Stem cell research

mazemaster said:
EDIT: If you believe, like Tracer Bullet, that the law against murder exists only for the purpose of the "greater good", then it might make sense to agree with pro-abortion "ends jusfity the means" argument.

However, I believe that the law against murder exists for a more fundamental reason: because murder is morally wrong. In fact, "murder is wrong" is one of the few morals that I am OK with the government imposing on people.

I think Tracer Bullet was making the point that "morals" really only come about for the "greater good", which I sort of agree with (not being a religious man I don't see any other reason for them!)

Crono said:
I think the current war situation completely violates what you're trying to say Maze.

If murder is so wrong and immoral in the eyes of our government, why do they have no qualms killing innocent people? American or not.

Murder is not profitable. That's it. Period. The moral ideal is a facade to get you to not do it. Wars in general are a blantant example of when murder and killing is very profitable to the nation (usually).

I know that's over simplifications, but, until this nation admits it's socialist and not capitalist, that's how I'll state it.

i hate to be an ass, but crono, thats bulls**t, what you just said was "till the world stops making war and killing, i am not going to side with anyone against abortion"

now i know you are going to say you didn't mean to say that exactly, but it is in some way, how you said it..

as i told yak once, "no person can justify a wrong action, by using another wrong action as a defense.." war is wrong, but sometimes necessary.. abortion is wrong, but sometimes necessary, but of the two choices, which do we as individuals have complete control over?

anyways, i am not coming down on you, i swear.. i have been misunderstood far to often because of text.. but i just had to say it.. you cannot stand immoral, because a government supports war.

Crono said:
If murder is so wrong and immoral in the eyes of our government, why do they have no qualms killing innocent people? American or not.

This brings up 2 points, the second of which is far more important than the first:

(1) You point out a situation where the government does one thing when it ought to do another. That happens all the time, but doesn't refute my argument.

(2) Its important to bring in the notion of self-defence. Its OK to kill in self defence, or in defence of someone who is being attacked (at least according to my morals). Thus whether a war is acceptable comes down to a question of whether its a form of self-defence. However, from there it gets rather complicated since all "self-defence" decisions require a good-faith prediction of what would have happened if you didn't act. What would have happened is unknowable and therefore open for debate.

Retailatory action can arguably justified as self defence since a large part of any defence lies in the policy that attacks will be followed by a retaliation. You will be less likely to hit me if you know that I'll hit back. Mutually Assured Destruction, was just retaliatory self defence that anted up to the scale of nuculear weapons.

If a country is attacked they have a self-defence reason to defend themselves. Likewise if Saddam was about to launch WMD at the US or was harboring terrorists directly planning to attack the US, attacking him would have been self-defence. However, as we know the case was not that clear cut. Another complication in the Iraq example is that technically Operation Iraqi Freedom was a continuation of the first Gulf War after Saddam broke the terms of the cease-fire, and in the first Gulf War Kuwait was attacked (clear cut self defence assistance). To complicate matters further, there is the humanitarian argument that we helped the Iraqi people in self defence against an opressive violent regime.

You could probably go on all day citing arcane, contrived, and hypothetical self-defence reasons for and against the war in Iraq (people have done this). Such is the nature of "self defence".

It is interesting to observe that as someone's uncertainty about a situation increases, the rule of "no killing except in self defence" grows closer and closer to the "greater good" rule. This is rather counter-intuitive. You might expect just the opposite: that "greater good" rule is more fundamental, and that the "no murder" rule is just a very good and easliy applied small-scale approximation. The argument might go something like this: "morals against murder arose since societies with lower murder rates experienced a greater common good". However, the first observation implies that it works both ways: you can start with the "no murder" rule as more fundamental, and from that derrive the greater good rule as an approximation when the uncertainty is high.

Leperous said:
I think Tracer Bullet was making the point that "morals" really only come about for the "greater good", which I sort of agree with (not being a religious man I don't see any other reason for them!)

I'm not a religious man either, but there are some morals that I hold to be true without outside justification. For example, that it is wrong to murder is a fundamental axiom of my existence. Period. And the beauty of it is that there's nothing you can do to logically disprove it unless you can point out a situation where it contradicts one of my other fundamental postulates (which it doesn't). And if you think I'm silly for blindly believing in a random unprovable loop of logic, consider this: when you say that morals are good since they help the "greater good", you are implying that the "greater good" is something that should be worked for, which is just as random and unprovable assertion as my "no murder" axiom.

mazemaster said:
My personal opinion: Killing sentient humans is wrong nomatter
how you slice it.

Sorry about that. I just saw that part in your article and couldn't stop laughing.

maze.. thats the most you have typed in... forever.

i stand in awe.

i am going to re-read what you wrote, but think i agree with most of it, sounds awfully close to many things i try to say.

i do however think that the word "murder" has a much narrower spectrum however than most people.. murder is the killing of an innocent.. nothing more, nothing less.

killing someone on death row for instance, is not murder, killing civilians in a war is, killing someone in self defense is not murder (although there are alternatives sometimes to killing), abortion is murder (although, here again there are a few exceptions)

i look at it this way, my outlook influences no one but myself, its a very safe standpoint IMO.. it keeps me from doing wrongs, at least wrongs in my mind.. if my view keeps me this way.. it did something worth while. i would hope, that at least that much, we all can agree on.

mazemaster said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I think Tracer Bullet was making the point that "morals" really only come about for the "greater good", which I sort of agree with (not being a religious man I don't see any other reason for them!)</DIV></DIV>
I'm not a religious man either, but there are some morals that I hold to be true without outside justification. For example, that it is wrong to murder is a fundamental axiom of my existence. Period. And the beauty of it is that there's nothing you can do to logically disprove it unless you can point out a situation where it contradicts one of my other fundamental postulates (which it doesn't). And if you think I'm silly for blindly believing in a random unprovable loop of logic, consider this: when you say that morals are good since they help the "greater good", you are implying that the "greater good" is something that should be worked for, which is just as random and unprovable assertion as my "no murder" axiom.

Ah, ok, so you want the longer answer then :smile: Of course the notion of a "greater good" is very nebulous, and I don't believe in it in perhaps the way you think I (or TB) do. I'll just leave you with this as I'm too busy today- how did you get those morals in the first place?

PS Huzzah, semi-intelligent conversation has returned! :smile:

killing someone on death row for instance, is not murder, killing civilians in a war is, killing someone in self defense is not murder (although there are alternatives sometimes to killing), abortion is murder (although, here again there are a few exceptions)

Isn't that as much 'playing god' as having abortions, screwing around with stem cells, clones and robot babies (or whatever else they come up with)?

I dont see how killing someone on death row is not considered murder

the meaning of the word murder is "intentionally killing another person". :s

Mephs said:
Isn't that as much 'playing god' as having abortions, screwing around with stem cells, clones and robot babies ..........

I didn't know 'god' was into that stuff.

Playing God, as you say, extends far beyond abortion and stem cell
research. Keeping premature born babies alive, or pensioners on
machines to aid respiration. Medical science is interference on both
sides of the life and death coin.

I know the point isn't entirely relevant to this discussion, but it's
one people often overlook. I mention it because of 2 recent cases that
came to the UK courts regarding keeping two seriously ill children
alive. The doctors argued they should be allowed to die. And, with all
my sympathy - I still couldn't fathom the argument put forward by the
parents: Who are they to play God?

As for morals, I think most peoples morals of today are essentially
founded in instinct, and believe it or not (or accept it or not :razz: ) -
Christianity!

Here are a few scientifically proven facts of a fetus:

[*] HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS AFTER CONCEPTION)
[*] BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
[*] THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
[*] THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
[*] THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
[*] THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
[*] ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING
[*] THE BABY WEIGHS ABOUT 1 OUNCE AND IS 2 1/2 TO 3 INCHES LONG
[*] THE BABY COULD FIT COMFORTABLY IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND.
And there is a video you should watch that may change your opinion on abortion.

http://www.silentscream.org

Gwil said:
As for morals, I think most peoples morals of today are essentially founded in instinct, and believe it or not (or accept it or not :razz: ) - Christianity!

Christianity is not the first to teach those morals, Gwil... Most cultures in history have had similar "morals" to live by, though due to a lack of law enforcement perhaps more people were likely to not live by them!

No, but a lot of modern definitions today are governed by Christianity
and it's various associations/offshoots. I always put moral guidance
down to the way you are raised from an early age, if you are not
following a religious line. My morals are based loosely on my parents
morals, and their teachings of respect, values etc - with room
for interpretation and indepedent thought of course.

I'm just pointing out though that there will be religious influenced
beliefs/concepts somewhere in a family chain, which in turn get passed
down in the parental/generations cycle. Not us though, godless
lefties through and through :biggrin:

That's how I was raised, at least :smile:

I think Gwil mised the part where i mentioned "Good is older than God"

Good is a religious definition, at it's roots :razz:

Either way this debate does nothing for me.. I'd say let stem cell
research go ahead, but it's mainly a US issue. We've already started
over here, so i'm happy :smile:

Gwil said:
Good is a religious definition, at it's roots :razz:

no its not, good was around long before religion, religion recognized a good thing when it saw it and borrowed the concept.. :rolleyes:

The definition of good and evil, come from religion - and from education, etc - founded, basically, in religion.

I'm not saying religion made the ideals of good and bad, merely their
definitions today hold a lot with the rise of religion, and education.
We are essentially apes without these 2 concepts, so therefore cannot
differentiate between "right and wrong" - as defined by
scholars/prophets etc of the past.

Gwil said:
The definition of good and evil, come from religion - and from education, etc - founded, basically, in religion.

I'm not saying religion made the ideals of good and bad, merely their definitions today hold a lot with the rise of religion, and education. We are essentially apes without these 2 concepts, so therefore cannot differentiate between "right and wrong" - as defined by scholars/prophets etc of the past.

ahh, so you are implying that since religion put it in print, they hold claim to the concept..

i understand what you are implying, and i don't doubt that on some level its true, afterall the concept of religion has permeated through all societies, but i don't feel that good must be based on religion, however distantly.

No, but a lot of modern definitions today are governed by Christianity
and it's various associations/offshoots. I always put moral guidance
down to the way you are raised from an early age, if you are not
following a religious line. My morals are based loosely on my parents
morals, and their teachings of respect, values etc - with room
for interpretation and indepedent thought of course.

I'm just pointing out though that there will be religious influenced
beliefs/concepts somewhere in a family chain, which in turn get passed
down in the parental/generations cycle. Not us though, godless
lefties through and through :biggrin:

That's how I was raised, at least :smile:

Nor am I? thwacks Orph

Merely I am saying that the "concept" - as you so put it, will still be
defined by 'educated' people, from the minoans to mr george bush.
Concepts, ideas etc are all products of us developing writing, learning
etc. Which, will have when being defined - have been governed by the
"ultimate power" - religion!

well i'll tell you this much then, i do not like people assuming, that because i am good, it must stem from religion.. i feel you are correct in your assessments of how the world views the topic, but i don't like associations, i am not comfortable with.

if i made a list of the top 10 worse creation's of mankind.. religion would hold title to one of those spots.

ducks next thwacking blow

i hate to be an ass, but crono, thats bulls**t, what you just said was "till the world stops making war and killing, i am not going to side with anyone against abortion"

sigh ... Orph, I'm going to slap you.

That isn't what I said and you know it.
I said that the US is socialistic and that war is profitable while personal murdering is never profitable. I said that is the way I'd state the situation until as a nation we'd admit we're socialistic and not capitalist.

I never even linked abortion and war, I was talking about murder in general and giving a counter example of when (apparently), murder is A OK.

You can't give the bulls**t answer of "It's self-defense", since most places that get attacked are civilian areas. Why don't we see how many civilians have died versus American soldiers? It's not a good comparison.

In '88 (or so), we had weapon relations with Hussein. We were the one who told him Kuwait was stealing his oil through underground pipelines. He got a mistranslated message from Bush Sr. which, to him, said attack Kuwait.
So ... when he did, we said, "Oh s**t!! What are you doing???" then denied all relation with Iraq and went and "defended" Kuwait.

The point about war is, It's NEVER black and white, "They're attacking, we're defending".

And by the way, my post was just a counter example, not really my opinion, but I see it's not possible to write one of those here. :rolleyes:

Leperous said:

mazemaster said:
I'm not a religious man either, but there are some morals that I hold to be true without outside justification. For example, that it is wrong to murder is a fundamental axiom of my existence. Period. And the beauty of it is that there's nothing you can do to logically disprove it unless you can point out a situation where it contradicts one of my other fundamental postulates (which it doesn't). And if you think I'm silly for blindly believing in a random unprovable loop of logic, consider this: when you say that morals are good since they help the "greater good", you are implying that the "greater good" is something that should be worked for, which is just as random and unprovable assertion as my "no murder" axiom.

Ah, ok, so you want the longer answer then :smile: Of course the notion of a "greater good" is very nebulous, and I don't believe in it in perhaps the way you think I (or TB) do. I'll just leave you with this as I'm too busy today- how did you get those morals in the first place?

PS Huzzah, semi-intelligent conversation has returned! :smile:

Since I think Lep is going the same direction here as myself I'll take up this argument. I don't think you are silly, Maze. I think you are the product of evolution. There is nothing "random" about the "greater good" and "no murder" axioms. nor is there necessarily a hierarchy or unified philosophy of life that makes sense. It doesn't have to be a self-consistent code of behavior, it just has to work in practice, self-contradictions and all.

Evolutionary pressures are not limited to individuals. In all species there is also pressure on the entire inter-breeding population to survive. In humans these larger groups are in constant violent competition very unlike most of the rest of the natural world. This introduces the societal or group evolutionary pressures as hugely more important than individual survival. As a result, any society whose individual members do not strive for the "greater good" will be eliminated. This leads among other things to our concept of "noble" and "selfless" acts. In the case where the "greater good" demands slaughter of a different group of humans, the prohibitions against murder that help to hold society together have to be violated in order to preserve the very society that those prohibitions made possible. Any group (culture) that does not embrace this dichotomy will be destroyed. Likewise, without violent competition between groups, there would no longer be any need for society. The pressure to maintain our prohibition against murder, and the need for the greater good would evaporate. Essentially I postulate that without war, or at least a struggle against a harsh environment (which we no longer have) we would have no "morals".

This is really something I just thought of so feel free to poke holes in it. I find the idea beautifully ironic: war is the source of all moral thought, yet it violates the very concepts it creates. How perfectly human.

the thing is crono, your whole pretense is based on "abortion is not murder" if you add that into your equation my comment makes more sense..

i am not sure what point you were making, to bring in war type killings, but you did use it as an explanation of "one hand washes the other" because our government sanctions wars, but doesn't personalized independent killings..

i postulate, that abortion is personalized independent killing, and thats why i said "you cannot justify a wrong, by using another wrong as a defense"

add, "abortion is wrong" to your theory of war and such.. it makes the concept more whole.. you cannot omit abortion is killing, just because you might think women have a right to do it.

DocRock said:
Here are a few scientifically proven facts of a fetus:

[*] HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS AFTER CONCEPTION)
[*] BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
[*] THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
[*] THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
[*] THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
[*] THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
[*] ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING
[*] THE BABY WEIGHS ABOUT 1 OUNCE AND IS 2 1/2 TO 3 INCHES LONG
[*] THE BABY COULD FIT COMFORTABLY IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND.
And there is a video you should watch that may change your opinion on abortion.

http://www.silentscream.org

</LI>

Nobody here is advocating partial-birth abortions. The topic is stem cell research and on the side, early term abortions and egg harvesting for cloning purposes. You are missing the point, and providing skewed data without the requisite time-line information for most of it. Pull your head out of your ass and read the thread.

Tracer Bullet said:
read the thread.

that stung, all the way over here. :eek:

i wanted to comment as well, but couldn't find a way without another session.. :rolleyes:

all his comments have merit, but the time lines were all screwed up..

"HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS AFTER CONCEPTION)"

IMO, this was the only relevant information to our current discussion, and its also news to me, i thought heartbeats began in month 2.. but oh well.

when exactly do they acquire stem cells from these cell clusters? moments,minutes hours or days after sperm meets egg?

Are you trying to say shooting someone in the face is the same as destroying their underdevloped feotus (which can happen numerous ways.) It seems you only call it killing when it isn't an accident ... which is odd.

I used war as a euphamism towards what Maze was saying. What he said clearly doesn't hold true for all situations. That's all my point was. I'm sorry you took it so literally.

credit my misunderstanding to text.. you will sleep better. i am sorry if it offends you that i feel killing an innocent unborn is worse than killing a full grown adult.

i think both are bad, given the right conditions of course, but yes.. underdeveloped fetus's hold a higher place in my esteem.

i think, where you get confused, is you persist in saying things like under-developed, as if it reduces the concept to insignificance.. its not your fault, most people do things like that.. IE pro-choice sounds better than abortion.. partial-birth sounds better than murder, downs syndrome sounds better than retarded, etc,etc..

many people cannot face doing an abhorrent action, so they justify it with nice sounding words.

cell mass, or fetus, or small future human, its all the same to me.. changing the names to kill it, doesn't change a thing.

You are right Orph, unless the different names are properly applied to different stages of development. Again, I refer to Leperous' definition of "life". The fetus, typically is a more developed state than the term I used "Zygote" or embryo. Clearly these are different concepts, not simply synonymous labels. According to dictionary.com:

fe?tus
n. pl. fe?tus?es

• The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
• In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

Zygote is a further distinction referring to the fertilized egg before it has even divided.

In the specific case of ESR I assume that embryonic cells are used as the name implies, but I do not know for sure. This makes sense because of the very reason that ESR is so promising: embryonic cells are undifferentiated. this means that they can become any cell in the body, from neurons to muscle. In the case of the more developed fetus, most of the billions of cells that compose it are already differentiated and so are no longer stem cells. In fact, I believe that one of the primary ways of producing stem cells is to fertilize the egg in vitro, in which case the only thing not done in the laboratory is the production of the eggs and sperm. Don't quote me on this bit though, I really am quite ignorant on this subject.

So, do not bandy about these terms as if they were synonymous. They are not. Orph's other examples are good and proper indications of a real societal ill, but if fetus = cell mass, then so do the rest of us :razz: . Relabeling is an abhorrent stupid practice as he so rightly points out, but no one should mistake real distinctions for semantics.

One of the things that is the big issue is when the child is actually considered to be "alive". Most religious experts say that it is much earlier in the 9 months of consemption than most scientists. I believe that the child is not alive to the first brain waves are detected. DocRock has posted a very good timeline.

Spartan 34 said:
DocRock has posted a very good timeline.

he posted good examples of unborn children, there is no discernible time line i can detect..

his post, although good prolife stuff, had little to do with this particular subject.. also, you seem to be pushing for a much later timeline than a cell cluster.

Most religious experts are experts in religion, not foetal or brain science!

Leperous said:
Most religious experts are experts in religion, not foetal or brain science!

Yup. I often have trouble not laughing out loud when theologians start talking about science. They are nearly always wrong; not merely presenting an adverse opinion to my own, but factually incorrect in some of the most glaring ways imaginable.

Tracer Bullet said:

Leperous said:
Most religious experts are experts in religion, not foetal or brain science!

Yup. I often have trouble not laughing out loud when theologians start talking about science. They are nearly always wrong; not merely presenting an adverse opinion to my own, but factually incorrect in some of the most glaring ways imaginable.

funny thing is, many supposed theologians are looking at me funny, when i brazenly say religion is a bunch of s**t too.. i wonder if there is some correlation :dodgy:

the funniest religious experience i ever had:

i was at work, working along side this woman.. a woman who is sleeping with the boss to increase here.. place among the working class.. she is not married to him, they are married to other people.

anyways, somehow the topic of god arose, and i commented that i was agnostic.. she literally jumped away from me, not walked, not moved casually, but jumped away saying in a very loud voice "GODS GONNA STRIKE YOU DEAD" ..

i fell over holding my sides laughing so hard.. gods gonna strike me dead huh?!?! hell i'm not the one sleeping with the boss.. more giggles

somehow, she and i didn't get along as well after that.. i dunno which she took worse, me not believing in god, or me telling everyone her biggest secret..

...That would have been damn funny to see.

You are aware that "agnostic" basically means "undecided". it sounds to me like you are more of an atheist.

Tracer Bullet said:
...That would have been damn funny to see.

You are aware that "agnostic" basically means "undecided". it sounds to me like you are more of an atheist.

look the words up.. atheism requires a level of dedication very few can master.. many claim to be atheist, but i doubt most are. true atheism is almost anti-fanatical about religion.

agnostic comes closest to my viewpoints.. which is more than agnostic, but less than atheist.

Main Entry: <SUP>1</SUP>ag?nos?tic javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?agnost01.wav=agnostic')
Pronunciation: <TT>ag-'n?s-tik, &g-</TT>
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

That makes sense :smile:

atheism isnt always that extreme. I'm a practical atheist. Which means
i live like there is no god, but i'm not saying its impossible that
there could be one

Pericolos0 said:
atheism isnt always that extreme. I'm a practical atheist. Which means i live like there is no god, but i'm not saying its impossible that there could be one

Ditto, Not even those people at my old catholic school could convert me

Pericolos0 said:
atheism isnt always that extreme. I'm a practical atheist. Which means
i live like there is no god, but i'm not saying its impossible that
there could be one

Sorry to break it to you, then, but you're agnostic by your definition. Simply breaking down the word "Atheist" yields A-Theist, or in other words, without religion. In order for there to be a religion, there must be a form of faith. So, atheists lack faith in a god. Agnostics, however, simply profess that there is no way to know if there is or isn't a god. By you saying that "it's not impossible that there could be one" means that you are open to a form of faith, which inhibits you from being atheistic.

The main difference is that Atheists completely renounce any possibility of there being a god, where Agnostics say that it's not possible to know either way.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>By you saying that "it's not impossible that there could be one" means that you are open to a form of faith, which inhibits you from being atheistic.</DIV></DIV>

No. It means only that you are open to the possibility of the existence of God. To be open to faith is an entirely different matter, for faith and reason are usually considered to be fundamentally different in character (that is not to insist that they DO so differ, but only to assert that the burden of proof must lie on demonstrating that they do not).

People are fond of hawking the atheist-agnostic distinction; whilst there is a distinction to be made, it is not so straightforward as most suggest. Agnostics are often portrayed as people who don't have an opinion, or don't bother to think. Atheists are often portrayed as people who believe they can prove the non-existence of God. Neither characterisation is fair.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Simply breaking down the word "Atheist" yields A-Theist, or in other words, without religion.</DIV></DIV>

Etymology alone will not reveal all the secrets of a word, just as biography will not reveal all the secrets of a person.

Monqui said:
The main difference is that Atheists completely renounce any possibility of there being a god, where Agnostics say that it's not possible to know either way.

as i said, atheism requires a level of dedication few can achieve.. most won't even use the words in a sentence IE "Lord knows if its blah,blah" or "jesus f**king christ already" atheism is the extreme other end of believers, to the point where its almost a pariah to say or even to hint any word or phrase that could be diety in nature.

i have seen believers who hold up a cross to ward off evil before, i have seen atheists do almost the same thing.. they cringe whenever the see, hear, feel or taste anything heavenly/godlike.

in other words.. fanatical

Tracer Bullet said:

Leperous said:
Most religious experts are experts in religion, not foetal or brain science!

Yup. I often have trouble not laughing out loud when theologians start talking about science. They are nearly always wrong; not merely presenting an adverse opinion to my own, but factually incorrect in some of the most glaring ways imaginable.

And at times, I have trouble not crying, when I see people writing off ancient knowlege, because the people that gave it to us conceptualised the universe differently than modern science does.

WE ARE NOT ALONE!!!

I think most people misunderstand the idea of faith, because they do
not follow religion. I, for instance - would happily follow the ideals
of Buddhism ( I don't ), having faith in his teachings , mainly because
he is not strictly held as a deity. Having faith does not mean
believing in a supreme power, or regularly attending your place of
worship without fail.

Personally I don't think there's a God, in any religion - it was more
in my eyes a means to explain natural disasters and imposing morals
upon people. Then again, I am a dirty red. We have manifestos :smile:

I like stuff like this. Even though he looses it a bit near the end.........

And the link at the bottom? Well, I'm not too sure about some of his fine details

Well, I suppose we could get into an argument over whether the etymology of a word gives its meaning, or whether it's common usage in the current society does.

And, something that I've always found to be an interesting little dilemma- You said in your post, Gollum, that "[atheists] are often portrayed as people who believe they can prove the non-existence of God." There are some theologins out there who are currently trying to write the opposite, a proof of God, if you will. The ironic thing is that if you can prove that your god exists, your religion ceases to exist. One of the founding tennets of Christianity, at least, states that you must have faith. If one were to have a proof, the element of faith would completely cease to exist, since it would be more of an acceptance of the proof rather than simply believing (I realize the logic is a bit shaky there, but I don't have too much time to go into details. I'll try to elaborate later if you want.) I don't think they realize how counter-intuitive such a pursuit is.

has anyone besides me read "9 billion names of god?"

very interesting short story..

fishy said:

Tracer Bullet said:

Leperous said:
Most religious experts are experts in religion, not foetal or brain science!

Yup. I often have trouble not laughing out loud when theologians start talking about science. They are nearly always wrong; not merely presenting an adverse opinion to my own, but factually incorrect in some of the most glaring ways imaginable.

And at times, I have trouble not crying, when I see people writing off ancient knowlege, because the people that gave it to us conceptualised the universe differently than modern science does.

WE ARE NOT ALONE!!!

I don't mean to denigrate religion or "ancient knowledge" as you put it, I just think theologians should not meddle with science and vis-versa. As Gollum said, Faith and reason are fundimentaly different. In my view, applying reason-based priciples in a faith-based system or the other way around can lead to trouble very quickly.

Tracer Bullet said:
I don't mean to denigrate religion or "ancient knowledge" as you put it, ..............

No, no, no. Two different things. What I meant was that many people will often close their minds to something just because it comes from [what has become] a religious source.

Faith and reason may be different, but that does not invalidate the theological search for proof of God's existence. It is perfectly consistent to assert that possessing faith is fundamental to being religious, whilst also believing that it is possible to prove the existence of God. In his classic text Summa Theologica, Aquinas answers this challenge directly. I find his answer satisfying.

The problem with religious debate is that people are horribly vague about their terms. In order to make meaningful claims it is necessary to be precise about what you are claiming.

For example, I would never make such a metaphysically naive claim as "God does not exist". Instead, I claim that certain divine attributes are mutually inconsistent when asserted together. In other words, you can have a God if you like, but you can't have the God you want :biggrin: I have detailed arguments to support such claims, but they are of necessity rather long.

I have detailed arguments to support such claims, but they are of necessity rather long.

If you have them handy, I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.