From: Simon McClenahan (SMcClenahan@ATTBI.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 15:00:43 MST
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> But is it a con when the mark WANTS to be conned, any more than beating
> a masochist can be considered abuse?
I don't see the parallel you are trying to make here. Theists that are open
to conversion can be convinced or persuaded to both another theism or
atheism. Just because someone is open to change does not mean they are
actively looking to change. In your analogy, if you desire to be conned,
then you cease to become a mark. Your masochist analogy doesn't hold either,
since you could consider giving the masochist a warm fuzzy hug can also be
considered abuse.
> The golden rule is to treat others as they want to be treated, not as
> you think they should be treated... from that perspective, formulating
> and promulgating an extropic transhumanist theology for the use of the
> religiously inclined is an ethical endeavor.
Being a mark or a victim may be in a person's nature, but that does not mean
they want to be victimized. A potential Church of Extropia recruit does not
want a God in nanotech form because most likely by their concept of what a
God should be, nanotech does not fit into that. I think that re-writing the
stories in the Bible substituting God concepts with nanotech concepts would
probably reveal more about an atheist model of life rather than theist.
I know that Extropianism does not exclude theists, but I have been assuming
that those who do "get it", the principles of Extropianism, have adopted an
atheist lifestyle anyway... do any of the Big Guns here care, or dare, to
comment on their personal beliefs with regard to atheism?
cheers,
Simon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:48 MST