In some surprisingly significant ways, you could say that trans-humanism began in the coffee shops during the Renaissance.

Thank you, bbk! I'll have to write that down for quoting at people later.

Correct, curiosity looks for an answer but faith presupposes what it will be.

If you presuppose what the answer will be then you are taking actually looking for one.

To really look for answer you have to be willing to accept whatever that answer is, regardless of what you want or thought the answer probably would be before you investigate.

The only area where it might be possible to claim that I have faith would be in the assumption that there is a real world (i.e. that I'm not just imagining everything).

Let me disabuse you of the notion that either of those are faith, because they simply are not. In the first example, I am not expressing faith in there being no god, but simply acknowledging that you (the theist) have not met your burden of proof in order for me to accept that a god exists. This does not require faith because I am not presupposing anything, I am simply saying that you have not shown why your presuppositions should be held by me. In the second example, it's really just a re-phrasing of the first, so the answer to the first should be sufficient. I would also add that the only evidence we have is that matter does exist and has always existed, so it's rational (not presuppositional) to accept that evidence and think that it may indeed be true (not that it definitely is true). Once again, however, this is not faith, but acceptance of evidence and rejection of unevidenced claims.

Correct, curiosity looks for an answer but faith presupposes what it will be.

Faith is believing the answer before you know it or can know it. What about imagination or logic from past trends? Those two can certainly drive the search for what could be without believing that it's definitely that way. I can imagine up a story without believing it's actually true.

it's not faith that drives me to find an answer, but curiosity.

Correct, curiosity looks for an answer but faith presupposes what it will be.

You do have good reasons for "believing" as you do but that still involves an element of faith until it is proven absolutely.

That is simply not so. Rejecting the belief in god due to a lack of evidence doesn't constitute a positive assertion of belief on my part, hence there is no faith behind it.

Do you admit to any gaps in your theories that haven't been filled? If so it is faith that drives you to find the answer.

I admit that there are lots of gaps in our knowledge of the universe, but that doesn't mean that my disbelief in your god is faith-based. And, no, it's not faith that drives me to find an answer, but curiosity.

You do have good reasons for "believing" as you do but that still involves an element of faith until it is proven absolutely.

Nothing is ever proven absolutely (though in some cases we've come close enough).

nor would I want faith since I'd rather have good reasons for believing as I do.

You do have good reasons for "believing" as you do but that still involves an element of faith until it is proven absolutely. Do you admit to any gaps in your theories that haven't been filled? If so it is faith that drives you to find the answer.

Which religion were you hoping to remove?

I'd like to see them all go.

Ennis:

There seems to be a lot of faith being expressed on this blog. Speculating about the unknown is sort of a religious thing, heh?

I don't think of it as religious at all nor would I want faith since I'd rather have good reasons for believing as I do.

Ennis:

I for one think freedom of thought is healthy but if all religion is removed are we then disallowed this liberty? Would that be ethical?

You can believe whatever you want, that is a freedom that we must have but that doesn't mean I can't want religion gone (just that I won't force the issue too much).

If religion disappears because people realise that it was a bad first attempt and that they can get what religion offered through other means then that would be ethical.

If we could finally figure out a decent way to get rid of sleep altogether, then maybe I'd finally have enough time to do everything that I set out to accomplish every single day.

Transhumanism should also lead to increased processing speeds which is going to be much more important than getting rid of sleep (which might be required for a neural net, maybe we could replace with something less disruptive though).

I think the ability to back up our software (minds) will be a very fundamental change to humanity. Why not back our minds up and have a Deathmatch? Why not try some extreme sports when death is no longer a real concern. But people grow bored with life. So you get to choose when you want to die. Maybe go into cold storage and wake up every thousand of years or so to catch up.

If we could finally figure out a decent way to get rid of sleep altogether, then maybe I'd finally have enough time to do everything that I set out to accomplish every single day. In some surprisingly significant ways, you could say that trans-humanism began in the coffee shops during the Renaissance. Most people have a zest to live happy, meaningful lives.

Nothing is ever risk-free, especially technology. Trans-humanism would offer an opportunity, not a guarantee. I think in some ways, evolution would favor those who use technology for positive things, while those who are self destructive or apathetic would end up putting themselves in an even more disadvantageous position than they are now. Chances are, people who are self destructive or apathetic in one area would also have the same tenancies in other areas, including when it's time to make that "backup."