Interestingly, rather than receiving input from atheists or anyone who would like to try to defend the transhumanist or posthumanist "saved by technology" point of view, I have received feedback from passionate believing Christians who care about the fine points of religious belief systems and who have asked me to elucidate them before moving on in an attempt to speak in behalf of a majority of people of faith.
My friend and valued colleague, Stellenbosch theologian Gerrit Brand, has even gone so far as to say that it is a strategic mistake to juxtapose religious belief as an antidote for the posthumanist and transhumanist belief systems, for he says that there are many non-believers who would feel quite as scared of these movements as I am. He is right of course, and indeed I have had feedback from such readers too, who have said to me that they share my concern albeit for reasons that have nothing to do with religious belief.
While I granted Gerrit his point (and it is an important one) immediately, I nonetheless wish to emphasize that it is the transhuman/posthuman movement itself that has identified its opposition (real and potential) as consisting of mainly two kinds of people: environmentalists and, as they themselves put it, "people of faith." They did not specify which faith; they simply said "faith." They of course forget that atheism itself is a faith; there is no scientific basis for atheism for you cannot disprove the existence of a Creator or of an active universal creative force, any more than you can prove it empirically (as Gerrit is quick to point out we cannot purport to want to do even though I am, like many philosophers and theologians in history, apparently about to fall for the temptation of giving it my best shot!) ... so an atheist could theoretically be a "person of faith" too, for he holds as a tenet of his belief the notion that no God exists, or that no-god exists; he believes in the existence of nogod, or nothing - a conceptual impossibility in fact, but it is a belief that he nonetheless holds, as stubbornly as I hold to my clear observation that the world could not have created itself.
Agnosticism is the only philosophical position that is completely consistent with scientific enquiry: a consistent "we are not sure" or "we just do not know" which includes the possibility of postulating at least for the sake of hypothesis, the existence of a creative force of one kind or another.
I am going to stop here for today and continue again tomorrow. Izak please be patient, I will get to the fine points of mainstream Christian theology versus alternate viewpoints very shortly, for I completely agree that it is important to get those out in the open and completely sorted out before we proceed. If "people of faith" (other than atheists of course) oppose the transhuman/posthuman trends, then who are they? Which people of faith, and for what reason, and based upon what suppositions of theirs (Gerrit elucidated the aspect of assumption in the belief system beautifully in earlier comments) do they oppose these trends? These are important questions, and they have very clear and specific (albeit broad and encompassing) answers.