would be a bigger affont than you realize." First, if it was a bigger affront than I realize (as you claim that I don't realize this), then why did I say a week ago that I had no intention to proceed. Why did I say in the beginning that my intentions were not to do anything at this time but to only discuss this. The answer to this question is: I did say these two things because I realized that this might be a big affront to them that might blow up in my (our) face. Can I make this any clearer somehow, Mike? Next, you say that they have beliefs that they hold with *certainty and confidence," and imply that because they hold their beliefs with certainty that trying to bring about changes in how they arrive at their certainty (even if they might be the right thing to do from a moral standpoint) cannot or should not be done. But my very discussion is whether we should point out that the certainty they believe in may be wrong. If they agree, then everything else falls into place. It is the certainty that is the only thing I think is a correctable mistake they may be making. It seems like your argument is something like this: "We should not try to affect the certainty of how they hold and express their beliefs, (even thought that might be the right thing to do), because they hold them with certainty." MIKE: I also have a burning question about the suit: who would be named as the defendants? DAVID: We never got that far. If you remember, I suggested that the way we proceed would be to discuss this on Cryonet. If it seemed like there was support for this idea, we would then talk to religious leaders, attorneys and others and then go back to the cryonics community. We never go past the first step. That is wy a while ago I said that I was dropping this and would only respond to any lingering questions. I suppose that if this had materialized the defendants would have been any religion or church or individual that "guaranteed" eternal life in Heaven. But there are no defendants. There is no lawsuit. Now it is time to move on to other subjects. BY THE WAY, MIKE MENTIONED SOME OTHER IDEA. I THOUGHT IT MERITED A REAPONSE BUT IS WAS OFF THIS TOPIC AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT IN A SEPARATE POST. (WHICH FOLLOWS) Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26570