The Transhumanist movement is not a cult as you describe. Transhumanists come of all stripes, and if you haven't noticed we argue among ourselves often. We have people on all ends of the political spectrum.

Also, most of us are atheist and therefore lack religion... but not all of us are atheists, which further shows how we are not exclusivist.  Beliefs in God(s) or lack of beliefs in God(s) are not required to be transhumanist.

Not every transhumanist even believes in the Singularity, but thoroughly believe that we should improve ourselves.

We are by no means a religion, and we have no prophets or holy books.

Transhumanism is just a philosophy. It is an evolved form of Humanism.

There are Christian Humanists (they actually invented it) and Secular Humanists... religion is not a factor

lol, "Ockham's rusty Razor," I love how you scoff at logic.

I also never said you have a mental disorder, I said showed signs of a cognitive fallacy that all of us make at times. Confirmation Bias is very common. Knowing common fallacies is helpful, so we can notice them in ourselves and others. Ad Hominem, which you brought up, is a logical fallacy; Confirmation Bias is a cognitive fallacy. They are both useful to understand.

Ockham's Razor is not about less words, it is about less assumptions. The only assumptions the "believer" in your example makes is that we live in the universe. All the other statements the "believer" makes are based on emprical knowledge. (except for the saving the species thing... dont know what you mean by that)

the "nonbeliever" makes 2 assumptions

therefore, the Materialist side still has less assumptions.

Now that I think about it, "living in the universe" is not an assumption.

As the rationalist Descartes said... "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think, Therefore I am"

That means the Materialist makes no assumptions, and the Dualist makes an assumption about Free Will (and/or Souls)

Bullshit.  He still makes the assumptions that 1) our choices are controlled by genes, 2) our choices are controlled by environment, 3) our genes are selfish, and 4) our genes' purpose is to survive and propigate the species.  That's a total of four assumptions--granted the last two were not directly stated in your rational model, but they are implied.  Anyway, my point there is that resorting to Okham's Razor to decide which rational model to believe simply proves that it is a rational model you are proposing.  It is a belief, no matter how you slice it, regardless of the number of assumptions it must garner support from.  The non-believer in my example has only one assumption: we make choices, which is far simpler and readily observed.  And the belief in this case is that there is no such thing as free will.  It was a bad idea for you to resort to Okham's Razor, because to say that we have no free will you have to complicate the problem with a gaggle of extra assumptions.  Free will is far simpler than no free will.  By saying there is no free will you are adding things to explain why we make the choices that we make--an entire superstructure to inform, and indeed control our choices.  Free will is simple because it asserts, simply, that we choose what we choose.  Have you got it yet?  Okham's Razor supports a belief in free will, not the opposite.

"The Transhumanist movement is not a cult as you describe. Transhumanists come of all stripes, and if you haven't noticed we argue among ourselves often. We have people on all ends of the political spectrum.

Also, most of us are atheist and therefore lack religion... but not all of us are atheists, which further shows how we are not exclusivist.  Beliefs in God(s) or lack of beliefs in God(s) are not required to be transhumanist.

Not every transhumanist even believes in the Singularity, but thoroughly believe that we should improve ourselves.

We are by no means a religion, and we have no prophets or holy books.

Transhumanism is just a philosophy. It is an evolved form of Humanism.

There are Christian Humanists (they actually invented it) and Secular Humanists... religion is not a factor"

re·li·gion    ( P   Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn) n. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

A couple of those entries touch pretty close to what Transhumanism is, even as you described it; number four is right on.  You even said it yourself: Transhumanists "thoroughly believe we should improve ourselves."  And whether you know it or not, there is an "institutionalized system" within which you "worship" (in a fashion).  You may not believe in a supernatural power, but there is plenty of talk among your brethren about becoming "gods" or "godlike".  And there is certainly a "set of beliefs, values, and practices" that Transhumanists adhere to, whether they see them as religious or not.  It is interesting that you make the connection between Christian humanism and your own religion, and yet you don't see how religion plays a role in Transhumanism.  Yes, there are different sects of Transhumanists, some are Christian, some are atheist, some don't even believe in the Rapture--I mean the Singularity.  But they're all Transhumanists: they believe in the transcendence of mankind through technological means, from vile fleshly substance to some purer form, something more direct, more...spiritual?  I mean, when you talk about uploading yourself onto a computer and becoming "pure knowledge," I mean that's metaphysical, man.  Really.  Not a religion?  Maybe you should think about it some more, do some meditation, say a few hail marys, whatever you guys do.  Maybe you could do some speed reading and take a few intelligence-boosting drugs to help you understand the mysteries of the universe. Ohm.

My statements are not "Bullshit," they are logical. You still do not understand the concept of Ockham's Razor, which is also known as the Law of Economy or Law of Parsimony. (Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056716)

It is about the least assumptions, not the least words. Also all of your numbered statements can be merged into one statement of denying Free Will, which is not an assumption. The only assumption here is on your part...believing in Free Will. 

Even if I used your flawed understanding of Occam's Razor, your statements have more words. (just add the word not)

1) our choices are NOT controlled by genes, 2) our choices are NOT controlled by environment

Your 3rd and 4th statements don't make sense, and show a lack of understanding about the Law of Natural Selection and Genetics, so I excluded them.

It matters not whether Descartes believed in Free Will. I was just using his statement to show that the fact that we exist is not an assumption.

I was not using that Descartes's statement to show that it is more wise to disbelieve in Free Will. I was using Ockham's Razor for that.

"What's wrong, Aggressive, are you getting confused?"

Please refrain from all the Ad Hominem. You asked me to not use Ad Hominem, then repeatedly used it against me. Talk about hypocritical.

"If the Materialist makes no assumptions, then where do you get the assumption that genes and environment control us completely?"

Our Nature and our Nurture are what make us who we are, I do not know how you can refute that. It is not an assumption, it is an empirical fact. How can you believe that our genes and our environment (and our experiences in the environment) do not make us who we are?

People can be molded to be whatever you want them to be. If you want to raise a child to become a mean, racist, neo-nazi, it is not hard if you know some basic psychology.

If you want to raise a child to become a kind, tolerant, and logical human being, it is also not hard if you know basic psychology.

Side Note: For the Nature part of Nature vs Nurture, it is not completely genes. Symbiotic organisms also play a big role. I was just simplifying it for the argument.

"And what is the assumption that Free Will-ists make?"

That we have Free Will. How is this not obvious?

"And why do you suddenly link the free will with duality?"

It is impossible to have Free Will unless you believe in some other realm of existence (a spirit realm). Matter in the universe acts in predictable ways, because of the laws of physics and cause and effect.

If you are not a Dualist and believe in Free Will, then you misunderstand the concept of Free Will.

There is a third possible argument. If you don't believe in cause and effect and that matter is governed by laws of physics.  However, we also do not have Free Will under this belief, since if there is no cause and effect... one cannot cause anything or do anything.

"Are you seeing my point?  There is no science here."

I am not seeing your point. All there is in my arguments is science, as opposed to superstitious beliefs in souls and Free Will.

“I am not seeing your point. All there is in my arguments is science, as opposed to superstitious beliefs in souls and Free Will.”

It is precisely my point that you are being just as “superstitious” as anyone who believes in a “soul.”  You admitted that there is no absolute proof that genes and environment alone control our choices (“There is no absolute proof against the existence of a soul, you are correct.”), yet you superstitiously believe that it is so.  Why?  You must admit that this is not science, but philosophy.

You’re right, no more ad hominem.

I can refute that nature and nurture make us who we are because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim.  Have you ever reverse engineered a human?  Has anyone?  We aren’t even sure what gene does what, or how much environment plays a role.  For Crick’s sake, we are still debating which is more decisive.  We certainly don’t know that genes and environment control our choices!  This isn’t science, it’s philosophy.

Now for Ockham’s Razor: I don’t have to explain that there is a spirit world to make that claim that we make choices.  My point is that it is simpler to believe that we have free will than that we don’t.  I don’t have to explain away your rational model in order to use Ockham’s Razor.  Look, if there is no free will, then there must be a master.  If there is free will, then there is no master.  No free will = individual + master; free will = individual.  The latter is simpler, uses fewer assumptions, and is therefore supported by Ockham’s razor.  And this says nothing about cause and effect, since, after all, my choices may be the cause for certain effects.  How can you deny that they are, since it is readily observable?  Your assertion that our genes and environment have the effect of our choices, however, is not observable at all.  It must be rationalized. 

You say that I can raise a child to be kind, tolerant, etc. if I want (choose) to.  But I thought my choices were constrained by genes and environment.  I can’t really raise my child the way I want to, can I?  Look, history is replete with examples of people rising above their circumstances, changing the world, and raising their children to be more kind and tolerant.  And rational models abound for those who wish to believe that it is all explained by some biological imperative.  Reciprocity, for example, is such a complicated theory—it soars high above its scientific basis (ants).  It is not empirical to apply antecedents of ant behavior to that of humans, it is rational.  It was Wilson’s idea.  Similarly, this idea that nature and nurture control our thoughts and actions and choices is just as lofty and out of touch with its scientific basis.  If you want to play scientist, argue nature vs. nurture, not matter vs. spirit.  If you do the latter, you are playing philosopher, like I am.  Admit it!

"Your 3rd and 4th statements don't make sense, and show a lack of understanding about the Law of Natural Selection and Genetics, so I excluded them."

3rd: This is the idea that individual genes are selfish, in the sense that they work to keep themselves in the gene pool.  This comes from the work of Richard Dawkins.

4th: This is the idea that genetic traits favored by environment will become more prevalent, thereby allowing a species to adapt and survive.

I don't claim to understand natural selection or genetics.  But I'm not stupid.  I know what makes sense and what doesn't.  You are claiming that genes and environment conspire to control our thoughts and actions: for this to be true, you must make a lot of assumptions.  Perhaps not 3 and 4, but certainly 1 and 2.

Free will is far simpler than no free will.  By saying there is no free will you are adding things to explain why we make the choices that we make--an entire superstructure to inform, and indeed control our choices.  Free will is simple because it asserts, simply, that we choose what we choose.  Have you got it yet?  Okham's Razor supports a belief in free will, not the opposite.

You are saying we are not free, that we have a master--indeed two masters (genes and environment).  By saying that we have free will, I am adding nothing to the equation, but rather am taking away the masters.  That makes free will simpler than no free will.  You may modify your statement and say that genes and environment inform our choices.  But that also means that we have free will, or that there is yet another master, which would complicate things further.  This is not science, it is philosophy.

Why am i always suprised when people are upset because science answers almost nothing?  Science will only come with answers to questions we know how to posit.  And then, the questions usually lead to more meaningful questions anyway.

Do i consider my self a 'true believer'?  Sure, i believe.

But what do i believe in?

I believe that truth is a higher cause that glory, that the man or woman i meet on the street have as much right to make the world their own as i do.  I believe that one day, soon maybe, we will see that to achieve immotality is not really the goal, but rather to make this life more meaningful and more splendid for everyone, that i my goal at least.

I believe that common man, given the choice and the ability will always choose to help others. 

Those that choose to do harm instead of good, they are to be dealt with swiftly and with out mercy.

I believe that there is a higher power in the universe.  That sometimes that higher power has a mean streak and a sense of humor, generally at my expense.

I believe that if we fail to strive to make ourselves better, our children will pay for that.

I also believe that we need to take a minute, breathe, listen to our soul, or what ever you call that which makes us more that animals; and hear it, finally.

and do you really think that the simplest answer is always right?

i am scared for us all if man accepts that position.