|
|
http://news.bbc.co...europe/7779559.stm
Wow. The RC Fuhrer himself has deemed the most promising line of medical research in a century "unethical".
If you talk about ethics as concerning happiness and suffering, it seems to me that alleviating the suffering of humans with cancer, parkinsons or a host of other ailments (that his god also created) seems to trump the destruction of a blastocyst that has no central nervous system, and therefore cannot suffer.
The bible says nothing about the "sin of abortion", so this seems to be just the decision of a mere human who claims to communicate with a supernatural being, yet can provide no proof. His decision will potentially cause or prolong the suffering of millions. Shouldn't we have a higher standard of proof before we agree to such a rule?
And why is his god so concerned with what folks do when they are naked?
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by tekriter
http://news.bbc.co...europe/7779559.stm
Wow. The RC Fuhrer himself has deemed the most promising line of medical research in a century "unethical".
If you talk about ethics as concerning happiness and suffering, it seems to me that alleviating the suffering of humans with cancer, parkinsons or a host of other ailments (that his god also created) seems to trump the destruction of a blastocyst that has no central nervous system, and therefore cannot suffer.
The bible says nothing about the "sin of abortion", so this seems to be just the decision of a mere human who claims to communicate with a supernatural being, yet can provide no proof. His decision will potentially cause or prolong the suffering of millions. Shouldn't we have a higher standard of proof before we agree to such a rule?
And why is his god so concerned with what folks do when they are naked?
|
I seem to recall you answering both your own questions here in a prior post. And it was a good one too. Always happy to see you here BTW. Your much better at this than I am. I get pissed off and start screaming motherfucker way too often.
I'm still wondering why any group gets away with the "we favor suffering" line of shit without a big WTF??? from the believers. $ilons and shrinks, Witnesses and blood transfusions, Catholics and anything reproduction related (unless it causes more babies), and assorted fundies that just avoid doctors all together and "prey" the illness away. After decades of crazy member stabbing mom, bloodless white babies, avoidable birth defects, and general dead people I would think these people would catch on the perhaps something is amiss.
Somewhere in that book, I belive it mentions tha the invisible friend helps those that help themselves. Likely the best advice in it. If it is there of course. Might not be. Don't want people getting all independent on them, do they.
| |
Posted by tekriter
If you talk about ethics as concerning happiness and suffering...
|
And if you talk about ethics as concerning what makes me get an erection...
I have no idea where you got the idea that mainstream philosophy believes that ethics is a matter of creating happiness.
Posted by tekriter
And why is his god so concerned with what folks do when they are naked?
|
If you're studying embryonic development while naked, you're likely doing it wrong. Or you work at the coolest bio lab in the state.
Posted by underdark
Somewhere in that book, I belive it mentions tha the invisible friend helps those that help themselves. Likely the best advice in it. If it is there of course.
|
It is not. Feel free to read books and judge them for yourself, rather than rely on fifth-hand reports from a friend of a friend who once had a grandmother who read it, and saw a website on the internet about it.
[last edit 12/16/2008 6:22 PM by Yehoshua - edited 2 times]
Our Citizen.
Our Justice.
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. | |
Posted by Yehoshua
It is not. Feel free to read books and judge them for yourself, rather than rely on fifth-hand reports from a friend of a friend who once had a grandmother who read it, and saw a website on the internet about it.
|
Actually I have read it. About 30 years ago. Thought it as the silliest thing in known space. Pissed off the majority of the family by asking how they believed this stuff and not the collected Norse and Greek mythology on the next shelf over. Have not had any desire to pick it up since, as one pointless read to say "yeah, I did it" was as much foolishness as I chose to endure (kinda like reading Anne Rice). So, sorry if I chumped a quote that I said I believed was in there. My bad.
| |
Posted by Yehoshua
And if you talk about ethics as concerning what makes me get an erection...
I have no idea where you got the idea that mainstream philosophy believes that ethics is a matter of creating happiness.
|
Well, I would guess that you are a catholic based on your preoccupation with your penis.
I did not say that. I said, suffering and happiness. I get that idea from philosophers. Many of them write books and their ideas can be found in most universities.
for example,
Socrates was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of man. In this view, Knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary.
In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. In order to become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life.
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace.
There is a whole lot of thinking that comes after, but you can essentially boil all of it down to dealing with suffering and happiness.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
I personally have no problem with embryo research but I can also respect the fact that people have the right to believe that an embryo is already human life, and if they believe that then it makes sense that they would want to denounce such research as immoral. As long as a person isn't firebombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors they have a right to their opinion.
Buildings have two natural enemies- water, and bears. | |
Posted by Roland
I personally have no problem with embryo research but I can also respect the fact that people have the right to believe that an embryo is already human life, and if they believe that then it makes sense that they would want to denounce such research as immoral. As long as a person isn't firebombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors they have a right to their opinion.
|
1. While you have the right to believe anything you want, we all have the right to question those beliefs. (I may believe in the Giant Spaghetti Monster, and you may ask why)
2. There are no such things as private beliefs. Your beliefs influence your actions, and when your actions influence millions of peoples lives and cause the suffering of many of those, we have an obligation to demand a higher standard of evidence to support those stated beliefs. (I may believe the GSM told me to kill you by depriving you of oxygen. I may also convince ten others. We might catch you in an abandoned factory. You might ask for some evidence of the GSM. That would be a bad move, because questioning the holy pasta condemns you to burn for eternity in Del Dentes inferno.)
3. If you have any good reason to believe that a blastocyst, that posseses no central nervous system - and a community of them could sit on the head of a pin, has any capacity for suffering or happiness, then please share it with the rest of us. How goes your reasoning for thinking that the rights of a small collection of cells outweighs the rights of millions of humans to live, walk and for the chance to live in a world where brain damage could be reversed or cancer could be beaten?
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by tekriter
3. If you have any good reason to believe that a blastocyst, that posseses no central nervous system - and a community of them could sit on the head of a pin, has any capacity for suffering or happiness, then please share it with the rest of us. How goes your reasoning for thinking that the rights of a small collection of cells outweighs the rights of millions of humans to live, walk and for the chance to live in a world where brain damage could be reversed or cancer could be beaten?
|
Oh, I agree. I think people who disagree are misguided and wrong, but I don't believe they should be demonized for taking a stand for what they believe is right.
Buildings have two natural enemies- water, and bears. | |
Posted by tekriter
Well, I would guess that you are a catholic based on your preoccupation with your penis.
|
Go ahead, you'll just make an even larger fool out of yourself than you have already. You do realise people can, without believing that wine turns into Jesus when you say the right words, oppose your lack of rational thought and thinly-veiled attempts to look smarter than age-old institutions through your "cutting edge" and totally hardcore pwning of the Papacy, right?
Posted by tekriter
I said, suffering and happiness. I get that idea from philosophers. Many of them write books and their ideas can be found in most universities.
|
I'm well aware actually, I also know that "degree-comparing" is pointless online since one or both sides lie, and both sides will always assume the other is lying. However, suffice to say, if you "got that idea from philosophers", especially the ones you proceed to name, I'd suggest you again actually read the works of those philosophers, rather than skim their Wikipedia articles. Neither Socrates nor Aristotle ever proposed anything even resembling positing that ethics is based on what brings happiness or suffering, I'm not closely familiar with the Epictetus, though I daresay probably still more than yourself, but from your own biased description, I'd say he doesn't either.
Posted by tekriter
small collection of cells
|
Just to score a debate point, you've clearly reached to rhetoric and emotional language, I don't think you'd find any educated person who would tell you there are a small number of cells in an embryo. You're just trying to balance "Isn't a terrible, misguided and monstrous THIS worse than a wonderful, glorious and enlightened THAT?". Whether you are in fact right or wrong is irrelevant, because you're either wrong, or right for the wrong reasons. Either way, you remain a fool.
Our Citizen.
Our Justice.
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. | |
Posted by Yehoshua
Go ahead, you'll just make an even larger fool out of yourself than you have already. You do realise people can, without believing that wine turns into Jesus when you say the right words, oppose your lack of rational thought and thinly-veiled attempts to look smarter than age-old institutions through your "cutting edge" and totally hardcore pwning of the Papacy, right?
|
Umm...okay. What does that even mean?
Posted by Yehoshua
I'm well aware actually, I also know that "degree-comparing" is pointless online since one or both sides lie, and both sides will always assume the other is lying. However, suffice to say, if you "got that idea from philosophers", especially the ones you proceed to name, I'd suggest you again actually read the works of those philosophers, rather than skim their Wikipedia articles. Neither Socrates nor Aristotle ever proposed anything even resembling positing that ethics is based on what brings happiness or suffering, I'm not closely familiar with the Epictetus, though I daresay probably still more than yourself, but from your own biased description, I'd say he doesn't either.
|
Okay, then what is your definition of Ethics? Does it concern revealed religion and it's idea of right and wrong? What is the consequences of an unethical act in your world?
Posted by Yehoshua
Just to score a debate point, you've clearly reached to rhetoric and emotional language, I don't think you'd find any educated person who would tell you there are a small number of cells in an embryo. You're just trying to balance "Isn't a terrible, misguided and monstrous THIS worse than a wonderful, glorious and enlightened THAT?". Whether you are in fact right or wrong is irrelevant, because you're either wrong, or right for the wrong reasons. Either way, you remain a fool.
|
A blastocyst, that is the focus of much stem cell research, precedes an embryo, and contains between 70 and 100 cells. The zygote, at conception contains 28 cells. By contrast, a complete human will have between 10 and 100 trillion cells, depending on age and size. So, I stand by my assessment of a blastocyst as a small collection of cells.
A blastocyst, as any educated person would tell you, could not move, breath, think, feel pain, or call people names on the internet.
It is interesting that you took all of one reply to a discussion on ethics to go directly to the name calling stage. At the end of it, I'm still not sure where you stand on the topic.
I'm also not sure what you refer to as emotional language. I'm not sure that the argument that we should concern ourselves as humans with the happiness and suffering of others, rather than the irrational, unfounded beliefs of the pope becomes an emotional argument either.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by Roland
Oh, I agree. I think people who disagree are misguided and wrong, but I don't believe they should be demonized for taking a stand for what they believe is right.
|
I'm not sure that I have "demonized" anyone. I would liken that to hitler demonizing the jews and calling for their extinction, or radical islamic literalists that demonize infidels and call for thier incineration in bomb blasts. I also, clearly, believe that they are wrong. I do, however, think that humanity should question thier misguided stand and demand a higher standard of evidence for thier claims or what is wrong (according to a god that no one can see) or for the existence of a soul that no one can see. And rather than call for their annihilation, I would call for a rational war of ideas - a discussion based on real, testable truths, and values based on human suffering and happiness, rather than a first century superstition.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by tekriter
Umm...okay. What does that even mean? ...what is your definition of Ethics? Does it concern revealed religion and it's idea of right and wrong?
|
...I think you're perhaps confusing morality with ethics, to begin. Of course my idea of ethics does not "concern revealed religion". That does not mean that "revealed religion" cannot affect someone's sense of ethics, it can, but so too can being raped -- we wouldn't say that ethics is about rape, right? You're trying to boil everything down to a Grade I understanding of terms.
Posted by tekriter
It is interesting that you took all of one reply to a discussion on ethics to go directly to the name calling stage. At the end of it, I'm still not sure where you stand on the topic.
|
That is because, as I've said, I am not taking a "stand" on the topic. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of your arguments. It's the same "debate" style as employed by say, Lou Dobbs discussing immigration, or Michael Moore discussing the Federal government. Whether Michael Moore is right about the Iraq War/HMOsystem/gunControl is irrelevant, because even if he is right, it's by no merit of his own intelligence or insight, but simple dumb luck. You may standing on the right side of the embryonic stem cells research issue, or you might not, but neither side would consider you somebody with a strong argument. You're a kid playing with a microphone to say "Debbie smells like butt".
In five sentences, you've simultaneously posited that the Pontiff is a "Fuhrer", that embryonic research is the "most promising in a century" (are you serious? do you have a history textbook?), that ethics is about happiness/suffering, that God is responsible for "bad" things like disease in the world, that it's not wrong to kill as long as the victim doesn't suffer, that the bible doesn't judge abortion, that God doesn't exist and is a conspiracy by crackpots, that millions will suffer because of a paper released by the Pope as though it will actually affect any scientists, and that Christianity (Catholicism?) is obsessed with sexuality (wait, weren't we discussing stem cell research? why is nakedness involved?). So you've built up all these "declarations", without providing any supporting evidence of them.
Imagine somebody giving five sentences, stating that it's ridiculous because George Bush is a Nazi, which is evidenced by the fact the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, because Thomas Paine would have hated the idea of preventative war, which is all because the Jews control the world's money, and the NRA and NAMBLA both prove how much America has sunk in the last twenty years, which is impossible to deny now that the American dollar is falling fast against the Euro, which proves that neo-colonialism is just empire-building without the obligations of noblesse oblige, ergo gay people should marry.
It would sound ridiculous, right? Regardless of whether any of it is true, it would simply be a waste of your time to see those words randomly scribbled into a post and shared amongst colleagues. Because even if I believe in equal rights for homosexuals, all the drivel just spouted has absolutely nothing to do with it...it's just a pile of rhetoric and random declarative statements, passed off as an argument. But it's not an argument, not even close.
I'm not in this thread because I give a crap about whether or not scientists listen to the Pope for instructions, whether they should, or whether the Pope is all-powerful or a nutjob...I'm just here pointing out that what you posted is not an argument, an insight, a revelation or a conversation-starter, it's not going to change a single person's opinion about the Papacy, about stem cells or about science...it has no purpose except to be random inflammatory crap pulled from your arsehole and thrown on the screen in the hopes that people will think you're totally smarter than all those crazy institutions trying to keep the man down, and you totally pwned an authority figure.
At best, it's internet trolling. And no, since I am not sitting here dealing with the point of your post, I have not been "caught in the trap", I am dealing with the complete lack of substance in your post.
Our Citizen.
Our Justice.
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. | |
Posted by Yehoshua
we wouldn't say that ethics is about rape, right? You're trying to boil
|
I think most sane people would agree that you can classify rape under suffereing and as being counter to happiness.
Posted by Yehoshua
That is because, as I've said, I am not taking a "stand" on the topic.
|
Because you have no informed opinion, and cannot form an argument. So why post? Are you a troll? You still have not made one valid criticism, or provided any counter points other than how dumb my post is.
Posted by Yehoshua
In five sentences, you've simultaneously posited that the Pontiff is a "Fuhrer", that embryonic research is the "most promising in a century" (are you serious? do you have a history textbook?), that ethics is about happiness/suffering, that God is responsible for "bad" things like disease in the world, that it's not wrong to kill as long as the victim doesn't suffer, that the bible doesn't judge abortion, that God doesn't exist and is a conspiracy by crackpots, that millions will suffer because of a paper released by the Pope as though it will actually affect any scientists, and that Christianity (Catholicism?) is obsessed with sexuality (wait, weren't we discussing stem cell research? why is nakedness involved?). So you've built up all these "declarations", without providing any supporting evidence of them.
|
I can explain it to you so you can play too.
1. The pope is GERMAN and was in the HITLER YOUTH. The Church did nothing to stop the HOLOCAUST. He DICTATES to the masses from a balcony, and is the unelected LEADER of a soveriegn state. C'mon, it is funny on so many levels. LOL. I totally pwned you, dude.
2. Stem cell research IS the most promising line of research in a century. I have many history text books, but I have to admit the only one I consulted was some old Archie comics. Think about organ transplant and waiting lists and rejection rates. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. And that is only part of it. What is your alternative? Prayer as a cure for the gay?
3. I clearly implied that no god exists, therefore I did not "posit" that god was responsible for anything. It refers to the absurdity of the claim that dog created the world and is a loving god yet he would also have to have created cancer, H-bombs and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
4. It MAY no be wrong to kill if the victim doesn't suffer, or more correctly it may be right and good to kill if the "victim" is in pain. Consider assisted suicide and the right to die with dignity. But again, you missed the point. A blastocyst caonnot be considered a victim of anything as it is merely a small collection of cells (we covered that already, remember, no nervous system or capacity to think or move)
5. Where, specifically, does the bible mention abortion? Bueller? Bueller?
6. There is absolutley no evidence that god exists, yet humans continue to make real decisions and kill each other based on the superstition and wishful thinking that dog exists. "Crackpots" fits I think, but is your language. How would you describe the Kool Aid drinkers of Jonestown, just out of curiousity?
7. Millions do suffer becasue of the things the pope says and does. Consider his role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year dying of aids in africa, or the millions of unplanned births because the church opposes birth control (condoms) and education. Consider the thousands of catholic teen pregnancies caused by abstinence only programs. Consider the coathanger and the back alley. It affects scientists daily in terms of funding or ridiculous legislation based not in reality, but on religious objections to lines of research.
8. If you had read the pope's latest load of made up poo, or even read the article you would see that the topic is all related to sexual reproduction and the "conjugal act". It is not my assertion that the church is obsessed with sex it is fact. Virgin births, original sin, the pope's stance on homosexuality or pretty much anything to do with human sexuality - like sex, conception or say, stem cells (small collection of cells resulting from putting the penis into the vagina....
Posted by Yehoshua
I'm not in this thread because I give a crap
|
You are posting in this thread you are not in it. You are in your mom's basement. You need to get away from you computer for a while and visit reality.
Posted by Yehoshua
you totally pwned an authority figure.
|
The implied argument that you clearly missed is that the pope should NOT be and authority figure. Also, pwned does not work in that context. LOL IIRC LMAO....
Posted by Yehoshua
At best, it's internet trolling. And no, since I am not sitting here dealing with the point of your post, I have not been "caught in the trap", I am dealing with the complete lack of substance in your post.
|
But you have been caught in a trap. You are the one that filled pages with vitriolic nonsense and keep replying. Something hooked you. Did your imaginary friend tell you that I was evil and needed to be stopped?
Oh, and by the way, Omar Khadr is a terrorist, from terrorist family, who was caught doing terrorist things with other terrorists, after he went to terrorist camp. We could all do more important things than worry about where the little scumbag rots.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by tekriter
He DICTATES to the masses from a balcony, and is the unelected LEADER of a soveriegn state. C'mon, it is funny on so many levels. LOL. I totally pwned you, dude.
|
I would feel pwned if you were factually correct. Since you are not, I do not.
Posted by tekriter
Stem cell research IS the most promising line of research in a century. What is your alternative? Prayer as a cure for the gay?
|
You seem to be hung up on the notion that anyone who thinks you're a moron must be religious. But no, I would suggest that the production and study of antibiotics was probably a much more promising line of research in the past century, as was molecular biology leading all the way to the unravelling of the human genome, as were several other major lines of research. The world existed before your 12th birthday, and rhetoric about "most promising line of research in a century" just makes you look out of touch with history. Stem cell research definitely seems like it is worth pursuing; but that hardly makes it the "totally awesomest EVAR".
Posted by tekriter
A blastocyst caonnot be considered a victim of anything as it is merely a small collection of cells (we covered that already, remember, no nervous system or capacity to think or move)
|
It CAN be considered a victim; I've seen plenty of people who believe that trees and picked-flowers can be victims and shouldn't be killed, despite lacking a nervous system, or the capacity to think or move. I'm not saying either side of the argument is right or wrong, just that there are two sides and it is possible for somebody to suggest that any byproduct of sexual reproduction is automatically a victim if deprived of its potential future. *shrugs*
Posted by tekriter
5. Where, specifically, does the bible mention abortion? Bueller? Bueller?
|
It doesn't, and I never said that it did. I said that your post was ludicrous because in five sentences it tried to make 390 declarative statements without offering any reasoning. Each one was just a conclusion with no evidence.
Posted by tekriter
6. There is absolutley no evidence that god exists, yet humans continue to make real decisions and kill each other based on the superstition and wishful thinking that dog exists. "Crackpots" fits I think, but is your language. How would you describe the Kool Aid drinkers of Jonestown, just out of curiousity?
|
Again, you have turned "stem cell research" into a trojan horse to conceal your rabid anti-religion ranting. Stick to the issue. But since the "Kool aid drinkers of Jonestown" killed themselves to make a political statement about perceived harrassment by Federal agents of the United States, and did not invoke God as the reason for their suicide...again, I would suggest you are out of touch with history. You might find the Heaven's Gate cult to be a better example.
Posted by tekriter
If you had read the pope's latest load of made up poo, or even read the article...
|
I read both, fully. When given the link, I read the article, and then hunted down the actual statement by the Pope and read the entire PDF file. I doubt you did the same, since you seem to be making random and completely unrelated assertions, but again, this is the internet, anybody can lie and both sides will always assume the other is lying.
Posted by tekriter
It is not my assertion that the church is obsessed with sex it is fact. Virgin births, original sin, the pope's stance on homosexuality or pretty much anything to do with human sexuality - like sex, conception or say, stem cells (small collection of cells resulting from putting the penis into the vagina....
|
Since Amnesty International, the United Nations and Medicins Sans Frontieres all have positions on homosexuality, stem cells, human sexuality and pretty everything to do putting the penis into the vagina...are they likewise "obsessed with sex"? Again, I'm not saying that "the church" (Catholic? Christian? All religion?) is or is not obsessed with sex, merely that you provide a very silly reasoning. And you may want to double-check the meaning of "Original Sin", it is not related to sexual reproduction, but the theory that humanity is flawed because its first-born disobey God and ate fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. We are not tainted because our parents had sex, by the theory, but because our first ancestors ate fruit to become like God themselves.
Posted by tekriter
You are in your mom's basement. You need to get away from you computer for a while and visit reality.
|
Wow, you just pulled out the awesomest internet pwning EVAR. Not that you'll believe me of course, but I moved out of my parents house within weeks of finishing High School, which was ~7 years ago. The other statement is a little easier to disprove, since a simple look at my posting/browsing history on this website (if you make the leap of logic that when online, I follow a set routine) will probably give evidence that I'm online for...roughly an hour a day. But again, don't let me stop your conspiracy theories about how everybody who disagrees with you must be a religious nutcase living in their mother's basement.
Our Citizen.
Our Justice.
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. | |
Posted by Yehoshua
I would feel pwned if you were factually correct. Since you are not, I do not.
|
Um, no. You are wrong. You didn't even refute a single thing I said.
Posted by Yehoshua
You seem to be hung up on the notion that anyone who thinks you're a moron must be religious. But no, I would suggest that the production and study of antibiotics was probably a much more promising line of research in the past century, as was molecular biology leading all the way to the unravelling of the human genome, as were several other major lines of research. The world existed before your 12th birthday, and rhetoric about "most promising line of research in a century" just makes you look out of touch with history. Stem cell research definitely seems like it is worth pursuing; but that hardly makes it the "totally awesomest EVAR".
|
Research on antibiotic therapy began in Germany with the development of the narrow-spectrum antibiotic Salvarsan by Paul Ehrlich in 1909, for the first time allowing an efficient treatment of Syphilis. That is 12 days short of a century.
Molecular biology began to be studied in the 1950s, almost sixtry years ago. So, you have a point - somewhat. It becomes a moot point. Since I elaborated on the benefits and all you did was name some things, I stand by my assertion that this is the most promising line of research in NEARLY a century.
Once again, you miss the point in a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of way. Regardless of what language you apply, the field of research is very promising (in that it promises to help alleviate suffering) and it is opposed by an organisation that holds sway over millions of people and thier votes. The threat of going to hell is very real to those who have made the baseless assumption that there is a god, or that the pontif can talk to said dog.
Posted by Yehoshua
It CAN be considered a victim; I've seen plenty of people who believe that trees and picked-flowers can be victims and shouldn't be killed, despite lacking a nervous system, or the capacity to think or move. I'm not saying either side of the argument is right or wrong, just that there are two sides and it is possible for somebody to suggest that any byproduct of sexual reproduction is automatically a victim if deprived of its potential future.
|
You are stretching here, ad absurdum. Some people believe they should drink the cool aid, or that aliens dropped of gold tablets telling them to marry 13 year old girls. Doesn't make it true, or even plausible. Please explain to me how flowers or blastocysts can experience suffering. By your rationale, everyone who has sex creates billions of vicitms of the sperm that could have had a future.
Posted by Yehoshua
It doesn't, and I never said that it did. I said that your post was ludicrous because in five sentences it tried to make 390 declarative statements without offering any reasoning. Each one was just a conclusion with no evidence.
|
390? For anyone without an encyclopedic ignorance of history, the points I made were self explanatory.
Posted by Yehoshua
Again, you have turned "stem cell research" into a trojan horse to conceal your rabid anti-religion ranting. Stick to the issue. But since the "Kool aid drinkers of Jonestown" killed themselves to make a political statement about perceived harrassment by Federal agents of the United States, and did not invoke God as the reason for their suicide...again, I would suggest you are out of touch with history. You might find the Heaven's Gate cult to be a better example.
|
I have never concealed my contempt for unreasonable thinking. See my tag line. There is no conclealing at all in the plain language I used. I never related Jonestown to God although the temple was a pentecostal christian organization with communist undertones. The members were referred to as a congregation and Jones claimed to be a faith healer. The fact remains that those people died because they believed unreasonable ideas.
Posted by Yehoshua
I read both, fully. When given the link, I read the article, and then hunted down the actual statement by the Pope and read the entire PDF file. I doubt you did the same, since you seem to be making random and completely unrelated assertions, but again, this is the internet, anybody can lie and both sides will always assume the other is lying.
|
I don't assume you are lying. I did however question your motivation, as you have yet to take a clear position. I also believe you are wrong, which is different than lying. I have read the entire old and new testament, the cathecism of the church, the article (that I linked), the churches publication, and some archie comics - all of which is irrellevant to establishing the validity of the above arguments.
Posted by Yehoshua
Since Amnesty International, the United Nations and Medicins Sans Frontieres all have positions on homosexuality, stem cells, human sexuality and pretty everything to do putting the penis into the vagina...are they likewise "obsessed with sex"? Again, I'm not saying that "the church" (Catholic? Christian? All religion?) is or is not obsessed with sex, merely that you provide a very silly reasoning. And you may want to double-check the meaning of "Original Sin", it is not related to sexual reproduction, but the theory that humanity is flawed because its first-born disobey God and ate fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. We are not tainted because our parents had sex, by the theory, but because our first ancestors ate fruit to become like God themselves.
|
Church doctrine is based on Augustine's belief that the forbidden fruit was sex. Augustine of Hippo taught that original sin was transmitted through the concupiscence or lust, that accompanied sexual reproduction, weakening the will and making humanity a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In Augustine's view , all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all human beings inherit. As sinners, human beings are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace.
This, along with other misinterpretations of first century writings such as the ridiculous concept of the virgin birth, lead to the obsession of sex of the catholic church, and such doctrines as celibacy of the priesthood (except for little boys).
Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession, article two:
“It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God.
Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin:
“ Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.
QED, original sin has everything to do with the churches preoccupation with sex. How's that for a double check.
There is no flawed reasoning here. The above is a fact that supports the argument that the churches position on stem cell research is based on flawed reasoning and is therefore wrong itself, Reductio ad absurdum.
The dogmatic arguments of the church in support of banning stem cell research are based on their attitude toward sex, which itself is based on flawed reasoning, and their flawed concept of morality which is baseless (as clearly, the bible is no good moral guide, hence my position that we should more concerned with suffering in the universe, than with the potential rewards or punishments of a heaven and hell that in all likelihood do not exist at all).
If we cut to the quick, with occams razor, the x-stian arguments must be dismissed early on in the debate. The assumptions that dignitas personae is based on include the assumption that there is a soul, while providing no evidence of such anywhere. The doctrine also assumes that every fertilised ovum contains a soul, (and that no soul can be preferred over another). This can be easily established as nonsense. Go ahead, ask. The soul argument is scientifically indefensible and morally indefensible.
On the other hand science shows is that a collection of one hundred cells has less capacity for suffering than a housefly which contains one hundred thousand cells.
As for your embarrassing assertion that this ridiculous dogma will never affect scientists, please tell us how much federal funding in the USA is allocated to stem cell research, and why.
[last edit 12/19/2008 2:18 PM by tekriter - edited 2 times]
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
How much federal funding was given to Louis Pasteur? Isaac Newton? "Oh no, now they don't get free money in a strange and modernist way that pays people to simply say "I want to do X, pay me for it", millions of people will die".
Per the rest of your post, since I want to abandon this thread as quickly as possible since it seems pointless to try and point out your flawed arguments to you, the Pope IS elected - he's no less democratically elected than many "democratic" leaders. To continue claiming that Jonestown killed themselves because of God is ludicrous, you might as well say that "Rwanda is religious, therefore the Rwandan genocide was because of some invisible superhero living in outer space". As I said, Heaven's Gate would be a nice example of people killing themselves because of their religious beliefs -- but Jonestown certainly wasn't.
Please stop just turning to Wikipedia and pasting large chunks of texts you think will make us believe you're a scholar. It's like listening to one of those people phone into a radio contest to answer a trivia question as they begin reading off the website.
I never disagreed that it was a "promising" field of research, I said that statements like "the most promising field of research in a century" were laden with rhetoric and overstatement, and didn't help your argument - rather made it look LESS reliable.
You "question my motivation because I have not taken a stand on the issue of embryonic stem cell research" -- wouldn't it seem better to question the motivation of people who DID seem intent on putting forward their own personal interpretation of the research? As I said, it's completely irrelevant whether I think it's right or wrong, I'm not arguing that your opinion is right or wrong, merely that it's founded on shaky, hypocritical and self-righteous positions. As I said, either you're wrong, or you're right for the wrong reasons. *shrugs* Somebody else could come in here and make a detailed and rational argument why embryonic stem cell research is "the lesser of two evils" and I may applaud them, or they may come in and argue that it's "hypocritical when we largely refuse to even look into finding ways to use adult stem cells" and I might applaud them. But to come in ranting about how Nazis and Jonestown and the "X of the century", and millions of lives at stake...it's just like sitting down to watch CNN/Fox/ChooseYourPoisonHere.
You quote an interpretation of Augustine's that has been REJECTED by the church as your evidence that the church believes it, which seems completely backwards -- and the one quote you offer to "prove" the church is obsessed with sex...is a quote saying that adultery, murder and theft are sins...that's like saying the Ten Commandments prove the church is obsessed with sex. Now, it may or may not be obsessed with sex -- somebody a little brighter with a little better grasp of history might be able to come in here and make a terribly logical case either way -- but you completely fail.
Our Citizen.
Our Justice.
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. | |
The topic was the Church's teaching on embryo research. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops put out a .pdf stating their position very nicely back in June. The link is here if anyone cares to read it:
http://www.usccb.o...ishopsESCRstmt.pdf
Science tells us that human life begins once sperm and egg meet and then begin to divide into further cells. Embryos are not "aware", as far as we know, of their potential to be born, become adult humans and die a natural death. Assuming they were, what do you think their point of view would be on this subject? We were all embryos who could have been easily eliminated once too.
| |
Yeah, and so was Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden and the guy that invented plastic bubble packaging.
It doesn't change the fact that you seem to value a blastocyst (that cannot suffer, feel or think, and may never become a viable human) over alleviating the suffering of millions of actual humans.
It is also interesting that as support you can only point to theosophical arguments. The teleological avenue you take is a dead end:
God (great spaghetti monster) did not design stem cells or embryos because there is no god (great spaghetti monster). Further to that, if there was a design, it seems that stem cells were designed to do exactly what science is doing with them - curing disease.
On one hand you can oppose the use of embryonic stem cells in order to avoid a hell that may or may not exist (the highest probability based on the preponderance of evidenced is that it does not), or you can support the use of embryonic stem cells to alleviate the documented suffering of millions of people. Seems like the value of real, already born people trumps the suffering of potential people.
And why did this alleged god create cancer, ebola, polio, and the heartbreak od psoriasis?
This debate is not served well at all by iron age superstitions. By invoking religion you try to remove things like evidence.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by Trixi
We were all embryos who could have been easily eliminated once too.
|
Yes. We also could have failed to thrive in the womb and miscarried. Or strangled on our cords during a breach birth. Or been born with massive birth defects that made life impossible. Or born so staggeringly premature that there was a 0% chance of survival. But, seeing as how we are on here debating this, we didn't. Some conceptions do not result in births. For all sorts of reasons. The " it could have been you" argument isn't even an argument, it is a pointless appeal to emotions that has very little place in a situation like this. It didn't happen to you, so thank your god and go do as you like. But those of us not beholden to your invisible friend might want real science and medicine in the event we need treatment for a debilitating illness or injury.
Tell ya what. If you are so opposed to this research then, in the event that you ever in a position to need these treatments (and I hope you are not), please feel free to refuse them. Then your hands are clean.
| |
It is good that you linked that article. It is a great example of the problems with this debate, with all of it's emotional arguments, weasel words and the false dichotomies of good and evil. You are either going to heaven or you are a killer of innocent babies. I could almost feel bad. I like innocent babies too. Not the guilty ones, though.
Let's parse their arguments:
1. No Killing is good.
"No commitment to a hoped-for “greater good” can erase or diminish the wrong of directly taking innocent human lives here and now." bishops
This is Bull$hit. Anyone who has been shot at knows this for a fact. Consider this: if you were boarding one of the flights that crashed into the world trade centre and became aware of the plot - and you had the means to kill, and no other choice, would you have been justified in killing the terrorists for the greater good? Discuss amongst yourselves. Note: notice that there are more choices than "all killing is bad".
It is also hard to swallow a morality lesson from the Catholic Church who, by their own admission killed millions:
"I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost." Jim Rutz - WorldNetDaily
He actually was the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of faith - previously known as the Grand Inquisitor.
2. An embryo is a human life.
First, stem cell research is more concerned with Blastocysts - pre-embryonic cell structures.
Second, A blastocyst is surely not a human being. It consists of 70-100 cells and is formed about five days after conception. The cellular material will become the placenta, the sac and the embryo. The cells can become any type of cell. There is no more cognitive process than a dandelion and no capacity for suffering, (or magical thinking) unlike an actual human.
3. Killing embryos deprives a person of their life, and that is bad. Well, let's agree that depriving someone of thier life is bad.
"Of course, the Church's position on abortion takes no more notice of the details of biology than it does of the reality of human suffering. It has been estimated that 50 percent of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing that she was pregnant. In fact, 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all." Sam Harris
So, if god exists, and he causes abortions to happen, he is depriving potential humans of their lives. (not top mention the millions of actual humans deprived by his minions) He is therefore bad. This god seems to be into killing for sport. At least when I kill animals I use the meat.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 93 ms
|
|
Ethics
