Erik Moeller wrote:
>re.li.gious adj [ME, fr. OF religieus, fr. L religiosus, fr. religio] (13c)
>1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
>to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a ~ person> <~ attitudes> 2:
>of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs
>or observances 3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent,
>zealous -- re.li.gious.ly adv --
>re.li.gious.ness n
>
>be.lief n [ME beleave, prob. alter. of OE geleafa, fr. ge-, associative
>prefix + leafa; akin to OE lyfan] (12c) 1: a
>state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person
>or thing 2: something believed; esp: a tenet
>or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some
>statement or the reality of some being or
>phenomenon esp. when based on examination of evidence
>
> the religous belief in a free will and individual freedom
> the religous belief in extropy which is considered as an ultimate
>reality
> the belief in the solution of today's problems through the use of
>superior technology
Whoops! Here's where I've got to stop you. Of course extropianism is a
system of beliefs by this definition, but then, so is any philosophy.
However, you neglected the most important part of your point, which is the
definition of FAITH.
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's
promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in
something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
especially : a system of religious beliefs
Well, let's run down the list, shall we? I think I already discounted 1.
Using 2a or 3 as a definition would create a circular definition for the
purposes of our debate, since we looked up faith to define religious.
Most importantly, we do NOT have complete trust in the extropian
principles. Again, I for one believe in other principles from which
extropianism seems to follow. I do not "trust" extropianism in any way,
shape or form. And while you might assert that we believe in these things
prooflessly, you have not proven this at all, and I might just as easily
use it with respect to a Marxist or a Kantian moral philosopher until I had
actually SHOWN that their theories were without proof.
So it seems to me that in order to show that we agree with extropianism
prooflessly, you'll have to disprove it; I hope to give you a run for your
money in the process. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQEVAwUBNUI8PPJQm6Y3yAfNAQExCQf/VOt87C40tk3242TVTeYTpODZjaZbdjax
RwsktumSvuOkTHAxNk0GUBTe09gIEwGfBQ3hDJW5bpw6XyGSiUG36RR+pKaUn3wn
yR6oro2cjyjZ0O6kYev1IpGCNQR6AvqWrkncuyBqdqBcpLMgeQCnqf2FnVkUwbVg
nCle985yW7HSwhjZH4Q/M51E0qHl9k91h6a8nXGgr5i3+t2aSHHW/1nauhg1Hji7
evWpZR0RIg5d2uPKzXwLGYr0c70X6RtG1rh65M/sBI8AQiXjFoVdoV4kzbWY4o1k
NIFCyA+fd+EYPizAWvEFxgrcExwKXcyGeyT4lKZZ3nmi4Fmxnw1mPQ==
=iWR0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LIVE-