Edited sentence: Arguments related to religious objections, such as claiming humans can only be improved by God, are usually met with the claim that not all religious beleifs are the same- in particular atheists do not agree with most religion-based criticism (which is often correlated with criticism of stem cells and human cloning.Criticisms on moral and religious grounds are flatly rejected by transhumanits, who claim that they are vague, subjective and insufficient reason to deny transhumanist advantages to those who want them.Likewise, whilst some people supoprt the "enough" argument, that we should be content with what we have, not everyone holds this oppinion.Many transhumanists reject the criticism of their ideas in different ways depending on the type of criticism.Scientific and technical criticism is normally countered with the idea that whilst human technology may not currently be capable of creating transhumans, it is believed that reserach and development will eventually lead us to this technololgy (a lot of it, such as brain implants and genetic engineering is already udner development).Similarly, ideas of morality and human nature are responded with the argument that such notions are highly subjective and different for different people.This counterargument is also applied to claims that believers are already guaranteed such things as immortality- not everyone agrees it exists, and its existence scientifically disputed (see Existence of God).Transhumanists cliam it would be morally wrong to deny the public these benefits simply because certain people do not want them; some claim this would be like denying people acess to medicine because not everyone believed it worked.Whilst some individuals, they claim, may be affrnoted by what they see as dehumanising technology, it is allegred that this is insufficient reason to justfiy restricting the numerous potential advantages transhumanism could bring to those who want it