Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grug on April 06, 2006, 06:24:49 pm
-
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18724849-36398,00.html
DOCTORS have implanted adult stem cells into a patient's broken leg in an Australian world-first experimental procedure they hope will replace painful bone grafts.
Jamie Stevens, 21, shattered his leg in a motorbike accident in June. After nine months of discomfort and inactivity, the break had not healed.
Last Friday, Royal Melbourne Hospital orthopaedics director Richard de Steiger inserted about 30 million of Mr Stevens's stem cells into the cavity in his left thigh bone, coated on two pieces of "scaffolding" made of bone-like material.
The stem cells were harvested from his bone marrow during a biopsy about seven weeks earlier and cultured into bone-producing cells.
Doctors will have to wait six weeks before they know if the cells are likely to grow into new bone.
Dr de Steiger said he hoped the cavity in Mr Stevens's bone would have completely filled after 16 weeks.
"Like any medical research it's exciting, but it's tempered by the fact you have to wait and see," Dr de Steiger said.
Mr Stevens, of Ivanhoe, is the first of 10 patients who will undergo the procedure over the next 12 months at the hospital in a clinical trial.
He will be discharged from Royal Melbourne Hospital today on crutches and with his leg still swollen.
"It's still quite sore but it's better than it was," Mr Stevens said yesterday. "I'm pretty happy to be the first one in the world."
Dr de Steiger said long bone fractures failed to heal in about 10 per cent of cases, which usually led to a bone graft.
He said the treatment, developed by Australian firm Mesoblast Ltd, could reduce hospital stays and recovery time while reducing discomfort.
Using patients' own stem cells eliminates the risk of rejection that can occur with cells from another donor.
Hooray for science! :D
Hopefully all go's well and we can see further application in the medical industry.
-
oh, look another country is takeing over the reigns of scientific research, thanks Bush :)
-
oh, look another country is takeing over the reigns of scientific research, thanks Bush :)
"Oh no! The press will kill me if i say yes to this research. Il have to say no and sit on my ass." *Waves world peace flag*
If anyone should do the stem cell research on live human specimins, it should be us, the USA. People whine too much, and we cant get work done.
-
Ermm... weren't you one of the people screaming about how fetal stem cells were immortal not too long ago?
Or was that bizzaro Charismatic?
-
There was not a single embryonic stem cell involved in the procedure. There is moral dilemma here, and Bush has not limited funding for such endevours at the least.
-
Doctors have implanted adult stem cells
Re-quoted for emphasis. :)
-
the ban effects all research related to stem cells. there are limeted supplies.
why does anyone care about useing fetal cells? if we find something that works with them we could probly reverse engeneer it for adult ones, but the posibility exsists that fetal cells might be easier to find the stuff with initaly.
-
the ban effects all research related to stem cells. there are limeted supplies.
why does anyone care about useing fetal cells? if we find something that works with them we could probly reverse engeneer it for adult ones, but the posibility exsists that fetal cells might be easier to find the stuff with initaly.
IIRC it restricts research to a small number of foetal stem cell lines (about 6 to 15 IIRC), which effectively represents the genetic diversity of a whopping 60 people (restricting any potential for cures). It's worth remembering the value of foetal stem cells is that they are undifferentiated (pluripotent) and can grow into any type of cell; although there are undifferentiated adult, etc, stem cells, these have only a restricted ability to differentiate if any (Multipotent cells can produce those of a similar type, i.e. using umbilical cord stem cells to treat blood disorders, and unipotent cells can't differentiate but have special reproductive properties that set them apart). So foetal stem cells are much more 'powerful' as a potential cure.
The arguement against foetal stem cell research is that you need to get the cells from a blastocyst - an embryo of 50-150 cells - and that means either cloning for them, or taking them from aborted embryos. What you get, unfortunately, is the strange arguement (this was specifically used by Liberator a while back, and I'm not paraphrasing it atall) that succesfull foetal stem-cell based cures will lead to vats of embryos being grown for harvesting stem cells.
It's worth noting that embryonic stem cells have only been known of since about 1989, compared to the 60s for adult stem cells, so expectations of a sudden cure based upon them would be rather optimistic, although there have IIRC been some promising experimental results in the treatment of things like diabetes, heart defects, and blood disorders.
-
In other words, foetal stem cells have root access to your genetic code, whereas adult stem cells are only an ordinary user.
-
If anyone should do the stem cell research on live human specimins, it should be us, the USA.
LoL, where's the logic in that?
Should be a global scientific endeavour. :)
-
What you get, unfortunately, is the strange arguement (this was specifically used by Liberator a while back, and I'm not paraphrasing it atall) that succesfull foetal stem-cell based cures will lead to vats of embryos being grown for harvesting stem cells.
How is this a strange argument? Seems to me that if they can figure out how to use fetal stem cells in this way, they'd be in very high demand.
-
What you get, unfortunately, is the strange arguement (this was specifically used by Liberator a while back, and I'm not paraphrasing it atall) that succesfull foetal stem-cell based cures will lead to vats of embryos being grown for harvesting stem cells.
How is this a strange argument? Seems to me that if they can figure out how to use fetal stem cells in this way, they'd be in very high demand.
Because it's completely and utterly implausible and essentially aims to brand doctors as child-murderers. It's an attempt to launch an emotive attack using images popularised by dystopian nightmares and at the same time denegrate medical researchers and ignore their adherence to the hippocratic oath. Moreso, it ignores that these cells are only obtained at the blastocyst stage (i.e. cells in a test tube), too, and IMO aims to evoke the more (again) emotive image of a developing foetus in the classical hunched-in-womb style. And that this creation would be via therapeutic cloning rather than 'forced abortion' type scenario certain members of the anti progress camp aim to convey with that allusion.
i.e. it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and an almost wilfull distrust and denegration of scientists/doctors.
-
So instead of vats of aborted embryos, we'd have test tubes of cloned blastocysts. Different details, but the same core concept.
If fetal stem cells become in high demand, then people will want to find ways to mass-produce them. Just like if we ever figure out how to successfully grow organs, we'll have organ farms popping up almost overnight. I have no problem with either scenario unless it involves embryos, cloned or otherwise.
And the Hippocratic Oath doesn't stop everyone. Just look at the black market for organ donors.
-
So instead of vats of aborted embryos, we'd have test tubes of cloned blastocysts. Different details, but the same core concept.
If fetal stem cells become in high demand, then people will want to find ways to mass-produce them. Just like if we ever figure out how to successfully grow organs, we'll organ farms popping up almost overnight.
I have no problem with either scenario unless it involves embryos, cloned or otherwise.
Perhaps the most appropriate response to make, considering the massive potential benefits, is to show what a blastocyst is.
(http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/one-blastocyst-embryo-trans.jpg)
That (quite possibly cloned, or created using artificial eggs as has been suggested). Consider the value of that vis-a-vis, say, a 20 year old with a heart defect. It's quite a different image to the Matrix-esque 'human farm' that gets pushed.
And the Hippocratic Oath doesn't stop everyone. Just look at the black market for organ donors.
*ding*
Back in with the attacks on doctors. Fundamental lack of trust being propagated here, I see.
-
Perhaps the most appropriate response to make, considering the massive potential benefits, is to show what a blastocyst is.
[snip]
That (quite possibly cloned, or created using artificial eggs as has been suggested). Consider the value of that vis-a-vis, say, a 20 year old with a heart defect. It's quite a different image to the Matrix-esque 'human farm' that gets pushed.
It's still a human farm, regardless of its appearance. But one's position on this is probably going to be the same as one's position on abortion.
Anyway, if you zoom out enough, the Earth becomes a speck of dust among the rest of the universe. Does that mean the Earth is less important?
And the Hippocratic Oath doesn't stop everyone. Just look at the black market for organ donors.
*ding*
Back in with the attacks on doctors. Fundamental lack of trust being propagated here, I see.
My dad is a doctor. He's a man of integrity, but he works with people who aren't. I've heard stories of shortcuts being taken, diagnoses being made incorrectly in haste, unneeded medicine being prescribed just so the patient will leave them alone, etc. It happens more often than you would think.
Anyway, I distrust everybody where money is concerned. If this becomes feasible on a large scale, it'll turn into a booming industry. People aren't going to let a little thing like the Hippocratic Oath get in the way of making a buck.
For an example where morality doesn't enter the picture at all, take laser eye surgery. It's an extremely profitable business, and doctors are so eager to make money from it that they oftentimes don't warn patients of the possible complications. Most of the time it works, but sometimes it doesn't, and people are permanently stuck with worse (and more painful) vision than when they started. (I'm not even sure laser eye surgery requires a license, either.)
-
(I'm not even sure laser eye surgery requires a license, either.)
So that's why our wingmen can't hit worth a damn. Flight surgeon to pilot with glasses: "Look, just come stand here and look straight into the ML-16 and we'll get you 20/20 eyesight in notime, I promise this won't hurt a bit... "
-
It's still a human farm, regardless of its appearance. But one's position on this is probably going to be the same as one's position on abortion.
Anyway, if you zoom out enough, the Earth becomes a speck of dust among the rest of the universe. Does that mean the Earth is less important?
Um, less important than the entire universe? On any sort of objective viewpoint, of course. Zoom out from the cellular level and a virus becomes a spec of dust amongst cells, after all.
My dad is a doctor. He's a man of integrity, but he works with people who aren't. I've heard stories of shortcuts being taken, diagnoses being made incorrectly in haste, unneeded medicine being prescribed just so the patient will leave them alone, etc. It happens more often than you would think.
Anyway, I distrust everybody where money is concerned. If this becomes feasible on a large scale, it'll turn into a booming industry. People aren't going to let a little thing like the Hippocratic Oath get in the way of making a buck.
For an example where morality doesn't enter the picture at all, take laser eye surgery. It's an extremely profitable business, and doctors are so eager to make money from it that they oftentimes don't warn patients of the possible complications. Most of the time it works, but sometimes it doesn't, and people are permanently stuck with worse (and more painful) vision than when they started. (I'm not even sure laser eye surgery requires a license, either.)
Ah, I forget this is a perspective that'd be influenced by the US health system. Apologies.
-
Um, less important than the entire universe? On any sort of objective viewpoint, of course.
Enough, say, to warrant destroying it in order to build a hyperspace bypass? :) I would say no. The Earth has intrinsic value regardless of its comparative size. So do humans.
(NB: I haven't actually read the book, though I've been meaning to. So apologies if this comparison is inapt for reasons revealed therein.)
Ah, I forget this is a perspective that'd be influenced by the US health system. Apologies.
Heh, accepted. :)
-
Close enough. Though strictly speaking, no, humanity is not important enough to stand in the way of a hyperspace bypass. At least not from a Vogon point of view... which is probably a point to consider. Earth definitely does have intrinsic value, as do we as humans, but this is from our own point of view. I'm sure some random alien race on the other side of the galaxy doesn't really give a damn whether we live, die, or even exist.
Now go read The Book. Now. What, still here? Go! One of the best books ever written :)
[Edit] Damn Galazies sneaking in where I want a Galaxy to be.
-
Um, less important than the entire universe? On any sort of objective viewpoint, of course.
Enough, say, to warrant destroying it in order to build a hyperspace bypass? :) I would say no. The Earth has intrinsic value regardless of its comparative size. So do humans.
That depends if you check your local intergalactic planning dept. on Alpha Centauri or not. If you won't make the effort......
Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'? All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.
-
Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'? All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.
Intrinsic value is based on morality. And morality is something shared by a lot of people, not just one person's gut.
Some people believe that animals are intrinsically as valuable as humans. Because of this, they view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research, regardless of the potential benefits. It's the same line of reasoning.
-
Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'? All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.
Intrinsic value is based on morality. And morality is something shared by a lot of people, not just one person's gut.
Some people believe that animals are intrinsically as valuable as humans. Because of this, they view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research, regardless of the potential benefits. It's the same line of reasoning.
And yet some people consider them animals not to be intrinsically as valuable as humans. And they don't view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research. How do you decide which is correct? There is a reason morality is subjective.
-
And yet some people consider them animals not to be intrinsically as valuable as humans. And they don't view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research. How do you decide which is correct? There is a reason morality is subjective.
But both groups agree that it is morally wrong to do certain kinds of experiments. Where they differ is in degree, i.e. how much leeway one has in choosing subjects. So it's a common principle, just different in the details.
-
And yet some people consider them animals not to be intrinsically as valuable as humans. And they don't view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research. How do you decide which is correct? There is a reason morality is subjective.
But both groups agree that it is morally wrong to do certain kinds of experiments. Where they differ is in degree, i.e. how much leeway one has in choosing subjects. So it's a common principle, just different in the details.
And isn't this issue about stem cells just another "detail"? :p
-
Where do you stand if you being one of those patients, Mr Goober 5000?
-
Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'? All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.
Intrinsic value is based on morality. And morality is something shared by a lot of people, not just one person's gut.
Some people believe that animals are intrinsically as valuable as humans. Because of this, they view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research, regardless of the potential benefits. It's the same line of reasoning.
But it is intrinsically unfair to apply someone or some groups morality based on nothing beyond gut feeling, regardless of how shared that is. For example, some people believe it's cruel to eat meat - should we apply that to everyone without proof behind it?
What we have to consider with stem cells in particular, is that a lot of the research using embryonic cells has tremendous potential to save lives. So how high should we value a 50-150 cell blastocyst, against a 40 year old with a potentially fatal and/or debilatating condition? Is it right to deny the 40 year old - or anyone in that position - the right to treatment if we can't provide empirical evidence, unclouded by bias and personal opinion, to back that up? Because the predominant arguement I've seen against embryonic stem cell research is based on the twin pillars of the 'slippery slope' and the belief that doctors/scientist are in some way inherently morally corrupt and would allow that slope.
-
And isn't this issue about stem cells just another "detail"? :p
Not really. The principle here is that you have be ethical and have integrity. Some people are more strict, others less strict. That is the "detail".
Where do you stand if you being one of those patients, Mr Goober 5000?
Animals are fair game as long as you aren't malicious. With humans, you need informed consent.
But it is intrinsically unfair to apply someone or some groups morality based on nothing beyond gut feeling, regardless of how shared that is. For example, some people believe it's cruel to eat meat - should we apply that to everyone without proof behind it?
I dunno. I don't have a satisfactory answer to that - just that IMO it's a different situation, because it deals with animals instead of people.
What we have to consider with stem cells in particular, is that a lot of the research using embryonic cells has tremendous potential to save lives. So how high should we value a 50-150 cell blastocyst, against a 40 year old with a potentially fatal and/or debilatating condition? Is it right to deny the 40 year old - or anyone in that position - the right to treatment if we can't provide empirical evidence, unclouded by bias and personal opinion, to back that up? Because the predominant arguement I've seen against embryonic stem cell research is based on the twin pillars of the 'slippery slope' and the belief that doctors/scientist are in some way inherently morally corrupt and would allow that slope.
I would say it's simply wrong -- you don't even need the slope.
Anyway this is a moral judgement, not a scientific one. So I guess it's morality vs. morality here.
-
I dunno. I don't have a satisfactory answer to that - just that IMO it's a different situation, because it deals with animals instead of people.
Can you give a reason why it's different for animals? Why they are not so 'valuable' as people in this context?
I would say it's simply wrong -- you don't even need the slope.
Anyway this is a moral judgement, not a scientific one. So I guess it's morality vs. morality here.
a) why don't you need the 'slope'? (define the slope first, I guess)
b) why is not scientific (or perhaps more appropriately, medical)? Define what morality means in this context, because the morality issue comes in if you have some opinion that regards the blastocyst as more than a bunch of cells because AFAIK there is no scientific opinion/evidence to support that and hence it's morality based.
-
Can you give a reason why it's different for animals? Why they are not so 'valuable' as people in this context?
Humans are sentient, morally aware, intelligent (more so than other animals), artistic, creative, etc. And, if you accept the Big Three religious view, are created in the image of God. All these (the last one in particular) make us intrinsically more valuable.
a) why don't you need the 'slope'? (define the slope first, I guess)
A slippery slope happens when you start out with something that, while not bad in and of itself, can conceivably lead to something else, which can lead to something else, etc., which eventually leads to something that is bad.
Or, alternatively, it's something bad that progressively leads to something worse and worse.
IMHO, you don't need the slippery slope here because you start with something bad in the first place.
b) why is not scientific (or perhaps more appropriately, medical)? Define what morality means in this context, because the morality issue comes in if you have some opinion that regards the blastocyst as more than a bunch of cells because AFAIK there is no scientific opinion/evidence to support that and hence it's morality based.
Morality doesn't necessarily depend on science. Some religions prohibit the eating of beef. Now suppose that some way was found to cure cancer by using beef extract or whatever. They would be morally prohibited from taking advantage of it.
-
Humans are sentient, morally aware, intelligent (more so than other animals), artistic, creative, etc. And, if you accept the Big Three religious view, are created in the image of God. All these (the last one in particular) make us intrinsically more valuable.
And does this distinction apply towards 50-150 undifferentiated cells.?
A slippery slope happens when you start out with something that, while not bad in and of itself, can conceivably lead to something else, which can lead to something else, etc., which eventually leads to something that is bad.
Or, alternatively, it's something bad that progressively leads to something worse and worse.
IMHO, you don't need the slippery slope here because you start with something bad in the first place.
The chance to find a cure for Altzheimers would be bad? For diabetes, or parkinsons, or heart defects?
What part of this do you define as intrinsically bad, and to such an extent that all of humanity be denied the opportunities for cures the reasearch offers?
Morality doesn't necessarily depend on science. Some religions prohibit the eating of beef. Now suppose that some way was found to cure cancer by using beef extract or whatever. They would be morally prohibited from taking advantage of it.
And would you take that cure away from everyone because of that moral belief? would you remove the chance to find that cure?
-
Humans are sentient, morally aware, intelligent (more so than other animals), artistic, creative, etc. And, if you accept the Big Three religious view, are created in the image of God. All these (the last one in particular) make us intrinsically more valuable.
And does this distinction apply towards 50-150 undifferentiated cells.?
Yup.
The chance to find a cure for Altzheimers would be bad? For diabetes, or parkinsons, or heart defects?
No. Research on embyonic stem cells is bad because it destroys the embryo (or blastocyst) in the process. Research on adult stem cells doesn't run into this problem.
Morality doesn't necessarily depend on science. Some religions prohibit the eating of beef. Now suppose that some way was found to cure cancer by using beef extract or whatever. They would be morally prohibited from taking advantage of it.
And would you take that cure away from everyone because of that moral belief? would you remove the chance to find that cure?
I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. :p I can't say whether they would. Also, I don't know whether eating beef supposedly makes you worthy of death or simply reprobate.
-
Goober, I hope you are being sarcastic. :wtf:
-
I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. :p I can't say whether they would.
But you are insisting on a ban on stem cell research based on your beliefs. So in a similar fashion we can ignore you because it's not our beliefs right?
-
Yup.
Why?
No. Research on embyonic stem cells is bad because it destroys the embryo (or blastocyst) in the process. Research on adult stem cells doesn't run into this problem.
Except it's not as promising because adult cells are constrained to, at most, a subgroup of effective differentiations. So you are still reducing if not removing the chance for cures. I don't think, for example, anyone has been able to grow pure nerve cells from adult stem cells, but they have from embryonic. And the question is, how much of that hope are you willing to take based on your belief alone?
I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. :p I can't say whether they would. Also, I don't know whether eating beef supposedly makes you worthy of death or simply reprobate.
So woudl you agree with me that you shouldn't legislate on these issues except by the bias-neutral basis of scientific evidence?
-
But you are insisting on a ban on stem cell research based on your beliefs. So in a similar fashion we can ignore you because it's not our beliefs right?
Aren't you doing that already?
But you've got the right idea. What this comes down to, basically, is a bunch of conflicting moralities.
Yup.
Why?
God said so?
Look: it's a helpless pile of cells. I acknowledge that. It isn't currently making any contributions to society, nor will it for several years. I acknowledge that. By all appearances, you ought to be able to toss it out the window without a second thought. But I believe it possesses a soul, something that science cannot (currently) detect, and by virtue of that soul it is worth just as much as a 30-year-old CEO.
Except it's not as promising because adult cells are constrained to, at most, a subgroup of effective differentiations. So you are still reducing if not removing the chance for cures. I don't think, for example, anyone has been able to grow pure nerve cells from adult stem cells, but they have from embryonic. And the question is, how much of that hope are you willing to take based on your belief alone?
Actually, I've heard that they've had more success (so far) with adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. I'm fine with using adult stem cells; I think it's a great medical breakthrough. But if they prove not to work in the long run, we can't use embryonic cells - we must turn to other methods.
And I don't see this as hindering scientific process. I see it as standing up for the embryos thoughtlessly discarded as a result of the research.
I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. :p I can't say whether they would. Also, I don't know whether eating beef supposedly makes you worthy of death or simply reprobate.
So woudl you agree with me that you shouldn't legislate on these issues except by the bias-neutral basis of scientific evidence?
Not in this case. I'm willing to compromise on some matters, but this is a matter of life and death.
-
God said so?
Look: it's a helpless pile of cells. I acknowledge that. It isn't currently making any contributions to society, nor will it for several years. I acknowledge that. By all appearances, you ought to be able to toss it out the window without a second thought. But I believe it possesses a soul, something that science cannot (currently) detect, and by virtue of that soul it is worth just as much as a 30-year-old CEO.
So you would deny medical possibilities on your gut? You'd support the legislative imposition of your own beliefs, founded by nothing beyond faith, upon others not sharing them? Quite possibly costing lives?
Anyways, what exactly does the bible say about life beginning? All I know of is a quote that “Life is in the blood.” (from Leviticus, I think), which wouldn't apply at the blastocyst stage as there isn't any blood.
Actually, I've heard that they've had more success (so far) with adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. But if that proves not to work in the long run, then we'd have to look elsewhere.
They've had about 3 times as long to work with adult stem cells (since the 60s), which are also 'simpler' by dint of being partially differentiated. I think i mentioned that in my first post.
And I don't see this as hindering scientific process. I see it as standing up for the embryos thoughtlessly discarded as a result of the research.
But they're not being discarded 'as a result', they're already discarded. The whole issue of mass-production, so to speak, doesn't even enter into this stage because it's quite possible it could even lead to manufacturing abilities that avoid your moral qualms.
No. I'm going to stand up for my beliefs, and undoubtedly they're going to stand up for theirs.
Even when it hurts others, and for a reason you cannot show beyond faith?
-
Bloody hell, I've got to stop making these threads. =/
-
Nah, these threads are great. A good way for the debatees to apply their knowledge, and a good way for people like me to gain new ideas and perspectives on controversial (or not so controversial) subjects.
-
Homework for everyone! :drevil:
Does a quark have a soul?
What about a nucleon...
...an atom
...a molecule
...a biomolecule
...a complex of biomolecules
...a procaryote (bacteria and archs)
...an eucaryote (single-cell organisms like amebas and stuff)
...multi-cellular organisms
...fish
...amphibians (frogs'n salamanders'n stuff)
...reptiles (mother****ing snakes)
...birds and mammals, including (but not excluded to)
...Canis Lupus
...Pan Troglodytes
...Australopitcheus Afarensis
...Homo Habilis
...Homo Erectus
...Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis
...Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Now, I'd personally be very happy if someone could tell me which of these have this entity called "soul" and which do not have it. Surely a "soul", if it exists in some form, is not encoded into Homo Sapiens Sapiensis DNA? Though if it's not, who can make a distinction between "thing A has no soul" and "thing B has a soul"? And where will the line be drawn?
Now, on the other hand, if we abandon the concept of "soul" for purely definitional reasons and consider the concept of "consciousness" instead, things become very much easier. (Yes, I'm getting to my point, don't hurry me... :lol:)
-I suppose we can agree that without sophisticated neural network there can be no consciousness existing in an organism. Therefore, an embryo doesn't have a consciousness.
-Now, I'm asking, if there is no conscious being but just a bunch of cells, what harm can there be for anything for not letting the embryo to develop into a fetus (something highly more sophisticated IMO)?
I mean, let us presume there is such thing as a "soul", be it whatever it is, attached to every embryo right from the fertilization. So, if this "soul" is what it's usually referred to as being immortal spirit, surely it would continue to exist even if the embryo to which it was "attached" was not let to develop?
If, on the other hand, you refer to "soul" as a value of a being and state that an embryo does have a similar value as your 30-year-old CEO because it COULD some day became a person contributing to society, my own opinion about this matter is this: The present matters. What could be does not matter a slightest bit to what is now*. In other words, if an embryo is a bunch of cells that cannot have a conscience, I have no trouble expereimenting with stem cells. It doesn't matter if it "could" be a new Einstein, because it's not that now. I would, on the other hand, be very much more careful to test thingz on beings with a sophisticated neural network on their headz, in which case it would be possible that they suffered because of testing.
*This does not mean that we should not think about the future. What I mean is this:
If you inherit a house that you have no use to, is not in particularly good condition, is a couple decades old, and you could profit by letting the firefighters practice on it, burn it down and then sell the soil to someone who would like to build a new house, you wouldn't probably think "Oh, but hundred years from now this house will be a significant example of 1980's architecture and will be an important monument of ugliness".
It is true that the house could be a monument of 1980's a hundred years from now. But it is also true that if you let the firefighters practice on it, theey might be able to bettle distinguish fires on other houses. Plus you'd get a good money of the soil. And we actually don't need more 1980's building as monuments.
In similar fashion, it is true that an embryo could develop into fetus and grow up to be a person. But it is also true that if scientist do their tests on embryo's cells, they might be able to cure and help people that already DO exist as conscient beings. Plus, the earth really doesn't need any more people than gets born even without letting embryos developing further on...
I hope someone can make some sense out of this babbling. It's not easy trying to explain complex philosophical opinions with some else language than your own... :p
-
Well said Herra, an interesting point of view.
The problem as I see it is that people like Goob put too much value on human life. When you get down to the core of things, human life isn't worth squat. The fact of the matter is, there is no soul, no archane spirit, and no grand importance behind human existance whatsoever, and deep down everyone knows it. Indeed, importance and the right to exist is earned, not bestowed upon conception. These people who hold on to tired beliefs that there is something 'special' and of immense value within each and every human, while they may think they're being 'noble' and protecting those who cannot protect themselves, are just being selfish. Sticking up for one's belief is valid, but to do so in full knowledge that people - by which I mean people with families, friends, and actual importance to those around them - will die because of it, is just... loathsome.
-
Aren't you doing that already?
But you've got the right idea. What this comes down to, basically, is a bunch of conflicting moralities.
Surely the difference is that you seek to inflict your beliefs upon me. Stem cell research must be banned because you believe it is evil. So instead of simply refusing to partake in research or the products of that research you instead choose to try to prevent anyone from doing so regardless of what they believe.
This attitude has no more validity than banning the use of beef because Hindus feel the cow is sacred. I'm going to continue to eat beef because I like the taste. If someone wants to tell my I shouldn't because cows are holy I'm going to ignore them because cows are not holy as far as I am concerned.
Why not simply decide that anyone working on embryos is going to hell and leave it up to God to sort out?
-
it isn't that he's overvaluing human life, it's the fact that he is ataching that property to some things... wich it realy is a streach to call them human or alive.
I mean, realy now, I want you to give your back a good scraching, right now, look at that little mass of flesh under your fingernail, stem cells are as much human life as that stuff, I can understand wanting to be safe pushing the definition back into the grey area, but going this far it isn't grey anymore.
why do you think a small mass of stem cells has a soul? I don't see the biblical origen for this, as the Bible does not go into detail on the inner workings of human biology. does a sperm have a soul? an egg? a skin cell? what if all this studying of adult stem cells results in a way to fully undiferentiate any cell in the body back to a fetal level and then someone is able to make that one quasi-fetal stem cell behave like zygote and then it is implanted in some woman and made into a full clone of the origonal? that clone would have a soul, yes? a seperate soul from the person he was cloned from, right? wouldn't that mean that every cell in your body has a soul? that it is a seperate human in the same contect as a single fertalised egg is a seperate human? so the colection of them is not?
NO! a human is the colection of cells, stem cells are not humans!
-
Surely the difference is that you seek to inflict your beliefs upon me. Stem cell research must be banned because you believe it is evil. So instead of simply refusing to partake in research or the products of that research you instead choose to try to prevent anyone from doing so regardless of what they believe.
This attitude has no more validity than banning the use of beef because Hindus feel the cow is sacred. I'm going to continue to eat beef because I like the taste. If someone wants to tell my I shouldn't because cows are holy I'm going to ignore them because cows are not holy as far as I am concerned.
Why not simply decide that anyone working on embryos is going to hell and leave it up to God to sort out?
I think one of the methods that relgion uses to propagate itself (and it's leaders' powers) is to try and speak against that sort of attitude, sadly, and to make it the believers duty to 'spread the word' etc etc. I don't think using Christianity to ban embryonic stem cell research is all that far removed from an Afghan giving the death sentence to someone for converting from Islam.
-
Well said Herra, an interesting point of view.
The problem as I see it is that people like Goob put too much value on human life. When you get down to the core of things, human life isn't worth squat. The fact of the matter is, there is no soul, no archane spirit, and no grand importance behind human existance whatsoever, and deep down everyone knows it. Indeed, importance and the right to exist is earned, not bestowed upon conception. These people who hold on to tired beliefs that there is something 'special' and of immense value within each and every human, while they may think they're being 'noble' and protecting those who cannot protect themselves, are just being selfish.
Meh, I have to step up and defend this...
In the big scheme of things you can make this argument that humans are worth nothing, you just have to expand the scope big enough until humans become an infinitetesimal dot. Right now we've prolly made some noticeable changes to the earth, but not so much mars and the moon. So we can just pull back to a few star systems. Maybe we develop interstellar drive - we pull back again to the Milky Way. We spread a little further. We pull back again etc etc until we've either consumed all the resources and die (at which point the last generation will be able to say "Well...we killed the universe, I guess we do matter"), get wiped out by someone/something, or find out that the universe is infinite and that we are therefore infinetesimally small.
So it's really a very circular argument, but the thing is, as long as there are people around and they are the dominant species on the planet, humans are special. Hey, if we wanted to wipe out all life on earth, we've got the technology. Even on a completely selfish level, as long as you acknowledge the goal to survive, then preservation of the human race (and by extension human lives) is definitely a special thing, because it keeps you alive. Barring some extreme psychopathic tendencies, of course. On a completely selfless level, of course, you'd be looking out for others anyway for their best benefit, but in turn looking out for yourself so that you could serve them.
Now maybe you want to argue that there is nothing to existence besides what we can prove with technology today, which may be correct, but to be honest it's not something that you can disprove, only prove, because you can pull the same zoomout trick that you can pull with human importance.
Sticking up for one's belief is valid, but to do so in full knowledge that people - by which I mean people with families, friends, and actual importance to those around them - will die because of it, is just... loathsome.
I guess the question is, is it worth it, and which is more important? It is a question that I'm sure someone in the world struggles with on a daily basis. You can either let group A die so group B lives, or let group B die so group A lives. Who has more importance and who will have more importance?
At the same time, it really isn't rational/logical to ban stem cell research because (IIRC) it is not like people are having abortions so that they can promote stem cell research. IT is more like the cells are left over....so why not put them towards saving someone else's life or helping them recover from a grievous accident.
-
At the same time, it really isn't rational/logical to ban stem cell research because (IIRC) it is not like people are having abortions so that they can promote stem cell research. IT is more like the cells are left over....so why not put them towards saving someone else's life or helping them recover from a grievous accident.
This is kind of how I feel about the whole stem cell mess. As I understand it, fertility clinics end up with lots of extra zygotes (or maybe it's something more developed than that, a blastocyst?) that if put in a woman's uterus would end up growing into a human. But the clients don't want dozens of children, they only want a few. So now you have these leftover potential humans, except they're never going to be humans because the people that own them aren't going to want that many children. IIRC these leftovers eventually get thrown away. Whether they have souls or not (or whether souls exist at all) probably won't be agreed upon any time soon, but I think we can all agree that valuable stem cells are getting thrown away. So if they don't have souls then of course there's no problem with harvesting their cells for research. If they do have souls then they're still going to die either way and they might as well die saving someone from a terrible disease rather than in a medical waste bin.
-
Redsniper is hitting the nail on the head, here.
Goob, as a Christian, I agree with a lot of the sentiment. I really do. But if these people-en-potentia are going to die anyway, how is it better that they simply be thrown out with the garbage rather than used to save the life of someone's family? We aren't talking about growing babies so they can be slaughtered for spare parts. These "babies," if you can even call them that, have no future except in the biohazard disposal unit. Which of those futures turns your stomach worse?
does a sperm have a soul?
[sing-song voice] Eeeevery sperm is saaaaaacred!... [/sing-song voice]
-
Yay, Monty Python to save the day. LoL.
Majority rules?
This thread is so deja vu.
-
So you would deny medical possibilities on your gut? You'd support the legislative imposition of your own beliefs, founded by nothing beyond faith, upon others not sharing them? Quite possibly costing lives?
It's not just my gut, it's the common consensus of a sizeable chunk of the population. And it's not blind faith, it's faith backed up by experience.
And don't forget, our position is that not prohibiting fetal stem cell exploitation is costing lives. I'm not even opposed to fetal stem cell research per se, but given that doing research and destroying the blastocyst/embryo seem to be inextricably linked, it seems fair IMHO to treat them as one and the same.
To clarify, I don't support the legislative imposition of Christianity (or any other religion) on the general populace. For one thing, people would resent it, and you'd drive away the very people you're trying to reach. For another thing, even if people cooperated, that isn't necessarily indicative of an internal change. Legislation of beliefs may change behavior, but it won't change the person. It treats the symptoms, not the cause. By contrast, prohibiting fetal stem cell exploitation is a humanitarian objective, independent of whether the fetus will become - or belongs to a family that is - Christian, non-Christian, agnostic, or athiest.
Anyways, what exactly does the bible say about life beginning? All I know of is a quote that “Life is in the blood.” (from Leviticus, I think), which wouldn't apply at the blastocyst stage as there isn't any blood.
There are other quotes here and there, such as the much quoted "knit me together in my mother's womb", plus John the Baptist "leaping for joy" upon hearing of Mary's visit from Gabriel. It doesn't come right out and say it AFAIK, but it seems to communicate very strongly that God is personally involved in a person's life from conception, and that would imply that a person has a soul upon conception.
But they're not being discarded 'as a result', they're already discarded. The whole issue of mass-production, so to speak, doesn't even enter into this stage because it's quite possible it could even lead to manufacturing abilities that avoid your moral qualms.
That's the part that assumes the "slippery slope". While that may be true now (I don't know whether it is or not), it's conceivable that in the future people would get pregnant for the express purpose of donating the embryo for stem cell research. Especially if they get some sort of reward, say a fee or a tax credit.
Even when it hurts others, and for a reason you cannot show beyond faith?
It's faith backed by experience, first of all. Second of all, it's not hurting anyone in an active sense, because nobody is harmed by not doing the research. They simply continue in the same state they were before.
Bloody hell, I've got to stop making these threads. =/
:lol: Yup. :)
Homework for everyone! :drevil:
Does a quark have a soul?
What about...
Birds and mammals have souls; other animals (and organisms and matter) don't. There's a word for that in Hebrew, IIRC - nephesh; "soulish" creatures. Basically, any animal that can form a relationship has a soul.
Surely the difference is that you seek to inflict your beliefs upon me. Stem cell research must be banned because you believe it is evil. So instead of simply refusing to partake in research or the products of that research you instead choose to try to prevent anyone from doing so regardless of what they believe.
No, there's a difference (and I only just realized the difference today). Certain religious groups don't believe in medicine, so they don't use medicine - but they don't prevent anyone else from doing so. The reason is that it's a personal moral choice that affects nobody but the one making the choice. However, stem cell research affects a third party, the blastocyst/embryo, who hasn't given consent (and cannot) for it to be used in such a matter.
The primary moral concern here is protecting the embryo, not passing judgement on someone's use or abstention from a medical procedure.
This attitude has no more validity than banning the use of beef because Hindus feel the cow is sacred. I'm going to continue to eat beef because I like the taste. If someone wants to tell my I shouldn't because cows are holy I'm going to ignore them because cows are not holy as far as I am concerned.
Why not simply decide that anyone working on embryos is going to hell and leave it up to God to sort out?
Again, there's a difference. You have to determine where the moral law is targeted. Here's how I would assume the Hindu sees it: If eating beef is wrong because it makes a person unclean, then you can live and let live because the person is going to be accountable to God (or Vishnu or whoever) because of his uncleanness. On the other hand, if eating beef is wrong because cows are holy and must be protected, then nobody must be allowed to eat beef, regardless of his personal views on the matter.
That's the distinction. Stem cell research isn't wrong because a person shouldn't benefit from modern medicine; it's wrong because it harms an innocent third party.
-
Seriously.
However, stem cell research affects a third party, the blastocyst/embryo, who hasn't given consent (and cannot) for it to be used in such a matter.
...
Stem cell research isn't wrong because a person shouldn't benefit from modern medicine; it's wrong because it harms an innocent third party.
I laughed so hard at that I nearly wet myself.
Dude lighten up. Life is one thing, but extending morality to those things? :lol:
Oh and the whole slippery slope things reminds me of the old witch hunts and inquisitors the catholic church used to endorse... >..>
-
Birds and mammals have souls; other animals (and organisms and matter) don't. There's a word for that in Hebrew, IIRC - nephesh; "soulish" creatures. Basically, any animal that can form a relationship has a soul.
Okay, passed that one (though by referring to religious authority, but whatever). Next level question:
Assuming that this is true and mammals and birds have souls, what makes human souls soo special above other groups of souls that makes you so eager to defend even human embryos while you apparently can accept (while perhaps reluctantly) the use of other mammals in tests that not only are aimed at mice embryos, ape embryos and such, but also in full-grown animals?
Yes, I think I know what you are about to answer - humans are "above others for our intelligence and ability to produce art and so on", or something that closely matches those lines of thought - correct me if I do thee injustice.
This is where it comes very difficult in my opinion to draw simple lines at some points. Technically, if we look at an embryo of, say, a chimpanzee and a human embryo, there's not that much difference in them. The DNA is about 90 % or more the same, the cells look very much the same. Only by powerful microscope you can (if you know what you're looking for) see that a chimp embryo has 24 pairs of chromosomes, whereas human embryo contains only 23 pairs. Yet you seem to claim that even at this stage a human embryo has a soul that is supposedly "worth more" than chimp embryo's soul.
So, it seems to me that along your line of thoughts human souls are better and worth more because of our abilities? And you value the soul of human embryo above the chimp one because of its potential to have those abilities, like intelligence, ability to make art and so on?
Well, what about the soul of an embryo that has some mistakes in its genetic code and will most likely be highly disabled? Like, say, a one that stays at a level of a three-year-old his/hers whole life? This embryo obviously doesn't have a soul as worthy as the one in a healthy embryo?
Or perhaps the souls of a disabled and healthy human embryo are identical in their value? Even if the disabled embryo hasn't got the same potential? In which case, of course, we must acknowledge the worth of a chimpanzee soul, because they too have about the same "potential" as a disabled human embryo. Of course then comes another problem; what about disabled chimpanzees? Do their soul have a worth below the one of a healthy chimpanzee? If the souls of a healthy and a disabled chimpanzee match in value, we can prove that every soul in it sel is actually identical in "value" with every other soul there is. This is a method that closely matches mathematical induction, we can now do a comparision between, say, a rabbit's soul and a disabled chimpanzee soul. Again we could say that the rabbit has the potential to have much the same intellect and artistical abilities as a disabled chimpanzee; therefore the must be of about same quality and same value, which ends us with the rabbit having a soul worth a healthy human's soul...
On the other hand, if we choose the line where a value of soul is defined by the abilities of the creature the soul possesses, we soon approach highly disturbing deductions, like the one where a soul of a disabled person would be worth less than the soul of a healthy person...? :wtf:
Basically, if we aknowledge that disabled people have souls worth healthy, that is the same thing as when we say that appearance doesn't change the human value of a person, which is (in my ethic at least) much an intrinsic value non-dependant of his or her abilities.
So, we come do end result: value of a soul cannot and shouldn't be deducted from the abilities of the creature it has attached itself into. This also applies to animals, which very much makes resisting research of stem cells meaningless moralization if you still accept animals being subject to such research.
Surely the difference is that you seek to inflict your beliefs upon me. Stem cell research must be banned because you believe it is evil. So instead of simply refusing to partake in research or the products of that research you instead choose to try to prevent anyone from doing so regardless of what they believe.
No, there's a difference (and I only just realized the difference today). Certain religious groups don't believe in medicine, so they don't use medicine - but they don't prevent anyone else from doing so. The reason is that it's a personal moral choice that affects nobody but the one making the choice. However, stem cell research affects a third party, the blastocyst/embryo, who hasn't given consent (and cannot) for it to be used in such a matter.
The primary moral concern here is protecting the embryo, not passing judgement on someone's use or abstention from a medical procedure.
Question: What proof do you have that it damages embryo's soul if the embryo dies before developing further? Of course you don't have a proof, but just tell me, please, what harm can come to the soul in this case?
Are you perhaps implying that the soul just dies? If so, you would perhaps brief us of your concept of a soul, because I always understood that when you talk about soul, you refer to those immortal spirits that leave our bodies in death to be judged at the Apocalypse or so on. Key word: immortal spirit. I don't think material damage to embryo can harm the soul itself in any way, by definition of a soul.
Or would you say that these souls of those embryos are sent to limbo to wait for apocalypse (along with other unbabtized babies perhaps)?
...I don't think even God himself could be so stupid, assuming that He exists. Being all-mighty and all-knowing, he might just barely be able to understand the need to make research and thereby he might give those poor little souls another chance. It's even possible (what wouldn't for an almighty entity) that He foresaw that these embryos would better be used for research purposes and decided not to put souls into them at all!*
This attitude has no more validity than banning the use of beef because Hindus feel the cow is sacred. I'm going to continue to eat beef because I like the taste. If someone wants to tell my I shouldn't because cows are holy I'm going to ignore them because cows are not holy as far as I am concerned.
Why not simply decide that anyone working on embryos is going to hell and leave it up to God to sort out?
Again, there's a difference. You have to determine where the moral law is targeted. Here's how I would assume the Hindu sees it: If eating beef is wrong because it makes a person unclean, then you can live and let live because the person is going to be accountable to God (or Vishnu or whoever) because of his uncleanness. On the other hand, if eating beef is wrong because cows are holy and must be protected, then nobody must be allowed to eat beef, regardless of his personal views on the matter.
That's the distinction. Stem cell research isn't wrong because a person shouldn't benefit from modern medicine; it's wrong because it harms an innocent third party.
As it might have became clear at the last paragraph, I don't think it damages the souls in any way if their embryo dies. If it did, there would be many poor damaged souls whose embryo just happened to die by itself without any help from researchers.
If I believed there was things like souls and God/gods, or hell, why not Xenu and his soul-brainwashing scheme, I think the same souls would just be given other tries until they finally get borne and get to live a life as people.
Plus, of course, it's not like those embryos were plucked from their mommies wombs accompanied with evil mad laughter, like someone already mentioned. The fertility clinics have *plenty* of embryos that never make it to anywhere near developing into babies. There is not enough mothers in world to give birth to all those embryos, so they were going to die anyway so why not just use them for some good? I don't think God would mind that. Or the souls in those embryos.
Of course you can say that fertility clinics are bad because they produce huge amounts of embryos as a by-product of their work... :nervous:
By the way, how does a soul gather information of its surroundings? Does it need, for example, eyes to see and ears to hear? Or nerves to feel pain? If it does, then it doesn't feel pain, it doesn't see what happens to embryo. Actually it doesn't even know it was inside that embryo in the first place...
On the other hand, if a soul has some other means of gathering information, why bother putting them into organisms in the first place?
I am an agnostic. Without proof I won't be believing that there are some divine entities beyond this universe, nor will I believe in such things as souls. However, through this message I assumed that these things existed, for the sole purpose of showing that even in religious terms there might even be no harm of stem cell research at all.
*The point marked with star is an example that is supposed to show how ridiculous and pointless it is to bring religious authorities into any kind of conversation. Also it shows that appealing to "God's intention" in any matter is just as pointless, because things can turn out in any ways and it could still be seen as "God's intention". So, perhaps it is so that stem cell research is part of God's intentions if there was a God? Be it his way or not, it doesn't free us of moral responsibility of our actions in general. Thus we of course have to think the consequenses of our actions in this world, as we cannot know what happens in hereafter. And, in this world it's clearly visible that stem cell research has some very promising results, whereas any damage to souls cannot be proven (by definition) and embryos cannot comprehend any harm (or anything if it comes to that, also by definition).
Someone should stop me from writing these essays. :shaking:
-
Woah ease up Herra Tohtori, let us not consider common sense here. :p
-
And it's not blind faith, it's faith backed up by experience.
but not scientific evidence? Experience of what, exactly?
-
Oh no! That bit of bacteria on my food! I forgot to ask for its consent to be eaten! :o
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting that they too were once an embryo in their life cycle. Since we experience time in a linear fashion, anything seems to be fair game as so long as the moving "present" is served. "ATM its not human, so its OK" The sollace some people have in this write off astounds me at times.
If the ENTIRE life cycle of every zygote, embyro, and human booger can be observed, determined, and evaluated, you suppose this ignorance will still persist? When the linear experience of time is overcome by technology or even ascension of the human consciousness, would the definition of being "human" change? Or will it still remain the same thing.
Imo, potential ends do not justify means. Can embryotic stem cell research potentially save lives? Potentially, yes. Will human embryos develope into humans? Definitely, cuz its part of the human life cycle. The age old search for immortality, I just cringe at some of the things people are willing to do and rationalize for the sake of this goal.
...my 2 cents.
-
yes, but if there's one thing that the world needs a lot less of, it's people. you should know that, youre up in NYC.
fewer people and greater quality of life is the way to go
-
So the United States should pull a "China"? Believe me, being in a crowded subway is not my idea of a quality life. At times I find myself thinking... "Why couldn't this smelly guy next to me have his past embryotic state be poked and prodded in the name of science."
-
meh, we've got too many religious groups, ethics, morals, and that idea of 'freedom' in the way
but if the world was mine to control, the first thing to go down would be birth rates, and the first thing to go up would be education
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting that they too were once an embryo in their life cycle. Since we experience time in a linear fashion, anything seems to be fair game as so long as the moving "present" is served. "ATM its not human, so its OK" The sollace some people have in this write off astounds me at times.
If the ENTIRE life cycle of every zygote, embyro, and human booger can be observed, determined, and evaluated, you suppose this ignorance will still persist? When the linear experience of time is overcome by technology or even ascension of the human consciousness, would the definition of being "human" change? Or will it still remain the same thing.
Imo, potential ends do not justify means. Can embryotic stem cell research potentially save lives? Potentially, yes. Will human embryos develope into humans? Definitely, cuz its part of the human life cycle. The age old search for immortality, I just cringe at some of the things people are willing to do and rationalize for the sake of this goal.
...my 2 cents.
Hmmrah. If every embryo developed into a human you'd have enough to fill the earth bumper to bumper all the way out to the moon. These things happen naturally most of all. Why is it so bad that science should learn from a natural process, that possibly in the end the outcome enabling more people to be born.
People don't simply disregard them as potential lives. But people do accept that billions of them die reguarly anyway through the natural processes of a woman's body. If we mourned every loss we'd be crying our entire lives.
Such is life, such is humanity, such is science.
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting that they too were once an embryo in their life cycle. Since we experience time in a linear fashion, anything seems to be fair game as so long as the moving "present" is served. "ATM its not human, so its OK" The sollace some people have in this write off astounds me at times.
If the ENTIRE life cycle of every zygote, embyro, and human booger can be observed, determined, and evaluated, you suppose this ignorance will still persist? When the linear experience of time is overcome by technology or even ascension of the human consciousness, would the definition of being "human" change? Or will it still remain the same thing.
Imo, potential ends do not justify means. Can embryotic stem cell research potentially save lives? Potentially, yes. Will human embryos develope into humans? Definitely, cuz its part of the human life cycle. The age old search for immortality, I just cringe at some of the things people are willing to do and rationalize for the sake of this goal.
...my 2 cents.
Just because it is a biological human does not mean it is a self. The human as a self-conscious entity does not simply spring into being with conception; the capacity to relate other objects back to oneself is a requisite for self-consciousness that originates in a stage of neurological development well past that of even an infant, let alone an embryo. The reason that embryonic stem cell research makes ethical sense to so many people, including myself, is that the individual being saved is a true self that has been formed from a conscious accumulation of experiences in relation to others, whereas the embryo merely exists. It is a purely biological human, a blank slate, and not the self-reflective entity that we intuitively define as the human being.
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting that they too were once an embryo in their life cycle. Since we experience time in a linear fashion, anything seems to be fair game as so long as the moving "present" is served. "ATM its not human, so its OK" The sollace some people have in this write off astounds me at times.
If the ENTIRE life cycle of every zygote, embyro, and human booger can be observed, determined, and evaluated, you suppose this ignorance will still persist? When the linear experience of time is overcome by technology or even ascension of the human consciousness, would the definition of being "human" change? Or will it still remain the same thing.
Imo, potential ends do not justify means. Can embryotic stem cell research potentially save lives? Potentially, yes. Will human embryos develope into humans? Definitely, cuz its part of the human life cycle. The age old search for immortality, I just cringe at some of the things people are willing to do and rationalize for the sake of this goal.
...my 2 cents.
Just because it is a biological human does not mean it is a self. The human as a self-conscious entity does not simply spring into being with conception; the capacity to relate other objects back to oneself is a requisite for self-consciousness that originates in a stage of neurological development well past that of even an infant, let alone an embryo. The reason that embryonic stem cell research makes ethical sense to so many people, including myself, is that the individual being saved is a true self that has been formed from a conscious accumulation of experiences in relation to others, whereas the embryo merely exists. It is a purely biological human, a blank slate, and not the self-reflective entity that we intuitively define as the human being.
*ding*
More eloquently put than myself.
Its not being heartless, its considering the facts, and deciding that an actual person is being helped more so than in favour of a cell with no relative humanity in relation to cognitive thought.
-
"Relative humanity in relation to cognitive thought" still depends on the life processes for it to come to pass. Fact of the matter is, we did not WILL ourselves into existence. We must go through the stages of human development to get to the point of cognative thought. You cant seperate the two and claim superiority over another who is in a different stage of development. We are not the same "person" psychologically or molecularly 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. Nevertheless it is YOUR process of development.
Restricting the definition of what makes us "human" to thought processes is simply treading on the lines of cold technicallities. Primary qualities, that make human beings stand out from the animal world is our ability to overcome instincts and an awareness and understanding of our place in the universe through abstract thought.
If you prefer to picture yourself as a simple animal trying to survive, you are more than capable to do so. I prefer to cling to the noble idea of being Human.
-
Arrr...
Fact: If we want to keep fertility clinics running, we will unavoidably get thousonds of embryos per year that won't get to grow up.
Fact #2: These embryos have two possibilities - end up being biological garbage OR subject of research.
Make of this what you will, but I can only see it like this: As those embryos would be dying anyway, making research on those embryos is a better choice than just dump them into garbage.
I suspect there would be quite an uproar if fertility clinics were shut down, thus forbiding people with problems having children from having children at first place. Of course one could argue that if some unlucky pair cannot have children, too bad - Mr. Darwin steps into the ring. But as we DO have a possibility to help people have children if they want some, I feel we shouldn't deny them that possibility.
-
"Relative humanity in relation to cognitive thought" still depends on the life processes for it to come to pass. Fact of the matter is, we did not WILL ourselves into existence. We must go through the stages of human development to get to the point of cognative thought. You cant seperate the two and claim superiority over another who is in a different stage of development. We are not the same "person" psychologically or molecularly 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. Nevertheless it is YOUR process of development.
Restricting the definition of what makes us "human" to thought processes is simply treading on the lines of cold technicallities. Primary qualities, that make human beings stand out from the animal world is our ability to overcome instincts and an awareness and understanding of our place in the universe through abstract thought.
If you prefer to picture yourself as a simple animal trying to survive, you are more than capable to do so. I prefer to cling to the noble idea of being Human.
But these faculties you cite that comprise the "noble idea of being human" are not faculties possessed by an embryo. Regardless of an embryo's potential, it is not capable of experiencing, and it thus cannot be robbed of its future because it does not desire its future. Only with the emergence of self-consciousness can an entity desire to be self-conscious. To declare the embryo sacred because it can be called human life is to commit the fallacy of placing the concept's categorical definition as logically prior to its traits. The fact still remains that an unconscious entity is serving to preserve the existence of a self-conscious entity, and if you claim that you do not draw an intuitive, hierarchical distinction between these two things, I am afraid I cannot believe you.
-
Okay, passed that one (though by referring to religious authority, but whatever). Next level question:
Assuming that this is true and mammals and birds have souls, what makes human souls soo special above other groups of souls that makes you so eager to defend even human embryos while you apparently can accept (while perhaps reluctantly) the use of other mammals in tests that not only are aimed at mice embryos, ape embryos and such, but also in full-grown animals?
Yes, I think I know what you are about to answer - humans are "above others for our intelligence and ability to produce art and so on", or something that closely matches those lines of thought - correct me if I do thee injustice.
While this is true, and I certainly agree with that line of reasoning, what it comes down to is this: Humans are created in the image of God. :) No other creature is (not even angels).
Question: What proof do you have that it damages embryo's soul if the embryo dies before developing further? Of course you don't have a proof, but just tell me, please, what harm can come to the soul in this case?
Oh, I don't believe its soul is damaged at all. But the embryo is unjustly denied its only chance at life.
*The point marked with star is an example that is supposed to show how ridiculous and pointless it is to bring religious authorities into any kind of conversation. Also it shows that appealing to "God's intention" in any matter is just as pointless, because things can turn out in any ways and it could still be seen as "God's intention".
This opens up a theological can of worms, but I don't believe God is up there controlling every minute detail as if we're helpless meat-puppets on strings. God "wills" certain things in that he would prefer that they happen, but he doesn't "will" them in the sense of fate. God intervenes, but only to the extent that we let him.
but not scientific evidence? Experience of what, exactly?
Well, considering past experiences with Kazan, I hesitate to say that scientific evidence can "prove" it - but it is definitely compatible with it. So I'm approaching it from a different angle: how would you "prove" something in a court of law? You ask witnesses what they've experienced and you attempt to draw conclusions from that. So I would include reading about others experiences; watching people's lives be changed (immediately and over a course of many years); seeing events unfold that would be inexplicable except through God's direction; and observing miracles both secondhand (via friends and acquaintances) and firsthand. References available upon request. ;)
-
I'm not trying to get anyone to believe anything. I'm mere giving my perspective on the matter and responding to questions about my statements with my philosophical foundations. That is what drives me today. Did I have these thoughts as an embryo? I cant remember. My not rembering or even cognatively thinking at that stage does not change the fact that I existed.
Fact:
An embryo is a necesarry stage of human development in the material world.
Cognative or not, the same DNA exists in an adult and embryotic stage, human DNA nonetheless.
The core of the matter is, the human embryo is at a helpless stage of development and requires a defense from those who prefer to exploit it as a resource. The loss of embryos at a fertility clinic is matter of circumstance and is a different ball of wax to tackle. Embyotic stem cell research is a choice. A choice that many people including myself do not agree with.
-
I'm not trying to get anyone to believe anything. I'm mere giving my perspective on the matter and responding to questions about my statements with my philosophical foundations. That is what drives me today. Did I have these thoughts as an embryo? I cant remember. My not rembering or even cognatively thinking at that stage does not change the fact that I existed.
Fact:
An embryo is a necesarry stage of human development in the material world.
Cognative or not, the same DNA exists in an adult and embryotic stage, human DNA nonetheless.
The core of the matter is, the human embryo is at a helpless stage of development and requires a defense from those who prefer to exploit it as a resource. The loss of embryos at a fertility clinic is matter of circumstance and is a different ball of wax to tackle. Embyotic stem cell research is a choice. A choice that many people including myself do not agree with.
Yes, but in Australia all these embryo's are being chucked straight into the garbage. They've got no chance at life anyway, why is it bad to learn from them?
The law is slowly leaning towards this other way anywho. It would probably be faster if John Howard wasn't Christian, but that's another story. >..>
-
Well, considering past experiences with Kazan, I hesitate to say that scientific evidence can "prove" it - but it is definitely compatible with it. So I'm approaching it from a different angle: how would you "prove" something in a court of law? You ask witnesses what they've experienced and you attempt to draw conclusions from that. So I would include reading about others experiences; watching people's lives be changed (immediately and over a course of many years); seeing events unfold that would be inexplicable except through God's direction; and observing miracles both secondhand (via friends and acquaintances) and firsthand. References available upon request. ;)
so what exactly have witnesses experienced that would endow a clump of 50-150 cells (which you'd need a microscope to see) with being human, in the context of the human characteristics (independence, intelligence, self awareness, capacity to learn) which we use to value ourselves above animals?
Moreso, isn't it a hell of a lot easier to see miracles if you're looking to believe in them? for some people every premature birth that survives is a miracle; for others it's medical science. But if you reject science as a basis - which is the basis here - then you can only explain things through God, because you've pre-dismissed the explanation. It's the same scenario is with the milk-drinking Ganesh statues (and later of other dieties once it was reported) a few years back; simple capillary action due to porous rock, but it caused mass religious hysteria because people wanted to believe.
And wanting to believe isn't bad, but it places - in this court context - quite a bit more than reasonable doubt about the applicability of your arguements to the rest of the population, who may not share them and have no secular or neutral reason to do so. Because we are still talking about the potential to save a lot of people with foetal stem cell reasearch, after all.
Note@ Omni; human DNA exists in blood cells shed from the body, too. It exists in tumourous masses too, I believe. It's not always individually unique, either (identical twins share it). It also continues to exist long after the point of death as part of the body. I'm not really wanting to get in a huge beginning-of-life arguement justnow because I had one not that long ago (like a bit of variety), but surely it's a bit dodgy applying a different qualifer to the beginning of human life (DNA) to the end (neurological) of it. It's a bit like, IMO, does having the instructions to build a lego spaceship mean that pile of loose blocks is already a spaceship?
-
Embyo's containing DNA was not even the point of my statement. Its about defining what makes us human.
To compare a self-developing embyro (with motherly evironmental assistance) to unassembled legos with instructions is just rediculous.
-
Embyo's containing DNA was not even the point of my statement. Its about defining what makes us human.
To compare a self-developing embyro (with motherly evironmental assistance) to unassembled legos with instructions is just rediculous.
Is it?
This is at a tangent to the original debate, perhaps, but what is it that makes humans held as higher that other animals in our reckoning? Is it not cognition?
Is that congition not proven to occur late in the developmental process (I believe it's about 20 weeks, which the first active brainwaves can be read on EEG), and before that period there is no capacity for thought (brain cells are developed but not interconnected; there is no connection between the nerves/spine and the brain so no capacity to recieve and response to sensation), not a factor in considering humanity and human rights (I think, therefore I am)? If we define humanity with DNA, what is the consequence to brain dead vegetative state patients?
If you hold neurology as the basis for the start of human life - and we already use it as the basis for the end - then is the developing embryo (in this case, blastocyst) not in exactly the same temporal state as a block of legoes - i.e. 'some assembly required'? The main difference is the assembly method, but that doesn't really matter if you're just considering that state in time; and even if it does matter, both require significant input from an output source to be assembled - the womans role in pregnancy isn't exactly trivial, otherwise we'd have aritificial wombs and the whole issue could be sidestepped by replacing abortion (which is usually one of the things this boils down to) with quasi-transplantation and adoption.
-
Exactly. I feel like I'm beating this point to death, but logically prioritizing something's category over its qualities is a philosophical no-no. You can't just say, "It's human, period, so we have to defend it." What defines it as human? We seem to agree that our humanity is defined by our self-consciousness, but embryos are physically incapable of possessing even consciousness, never mind self-consciousness. So how can an embryo experience a violation? You argue that we are robbing it of the potential for a self-conscious existence, but the entire principle behind the defense of individual sovereignty is the notion that the entire existence of loss is dependent on the individual's capacity to be cognizant of that loss. I'm weighing the importance of an embryo against that of a person with experiences, attachments, and the actual desire to exist in the first place. It makes no sense to me to sacrifice the well-being of someone who can desire his/her life for the sake of something that is not even aware it exists.
-
so what exactly have witnesses experienced that would endow a clump of 50-150 cells (which you'd need a microscope to see) with being human, in the context of the human characteristics (independence, intelligence, self awareness, capacity to learn) which we use to value ourselves above animals?
Basically, the miracles and events convince me that the God of the Bible exists; thus it makes sense to accept the Bible's authority on other things. Life beginning at conception seems to be one of them.
Moreso, isn't it a hell of a lot easier to see miracles if you're looking to believe in them?
Oh absolutely. And not just "the miracle of birth" either. About two years ago I was very skeptical that miracles of the sort described in the Bible still occurred; but now I know that they do.
But if you reject science as a basis - which is the basis here - then you can only explain things through God, because you've pre-dismissed the explanation. It's the same scenario is with the milk-drinking Ganesh statues (and later of other dieties once it was reported) a few years back; simple capillary action due to porous rock, but it caused mass religious hysteria because people wanted to believe.
Where have I rejected science here? I like science. But science can be wrong and often is; and it's revised all the time. If you observe something that contradicts an existing assumption, you have to revise that assumption.
In the same way, I'm hesitant to reject the milk miracle out of hand either, despite the fact that it's from a different religion. Supposedly it didn't occur with idols of any other god, and it hasn't been replicated in any form since.
-
Basically, the miracles and events convince me that the God of the Bible exists; thus it makes sense to accept the Bible's authority on other things. Life beginning at conception seems to be one of them.
Oh absolutely. And not just "the miracle of birth" either. About two years ago I was very skeptical that miracles of the sort described in the Bible still occurred; but now I know that they do.
Example please of these irrefutable miracles. Remember, they have to irrefutable - you're talking about applying your own belief based upon them to an entire country.
Where have I rejected science here? I like science. But science can be wrong and often is; and it's revised all the time. If you observe something that contradicts an existing assumption, you have to revise that assumption.
If you apply that approach, we can never use science as a basis for anything because it might, just might be wrong regardless of how unlikely that would be. What you've suggested it using subjective observation of individual cases ahead of the empirical observation of science (because if science didn't contradict you, you'd just cite it and we'd be done).
In the same way, I'm hesitant to reject the milk miracle out of hand either, despite the fact that it's from a different religion. Supposedly it didn't occur with idols of any other god, and it hasn't been replicated in any form since.
It was replicated with Christian idols and non-religious status, IIRC. Unfortunately it was one of those articles you stumble onto, so I can't get a link. But it was definately not just Hindu idols, and could be replicated (offhand, I think all you need a is a sequence of hot days and porous rock).
EDIT; sorry, surface tension and capillery action, depending on the statue type. Some scientists offered coloured milk to a statue in Delhi, IIRC, and saw it coat the outside of it.
-
Example please of these irrefutable miracles. Remember, they have to irrefutable - you're talking about applying your own belief based upon them to an entire country.
K. In order of least to most personal:
Israel is re-formed as a sovereign nation after over 2000 years of exile, as foretold in the Bible (and as Sandwich has mentioned before).
Speakers at various conferences I've been to have mentioned casting out demons and seeing other miracles while on missionary trips.
A friend (let's call him Scott) told me about a friend (let's call her Sarah) whose mom was in the hospital with some debilitating disease, died, and was pronounced dead. Sarah got a bunch of friends together, formed an impromptu prayer and worship session in her hospital room, and after this went on for a while the mom was brought back to life.
Another friend (let's call him Tim) went on a missionary trip to India one spring break and saw several miracles personally, including at least one firsthand where he and a bunch of others prayed for a deaf man to be healed. The man was healed on the spot.
Over this past Christmas break I went to a Christian conference that emphasized this sort of thing, and I attended a seminar they had on healing. At the end the speakers said they felt like God wanted to heal some people, so they encouraged people to break into small groups and pray for each other. Figuring it couldn't hurt to try, I asked some people to pray for my asthma. Lo and behold, it was healed. :)
These are just the ones I remember offhand. If you want more I could probably pass along a bunch of others given a day's worth of emailing. :)
If you apply that approach, we can never use science as a basis for anything because it might, just might be wrong regardless of how unlikely that would be. What you've suggested it using subjective observation of individual cases ahead of the empirical observation of science (because if science didn't contradict you, you'd just cite it and we'd be done).
No, that's not my position at all. If something is logically coherent and well established, I proceed on the assumption that it's true. It's only if I observe or experience something contradictory that I have to reevaluate my assumptions.
This is what happened with my position on miracles, for example. For a long time, I took it for granted that major miracles just didn't happen in the modern age. When the aforementioned Scott started seeing counterexamples, my position softened. Eventually I started seeing them too. :)
-
So you are basing your beliefs on placebos?
EDIT::
Rereading this again, I find it may be somewhat insulting of me to say this.
A more sensible question would be, how do you know it was a christian god that made all those miracles (if indeed they are)?
-
K. In order of least to most personal:
Israel is re-formed as a sovereign nation after over 2000 years of exile, as foretold in the Bible (and as Sandwich has mentioned before).
Speakers at various conferences I've been to have mentioned casting out demons and seeing other miracles while on missionary trips.
A friend (let's call him Scott) told me about a friend (let's call her Sarah) whose mom was in the hospital with some debilitating disease, died, and was pronounced dead. Sarah got a bunch of friends together, formed an impromptu prayer and worship session in her hospital room, and after this went on for a while the mom was brought back to life.
Another friend (let's call him Tim) went on a missionary trip to India one spring break and saw several miracles personally, including at least one firsthand where he and a bunch of others prayed for a deaf man to be healed. The man was healed on the spot.
Over this past Christmas break I went to a Christian conference that emphasized this sort of thing, and I attended a seminar they had on healing. At the end the speakers said they felt like God wanted to heal some people, so they encouraged people to break into small groups and pray for each other. Figuring it couldn't hurt to try, I asked some people to pray for my asthma. Lo and behold, it was healed. :)
These are just the ones I remember offhand. If you want more I could probably pass along a bunch of others given a day's worth of emailing. :)
Put it this way - I don't believe any of it. Not that it didn't happen (well, maybe the demon things; anything that third hand I'd take with more than a pinch of salt, as well as the Israel thing - self fulfilling prophecy, that one), but that it could only be attributed to a miracle (especially when so much is 3rd hand; 'my friend Tim', 'Scott, who knew Sarah'). It depends what you look for, of course. But, I mean, if you pick these as miracles, isn't there a fair number of things to contradict them? Like, I remember a study that found that heart disease patients who know their family are praying for them have a reduced chance of survival. You're citing a number of medical things, too; how much work on pre-and-post documentation and analysis was done. Were they accepted as miracles immediately, or after months of investigation? Are they actually medically impossible or improbable?
My personal opinion is that I doubt they were inexplicable, which would be AFAIK the qualifier as a miracle. But I don't have any data to really, fully speculate on your personal experiences.
Are miracles easier to find once you find/convince yourself of the first? How many prayers go unrewarded & why are miracles selective in that respect? How many miracles are even investigated? (as a side question; was this Sarahs' mother cured of that disease (that'd seem key) and how was death pronounced?) Have you tested your (lack of) asthma in any way, had it cleared medically (I'd presume so if you're dad's a doctor, but still curious)?
I don't believe miracles occur. I've never heard of anything investigated and provative of them, and the human mind is great at convining itself of things like this. And until it can be proved, I won't accept it as a basis for applying a society-affecting restriction.
-
Israel is heresy
the messiah was supposed to lead them back to the holy land, and the only people doing any leading around there are butchers and overall very bad people
-
Ideas or beliefs don't have to be irrefutable to be applied to an entire country - we do it all the time.
-
A more sensible question would be, how do you know it was a christian god that made all those miracles (if indeed they are)?
Easy. If you pray to the Christian God for a miracle, and it happens, I think it's safe to assume he did it. :)
Put it this way - I don't believe any of it. Not that it didn't happen (well, maybe the demon things; anything that third hand I'd take with more than a pinch of salt, as well as the Israel thing - self fulfilling prophecy, that one), but that it could only be attributed to a miracle (especially when so much is 3rd hand; 'my friend Tim', 'Scott, who knew Sarah').
Yeah, but Tim and Scott are both good friends who have no reason to embellish or be dishonest about it - it would be completely out of character for them to do so. And even if most of these are secondhand, the asthma healing is firsthand: it happened to me. I had asthma before, and now I don't.
My personal opinion is that I doubt they were inexplicable, which would be AFAIK the qualifier as a miracle. But I don't have any data to really, fully speculate on your personal experiences.
You don't have to speculate. Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe? You can believe me, and conclude that I'm telling the truth; or you can believe that I'm accurately reporting what I saw and chalk it up to one of science's unexplained mysteries. Or you can call me a liar. Your choice.
Are miracles easier to find once you find/convince yourself of the[m] first?
I would think they are. Otherwise, when presented with a miracle, you would, by habit, always conclude that there must be some other explanation.
How many prayers go unrewarded & why are miracles selective in that respect?
That's a theological question. The short answer is: I don't know.
How many miracles are even investigated?
Quite a lot of them. Many, are, of course frauds, but the legitimate ones always stand up to scrutiny. The problem with legitimate ones, though, is that many times a disbelieving investigator will state a priori that miracles do not happen and refuse to seriously examine it based on that justification.
(as a side question; was this Sarahs' mother cured of that disease (that'd seem key) and how was death pronounced?)
I would presume so; that question didn't come up. As for how death was pronounced, it was by the attending physician who flat-out refused to re-examine her after she had come back to life. I can email Scott for more details.
Have you tested your (lack of) asthma in any way, had it cleared medically (I'd presume so if you're dad's a doctor, but still curious)?
Well, it was established that I had asthma initially, as I had been going to see an asthma specialist for a year or two beforehand. I haven't been back since, because those visits are expensive, but my mom (who is a nurse) concluded, based on my cough and the way I was breathing, that it had been cured. My dad hasn't wanted to discuss it.
As for personal testing, I do that all the time, even now, because it's so remarkable that I can't fully believe it myself. :) I can breathe all the way in and all the way out, whereas before I could only breath partway before I "snagged" on something and started coughing. And I can do exercise and sports without having to stop every few minutes to catch my breath, whereas I couldn't do that before. Also, cold weather is particularly problematic for asthma sufferers, especially when combined with even light activity. Now the very first thing I did after the seminar was run (three blocks, uphill, in 50 degree weather) to where the rest of my friends were having dinner, and I arrived without any problems whatsoever. So that convinced me pretty firmly. :)
I don't believe miracles occur. I've never heard of anything investigated and provative of them, and the human mind is great at convining itself of things like this. And until it can be proved, I won't accept it as a basis for applying a society-affecting restriction.
The problem is that the human mind is great at convincing itself of all sorts of things, even when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts it. It happens for people believing miracles that are fraudulent, but it also happens for people disbelieving miracles that are genuine.
-
[q]Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe?[/q]
No, but I refuse to accept that there are things science cannot eventually explain about the universe. :)
-
A more sensible question would be, how do you know it was a christian god that made all those miracles (if indeed they are)?
Easy. If you pray to the Christian God for a miracle, and it happens, I think it's safe to assume he did it. :)
Why? If there is a god, and he actually cares for what people do and think (and he is benevolent, which is somewhat confusing), one would think he would act on the intention of the prayer, not the religious dogma followed by the person praying.
-
in grade school I was diagnosed with a plethora of learning disabilitied, dislexia, ADD, ect... after I realised there was a reason for why I was haveing a hard time in school and after getting shiped off to the 'specal' classes, I took on an aditude of general defeitism, and I used the fact that I knew I had a deficency as an excuse not to try, I would flat out not do homework, not care, ect... then I got into highschool, and because it was a private school and I was fearfull of returning to public schools (oh, didn't mention, tormented, horably by the other students in the public schools) I began to take on the personality I have now of all people are self made, forced myself to take on the regular material and I went from about a fourth grade level of education and caught up in less than a semester, even with my 'learning disabilities', I have to date taken nearly every advanced math course at my school (exept difeq simply because I think I know enough calculus to do the things I want to do, and linear algebra, simply because it's got a horable time slot (though I atcualy WANT to take it)). it has never occered to me that this may have been due to devine intervention, especaly because this was the point in my life I also began becomeing stonchly atheist (in fact that was part of the trigger that led to my change in personality and takeing personal responcibility for myself), I simply think that if people are sufficently motivated they can make extrordinary changes to there lives.
I should also note that when I was in grade school I was constantly physicaly sick, there wouldn't be a week go by without me leaveing school because I was vomiting. this stoped at about the same time as everything else, I don't credit God for any of it, I never had, infact that is the antithesis of my aditude, it was me, my will power alone that brought about the change in my life, and continues to do so to this day, I have experienced things that I know other people would have consitered miraculus, but I never EVER felt there was anything supernatural going on.
-
Yeah, but Tim and Scott are both good friends who have no reason to embellish or be dishonest about it - it would be completely out of character for them to do so. And even if most of these are secondhand, the asthma healing is firsthand: it happened to me. I had asthma before, and now I don't.
Oh, I never said they'd be dishonest about it. But if people want to believe, then they find ways, and that's why I'm wary of any 3rd party experience of this sort. The consideration of other possibilities sits by the wayside in favour of what reinforces their belief (because that feels good to them, yeah?) and at the same time perhaps skews their memory ever-so-slightly in a supporting direction. The milk-statue thing is really a perfect example, I guess.
You don't have to speculate. Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe? You can believe me, and conclude that I'm telling the truth; or you can believe that I'm accurately reporting what I saw and chalk it up to one of science's unexplained mysteries. Or you can call me a liar. Your choice.
Neither, actually. I genuinely don't have the data to speculate as to what happened, and whether there was any embellishment - unintentional or otherwise. I certainly don't believe you're a liar; there's no point, really, on the internet.
I would think they are. Otherwise, when presented with a miracle, you would, by habit, always conclude that there must be some other explanation.
But does that make them more of a miracle or you less rational in observing them?
Quite a lot of them. Many, are, of course frauds, but the legitimate ones always stand up to scrutiny. The problem with legitimate ones, though, is that many times a disbelieving investigator will state a priori that miracles do not happen and refuse to seriously examine it based on that justification.
I would presume so; that question didn't come up. As for how death was pronounced, it was by the attending physician who flat-out refused to re-examine her after she had come back to life. I can email Scott for more details.
EEG? Or cardiogram?
Well, I think the absence of disease would be crucial in a determination. Although that physician IMO is absolutely at fault for refusing to re-examine. Regardless of your position on miracles, he/she has a duty of care to examine a patient. Moreso if you don't believe in miracles. I think, though, this is one of those things where it's again kind of hard to determine what happened from this sort of position - for example I don't know the characteristics of the disease and if they would lend to this type of situation (not sure I'd be qualified to judge even if I did).
Well, it was established that I had asthma initially, as I had been going to see an asthma specialist for a year or two beforehand. I haven't been back since, because those visits are expensive, but my mom (who is a nurse) concluded, based on my cough and the way I was breathing, that it had been cured. My dad hasn't wanted to discuss it.
Ok.... um, to be honest I think you should get it checked, but I understand the vagarities of a paid health service. Rather than any sort of attempt to disprove or knock it, consider it as the opportunity for pretty strong evidence of your position to go and get a clean bill of health.
As for personal testing, I do that all the time, even now, because it's so remarkable that I can't fully believe it myself. :) I can breathe all the way in and all the way out, whereas before I could only breath partway before I "snagged" on something and started coughing. And I can do exercise and sports without having to stop every few minutes to catch my breath, whereas I couldn't do that before. Also, cold weather is particularly problematic for asthma sufferers, especially when combined with even light activity. Now the very first thing I did after the seminar was run (three blocks, uphill, in 50 degree weather) to where the rest of my friends were having dinner, and I arrived without any problems whatsoever. So that convinced me pretty firmly. :)
Well, good for you :)
The problem is that the human mind is great at convincing itself of all sorts of things, even when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts it. It happens for people believing miracles that are fraudulent, but it also happens for people disbelieving miracles that are genuine.
(without wishing to discuss the incidence of actual miracles, if any)
Perhaps, but rational thought processes do dictate a massive degree of skepticism is only right; for one thing the concept of an entirely unpredictable world (in the sense of miraculous inexpliability) is an incredibly dangerous one for any sort of evolved thinking mind within our 'predictable' world (i.e. relatively known laws).
I agree with vyper that i don't think there is anything inexplicable about the universe; a thousand years ago gravity was inexplicable. 200 years ago, you could probably terrify people with a TV, etc. What is interesting to me is whether these things actually, genuinely happen in a miraculous way or whether it is in the eye of the beholder. It may be that rational scepticism prevents investigation of these things, but on the other side I'd imagine if there was any documented proven miraculous event we'd hear a lot more of it.
That was kind of beside the reason why I asked, though. What I was wondering is, did you have any specific miraculous experience (first, second, third, etc+ hand) that would lead to the conclusion that a blastocyst is regardable as human (again within the context which we use to award human rights and values to a person). To me, I've not seen anything that says so; whilst you may reaffirmed your faith, I don't think that is sufficient grounds for imposition of a viewpoint. It's for 2 reasons mainly. Firstly, these aren't miracles of direct relation to this subject. Secondly, I think the bible is massively interepretative, because the literal reading of much of it is already contradicted by investigation; things like most of Genesis, or pi=3. Even if there was a God who dictated the bible bit-by-bit directly or through manipulating events - and that's possibly something beyond the scope of this arguement - I doubt the bible could be the literal word of God rather than a paraphrase intended for an audience of 2,000 years ago.
-
I hereby dub Goober "Ned Flanders".
-
Hehe. This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4902332.stm) was well timed.
-
[q]Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe?[/q]
No, but I refuse to accept that there are things science cannot eventually explain about the universe. :)
I think you're going to be disappointed then. :) Have you ever heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? It turns out that for any system of sufficient complexity (the universe, for example), there will be true statements you can make about it that you cannot prove are true. ;)
Why? If there is a god, and he actually cares for what people do and think (and he is benevolent, which is somewhat confusing), one would think he would act on the intention of the prayer, not the religious dogma followed by the person praying.
I think this is true to a certain extent - but only to a certain extent. If you're uncertain about things and just tossing out a prayer to any god that might be listening, I think God will step in and give you the benefit of the doubt. If on the other hand you're very specific and intentional in praying to a particular god, I would expect only that god, and no other, to answer.
I would think they are. Otherwise, when presented with a miracle, you would, by habit, always conclude that there must be some other explanation.
But does that make them more of a miracle or you less rational in observing them?
I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I think it's worse to ignore bona fide miracles than to pretend miracles exist where they don't. If something inexplicable or fradulent happens, and you ascribe it to a miracle, you're merely ignorant or guillible. On the other hand, if a bona fide miracle happens and you refuse to acknowledge it, you're being irrational.
EEG? Or cardiogram?
Still waiting for an email response here. :)
Perhaps, but rational thought processes do dictate a massive degree of skepticism is only right; for one thing the concept of an entirely unpredictable world (in the sense of miraculous inexpliability) is an incredibly dangerous one for any sort of evolved thinking mind within our 'predictable' world (i.e. relatively known laws).
Two things here. First of all, "miracle" goes above and beyond the natural, that's why it's called "supernatural". The universe functions according to a set of rules, but a miracle comes from "beyond" the universe and therefore overrides those rules. That doesn't mean the universe is less reliable, only that it was temporarily pre-empted by something with a higher priority.
Second of all, I thought it was interesting that you used the phrase "evolved thinking". The brain evolved in several stages: reflex, then the lizardlike "autopilot", then animal reasoning, and finally religion. Since religion was the most recent thing to evolve, that would seem to imply that it fulfills a higher evolutionary purpose than reasoning. And that would imply that athiests aren't operating at full evolutionary capacity - that religious humans are more highly evolved than nonreligious ones. :D
That would seem to make intuitive sense IMHO - communicating with God confers a significant evolutionary advantage. :)
It may be that rational scepticism prevents investigation of these things, but on the other side I'd imagine if there was any documented proven miraculous event we'd hear a lot more of it.
I don't know about that, but I do know that there's a lot of documentation out there. You just have to look for it. "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" by Jack Deere is a book I'm reading right now that talks about it in detail. It's written by a converted skeptic.
That was kind of beside the reason why I asked, though. What I was wondering is, did you have any specific miraculous experience (first, second, third, etc+ hand) that would lead to the conclusion that a blastocyst is regardable as human (again within the context which we use to award human rights and values to a person). To me, I've not seen anything that says so; whilst you may reaffirmed your faith, I don't think that is sufficient grounds for imposition of a viewpoint.
Well here we come to the implications. My justification is that if the Bible makes a number of statements on a variety of topics, and I can verify many of those statements through my own experiences, I should accept its authority on the statements I cannot verify.
EDIT: It's a funny coincidence that my friend replied just as I posted. :) Here's what he had to say:
the #1 resource: "Only Love Can Make a Miracle" by Mahesh Chavda.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971498601/sr=8-1/qid=1144867103/ref=sr_1_1/002-8474643-4014405?%5Fencoding=UTF8
$9 and it includes a picture of the official death certificate of a little boy raised from the dead. witnessed by tens of thousands, raised from the dead in Jesus name.
#2 resource:
http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm#Ambulance
#3 resource....
http://home.earthlink.net/~daysofnoah/downloads/audio/
i would recommend corey russel's testimony (about a 10 minutes mp3). that will shake them up a bit.
frankly, challenge them to ask God if He's real. He will answer any sincere inquirers. He promised it: psalm 17:6. I don't know when He will, but He will. =)
...
as for dawn's mom, the real fast version is: she died in a hospital... she was diabetic and didn't know it. her blood-sugar went to 5000, if i remember correctly. dawn was medical power of attorney. her mom's body had shut down...kidneys were destroyed, brain-dead, etc. the doctors told dawn it was time to unplug her mom from life-support. she said, "not yet" went in and worshiped, praising Jesus for several hours. her mom's eyelids started to flutter. dawn ran and told the neurologist, who berated her. the doctor decided to prove to Dawn that her mom was dead and couldn't ever come back. she did a bunch of tests proving it and sure enough, her mom was pretty toast. but dawn went back, worshiped more, and her mom came back to life. in fact, she was out of the hospital within a month. i mean, God totally healed her internal organs too-- kidneys, etc. dawn never saw that doctor again.
i want to be humble in all these suggestions, ask God and HE will lead you how to respond. listen, listen, listen! it's so important that we spend lots of time wth Him and listen.
-
I think you're going to be disappointed then. Have you ever heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? It turns out that for any system of sufficient complexity (the universe, for example), there will be true statements you can make about it that you cannot prove are true.
Godels incompleteness theorems were applied to mathematics, not universally though. Specifically;
For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.
For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
I believe it's the former you're referring to, and the problem is that there's a misconception in FOL terms; namely the size of the set applied to. If we take the whole universe, then it applies. But if we apply it to a subset of knowledge which is known to be finite, it does not. So the question is not whether there are unknowables, but whether we can create finite sets of knowables in respect to scientific theorem.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I think it's worse to ignore bona fide miracles than to pretend miracles exist where they don't. If something inexplicable or fradulent happens, and you ascribe it to a miracle, you're merely ignorant or guillible. On the other hand, if a bona fide miracle happens and you refuse to acknowledge it, you're being irrational.
Define bona fide, though. You said earlier that you wouldn't apply current scientific knowledge to judge humanity - so why use it to decide a miracle is a genuine religious miracle rather than something which is beyond current knowledge?
Two things here. First of all, "miracle" goes above and beyond the natural, that's why it's called "supernatural". The universe functions according to a set of rules, but a miracle comes from "beyond" the universe and therefore overrides those rules. That doesn't mean the universe is less reliable, only that it was temporarily pre-empted by something with a higher priority.
By implication, anything that affects us in any observable way has become part of the natural universe. The very existance of the supernatural is by nature wholly subjective.
Second of all, I thought it was interesting that you used the phrase "evolved thinking". The brain evolved in several stages: reflex, then the lizardlike "autopilot", then animal reasoning, and finally religion. Since religion was the most recent thing to evolve, that would seem to imply that it fulfills a higher evolutionary purpose than reasoning. And that would imply that athiests aren't operating at full evolutionary capacity - that religious humans are more highly evolved than nonreligious ones. Big grin
That would seem to make intuitive sense IMHO - communicating with God confers a significant evolutionary advantage.
That would be incorrect. For one thing, AFAIK there is not a part of the brain that physically codifies for religion, and if there were we wouldn't be seeing it decline so rapidly the way it has in many Western societies (the population is simply too large, plus there isn't really a survival benefit for it to be selected).
Religious belief would be an extension of things like imagination and artistry from a purely evolutional dint. In a non-secular society, religion - especially at a high level of influence - has high advantages in sexual selection terms; it gives status, power and respect, all of which would be of an advantage when it comes to mate choice. Religion also has another sexual advantage - it's story telling. One of the principal theories for the evolution of language is that it's beneficial for sexual selection; it indicates intelligence, fitness, and it's very hard to fake. So a good storyteller would be sexually attractive for demonstrating the traits of intelligence; something we can see in pretty much all society, even if transposed (i.e. actors in modern day society). And the adoptation of other stories would be a good way to 'cash in' on that.
Remember that humans are naturally polygamous, and the monogomous concept of modern religion (well, some of them) is unlikely to be what we'd find in the earliest hunter-gatherer societies. Additionally, religion can be interpreted as a societal evolution used as method to impose order on society, or as a method for comprehending the unknowns of the universe and satisfying the human psyches' inquisite aspects prior to a methodology for more detailed investigation.
Well here we come to the implications. My justification is that if the Bible makes a number of statements on a variety of topics, and I can verify many of those statements through my own experiences, I should accept its authority on the statements I cannot verify.
What about the statements proven false?
the #1 resource: "Only Love Can Make a Miracle" by Mahesh Chavda.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971498601/sr=8-1/qid=1144867103/ref=sr_1_1/002-8474643-4014405?%5Fencoding=UTF8
$9 and it includes a picture of the official death certificate of a little boy raised from the dead. witnessed by tens of thousands, raised from the dead in Jesus name.
#2 resource:
http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm#Ambulance
#3 resource....
http://home.earthlink.net/~daysofnoah/downloads/audio/
i would recommend corey russel's testimony (about a 10 minutes mp3). that will shake them up a bit.
Ok, I didn't look at the 3rd (and I'm loathe to read what would be rather biased sources for the other 2), but;
I don't know who Mahesh Chavda is. So I don't know the veracity of any claims he makes, although it's interesting to see he makes a carrer from it going by amazon. I would note that it's not hard to get a death certificate, though; for example, here (http://www.usbirthcertificate.net/site/othercert.html) is a site purporting to have them by order for US (although this was apparently in Zaire, and I doubt they have better document control than the US - slip a fiver to the local coroner more like). There have been documented cases of people forced or co-erced into faking illness for these types of meetings, though. Certainly what I'd guess to be a rather religiously feverent location wouldn't be too inquisitive; and it's amazing how little research is done when you'd think they'd be eager for it.
The 2nd one; doesn't give details on the pronouncement of death. It's really kind of vague in that sense, actually. Although it's been studied (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4898726.stm) (recently, actually) and indicated that near-death visions are the result of the REM part of the brain becoming activated aka REM intrusion; this is still ongoing research (rather hard to test, obviously), but there is already the beginnings of an explanation for that (plus his documented thoughts in the ambulance would support the thematic content of what would be a 'pseudo' dream). As I said, though, it is early in terms of what they've found (even they emphasise it's not so much ruling any spiritual factor - albeit if they did they'd probably get funding pulled the way the US seems to be going), so it's not clear what the trigger is for such a thing, why it is selective and if it is related to immenent death or some coincidental 'impulse' type thing.
It's hard to really evaluate without much factual medical data (re what the latency for antivenom effectiveness would be for example). I'm guessing it wasn't Chironex Fleckeri venom, as you wouldn't suvive long enough to get onto the ambulance. It could be Irukandji Syndrome, caused by Carukia Barnesi; that kicks in about 5-120 minutes (30 average), although that causes unbearable pain and thrashing about which isn't indicated, although that doesn't mean it didn't occur if he was hallucinating (note; there's a bit of a mistake already in what that page says about box jellyfish; C.Barenesi stings aren't usually fatal; and C.Fleckeri, the jellyfish he clearly implies stung him, is not known to have a habitat extending that far east - I've seen that ?deliberate? error in several articles). I'm not sure, but I know Irukandji symptoms can occur and then wear off after a period of time; what I'm trying to identify is whether paralysis is a known symptom (the Irukandji jellyfish does paralyse prey, but I'm not sure about stung humans).
Also, IIRC there are several type of box jellyfish with different venom, and known to be several unknown/undiscovered (i.e. not formally classified but implicated in stingings) species. I'm not sure this was Irukandji, anyways; I'm neither a doctor nor marine biologist.
The end of that page is quite odd; he doesn't explain what the doctor was doing with his leg & a scalpel. Clearly it wasn't an autopsy - wrong place to start, and a known COD, and I'm wondering if that meant treatment was ongoing. What he interpreted as fear in the doctors eyes, and nurses jumping away from the doorway could be surprise in the former and the slight feeling of shame (being rather rude to observe someones life or death struggle) in the latter; I doubt you'd be in a position to be read people that well post near-death experience (it's kind of vague on how death was pronounced; the only scientific comment on it - or rather that looked like it was on it, as searching revealed articles saying he was diving or surfing at the time- I found was report on the sting, and a note the locals were 'surprised' he survived).
So my rather tiring search has raised several questions; why are there 2 different stories? Why, if he was formally pronounched dead, would someone be cutting at hislegs? Why does that page link to a jellyfish that doesn't even go near Mauritius (and the only alternate I can find is one with no known anti-venom to administer)?
3rd one; I'm kind of already listening to something. Idlewild, at the mo.
frankly, challenge them to ask God if He's real. He will answer any sincere inquirers. He promised it: psalm 17:6. I don't know when He will, but He will. =)
Is God real?
I say no. Prove me wrong - I'm a skeptic. (would God use a non-obvious sign for someone insistent upon objective evidence? That'd seem a bit daft but mysterious ways and soforth - although aren't those really excuses anyways)
More importantly, does God get ADSL? :D
...
as for dawn's mom, the real fast version is: she died in a hospital... she was diabetic and didn't know it. her blood-sugar went to 5000, if i remember correctly. dawn was medical power of attorney. her mom's body had shut down...kidneys were destroyed, brain-dead, etc. the doctors told dawn it was time to unplug her mom from life-support. she said, "not yet" went in and worshiped, praising Jesus for several hours. her mom's eyelids started to flutter. dawn ran and told the neurologist, who berated her. the doctor decided to prove to Dawn that her mom was dead and couldn't ever come back. she did a bunch of tests proving it and sure enough, her mom was pretty toast. but dawn went back, worshiped more, and her mom came back to life. in fact, she was out of the hospital within a month. i mean, God totally healed her internal organs too-- kidneys, etc. dawn never saw that doctor again.
Well, i can't say much on this. I'd need to know a lot more than I do, to be honest, both in terms of specific medical background and, er, being a doctor (at the very least it'd look like a test screwup). The thought of a neurologist 'berating' anyone seems a bit odd.
Although there is documented (complete) recovery from a hypoglycemic coma (this was due to intentional overdose), although it was in something like the Endocrinologist (Dec 2004) which I can't say I have backissues for.
This is obviously prying, but is she still diabetic?
i want to be humble in all these suggestions, ask God and HE will lead you how to respond. listen, listen, listen! it's so important that we spend lots of time wth Him and listen./
You make him sound like my Dad.
-
Are you real?
I say no-- prove me wrong. (I'm a solipsist.)
-
I think you're going to be disappointed then. Have you ever heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? It turns out that for any system of sufficient complexity (the universe, for example), there will be true statements you can make about it that you cannot prove are true.
Godels incompleteness theorems were applied to mathematics, not universally though.
No, I'm pretty sure it can apply to any system. Basically, we can't construct a complete and accurate model of the universe, because we are in the universe. So there will be things about the universe that we can never model.
See this page (http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm) for example:
In any case, what does it mean that a symbolic system based on deriving truth from axioms is incomplete? Could we make a complete system? The only way I can see to do that would be to include an infinite number of axioms, which deterministicly describe all happenings in the past, present and future. This would only work in a deterministic universe, and it would be difficult to draw a distinction between the data of this 'complete' system and reality itself.
Thinking of the data required is perhaps the right direction to move in: it is the reason the symbolic system is incomplete. The symbolic systems we use to describe the universe are not separate from the universe: they are a part of the universe just as we are a part of the universe. Since we are within the system, our small understandings are 'the system modelling itself' (system meaning reality in this case). Completion of the model can never happen because of the basic self-referential paradox: the model is within the universe, so in effect the universe would have to be larger than itself. Or you can view it iteratively: the model models the universe. The universe includes the model. The model must model itself. The model must model the model of itself.. ad absurdum.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I think it's worse to ignore bona fide miracles than to pretend miracles exist where they don't. If something inexplicable or fradulent happens, and you ascribe it to a miracle, you're merely ignorant or guillible. On the other hand, if a bona fide miracle happens and you refuse to acknowledge it, you're being irrational.
Define bona fide, though. You said earlier that you wouldn't apply current scientific knowledge to judge humanity - so why use it to decide a miracle is a genuine religious miracle rather than something which is beyond current knowledge?
A bona fide miracle is a real miracle as opposed to a fradulent or fake one. You witness it, but you can't reproduce or explain it. In that sense science doesn't help you. But you know that it happened.
Two things here. First of all, "miracle" goes above and beyond the natural, that's why it's called "supernatural". The universe functions according to a set of rules, but a miracle comes from "beyond" the universe and therefore overrides those rules. That doesn't mean the universe is less reliable, only that it was temporarily pre-empted by something with a higher priority.
By implication, anything that affects us in any observable way has become part of the natural universe. The very existance of the supernatural is by nature wholly subjective.
It sounds like you're trying to figure out a way for the supernatural to somehow be generated from the natural. That can't happen, any more than I can create a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional universe. Furthermore, any such three-dimensional object can interact in two dimensions without being constrained by those two dimensions.
That would be incorrect. For one thing, AFAIK there is not a part of the brain that physically codifies for religion, and if there were we wouldn't be seeing it decline so rapidly the way it has in many Western societies (the population is simply too large, plus there isn't really a survival benefit for it to be selected).
The capacity for religion is there, even if it's not being used. I don't think any athiest is mentally incapable of being religious; they simply choose not to.
And if God exists, there most certainly is a survival benefit to it. God pays attention to those who pay attention to him. :)
Religious belief would be an extension of things like imagination and artistry from a purely evolutional dint...
I don't think so. When you paint a picture or tell a story, you don't believe it's true. You may immerse yourself in your work; you may go to great imaginative and creative depths to find your material; but in the end it's just another thing you created and you wouldn't think it's part of your reality. But religious people really believe that their religion is real. That represents a fundamental shift in perception. What possible extra advantage could that shift in perception confer if it was not in fact real?
Well here we come to the implications. My justification is that if the Bible makes a number of statements on a variety of topics, and I can verify many of those statements through my own experiences, I should accept its authority on the statements I cannot verify.
What about the statements proven false?
Usually that's a matter of interpretation. On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.
Ok, I didn't look at the 3rd (and I'm loathe to read what would be rather biased sources for the other 2), but;
[snip]
Okay, for every miracle I've cited in this thread, you've proceeded on the assumption that it was false and then tried to compile data to support your assumption. What's wrong with taking them at face value? You can't prove them false on the limited information you have (neither can you prove them true, for that matter). Or what's wrong with even saying, "Okay, these are some things I don't know what to do with, so I'm going to say the jury is still out on them"?
You've previously stated that you don't believe in miracles. Now I've offered some evidence to challenge that position. Yet, instead of conceding that your position is no longer as certain as you previously thought, you say my evidence or interpretation must be flawed. That's an argument a priori, as Kazan would point out in my position, and it's a logical fallacy. :)
Is God real?
I say no. Prove me wrong - I'm a skeptic. (would God use a non-obvious sign for someone insistent upon objective evidence? That'd seem a bit daft but mysterious ways and soforth - although aren't those really excuses anyways)
God isn't obligated to jump through your hoops though. No relationships work out well if one party just sits back and dumps all obligations on the other. If you really want to find out, then try looking. He isn't hard to find.
This is obviously prying, but is she still diabetic?
I would assume not, if all her organs were healed.
i want to be humble in all these suggestions, ask God and HE will lead you how to respond. listen, listen, listen! it's so important that we spend lots of time wth Him and listen.
You make him sound like my Dad.
Why, is your dad a Christian? :)
-
As much as I would like to get involved in this, I'm not going to, as it would just add more to a series of lengthy posts. However, I feel I must point out that an argument a priori is not necessarily a logical fallacy. There are entire philosophical schools of thought based on a priori lines of reasoning, (including any argument that asserts the existence of God.) And if Kazan was using that as means of discrediting opposing arguments, then a pox on his house.
-
~'listen and wait for got to lead you, if you beleive in him he will show you the way, all you have to do is accept him as your savior and you will see the miricles in every ray of sun'~
when I was a small child I thought the world was populated by monsters, I was very fearful of them and I thought, no, knew they were lerking in every dark corner, under every bed, my conviction in there exsistance was such that I actualy saw them on numerous occasions, everything from optical illusions (stareing into darkness and seeing a dark cloud of dim staticy stuff wich I know know to be random fireing of light receptors in my eye) to halucinations (glowing eyes rushing at me under my bed, the gostbusters gagoyl cuming up along the side of the bed).
the point is the stronger you beleive something is true, the more you will see it irrespective of weather it is or is not there. I can not accept any god whom requiers me to beleive in him before being so grachious as to give me the slightest hint of it's exsistance. and I sure as hell am not going to take someone elses word on it, especaly in a mater of life and death.
-
A bona fide miracle is a real miracle as opposed to a fradulent or fake one. You witness it, but you can't reproduce or explain it. In that sense science doesn't help you. But you know that it happened.
I don't know about you, but i'd trust what science can tell me over what I perceive with my human senses, which are quite flawed as they are in all humans. Thus, as science can't help in this situation, I find myself prompted to disregard the "miracle", however convincing it may be.
The capacity for religion is there, even if it's not being used. I don't think any athiest is mentally incapable of being religious; they simply choose not to.
I totally agree with this. Regardless of how atheistic you are, there is always a capacity for religion.
I don't think so. When you paint a picture or tell a story, you don't believe it's true. You may immerse yourself in your work; you may go to great imaginative and creative depths to find your material; but in the end it's just another thing you created and you wouldn't think it's part of your reality. But religious people really believe that their religion is real. That represents a fundamental shift in perception. What possible extra advantage could that shift in perception confer if it was not in fact real?
Say what? You're saying the distinction between being imaginitive & creative and religion is that you don't believe? My mate's little brother would swear on his life that Santa is real, does that make it real? Does that belief hold some sort of advantage for him? If I can't quite remember something, I often find myself inadvertantly filling in the gaps with little exaggerations and soforth that I could swear were real. Hell, i've been recounting an event only to have someone else contradict it, and I would still bet my life that my version of the story is right. Does that make it real? If I convinced myself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real, and he had touched my soul with his noodly appendage, does that mean there could actually be an invisible clump of pasta floating around the universe?!
Religion is just a story passed down through generations, that slowly evolves past the realm of folk-lore and into the world of fact, where you've got people swearing their lives by that story. Humans can believe anything that want to, but simple belief doesn't make for reality.
Usually that's a matter of interpretation. On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.
So, how are we to know which parts of it to take literally and which to take figuratively. I don't know about you, but if i'm going to live my life by a book, i'd prefer something more concrete. It's entirely your perogative to believe it of course, but i'm just saying...
Okay, for every miracle I've cited in this thread, you've proceeded on the assumption that it was false and then tried to compile data to support your assumption. What's wrong with taking them at face value? You can't prove them false on the limited information you have (neither can you prove them true, for that matter). Or what's wrong with even saying, "Okay, these are some things I don't know what to do with, so I'm going to say the jury is still out on them"?
You've previously stated that you don't believe in miracles. Now I've offered some evidence to challenge that position. Yet, instead of conceding that your position is no longer as certain as you previously thought, you say my evidence or interpretation must be flawed. That's an argument a priori, as Kazan would point out in my position, and it's a logical fallacy. :)
The same could be said for you. You've obviously approached these "miracles" under the mind-set that there are miracles, and thus you accept these strange events as a miracle on face-value alone. When Aldo comes up with contradictions and evidence against your miracles, you instantly jump to their defence, not even conceding that 'hey, these might be frauds, you've got a point'.
God isn't obligated to jump through your hoops though. No relationships work out well if one party just sits back and dumps all obligations on the other. If you really want to find out, then try looking. He isn't hard to find.
So, he's not obligated to 'jump through hoops' for someone like Aldo [even though it wouldn't really require much to convince someone of the existance of a divine being], but when you start mumbling into your palms, he's there in no time to cure your asthma. What makes these sick people you've talked about in your "miracles" so special? Do they have some sort of divine purpose in life? Are they decendants of David? I want to know why your God will appear to heal people like you, no questions asked, and yet leave thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent souls to die pointlessly in ways more horrific than you can imagine? I know it's the basic 'if God's so good, why do bad things keep happening' arguement we've all heard a thousand times before, but it's a valid point, damnit! Why did your friend's mother get to come back to life, when some 5-year old in Africa still gets to die in tremendous pain from lack of clean drinking water?
It boggles the mind how people like you can completely disregard all the strife, horror and turmoil in the world, look to a single, strange event, trumpet it as a miracle, and dance around the streets yelling 'God is great! He's so kind for this one thing! God is love!'.
-
there are faces in this picture, how many can you find?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
very nice Bobbau
if youre looking for faces, you'll find faces all over the place
unfortunately, this rule does not apply to talent at a dave matthews concert
-
No, I'm pretty sure it can apply to any system. Basically, we can't construct a complete and accurate model of the universe, because we are in the universe. So there will be things about the universe that we can never model.
But we don't necessarily need to model the entire universe.
A bona fide miracle is a real miracle as opposed to a fradulent or fake one. You witness it, but you can't reproduce or explain it. In that sense science doesn't help you. But you know that it happened.
Science helps by observing and documenting; in essence proving it is inexplicable by providing the information to assess the possibilities and only then decide on inexplicability.
[q]It sounds like you're trying to figure out a way for the supernatural to somehow be generated from the natural. That can't happen, any more than I can create a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional universe. Furthermore, any such three-dimensional object can interact in two dimensions without being constrained by those two dimensions.
[/q]
Nope. What i'm thinking is, anything capable of interacting with a naturally observable universe will have some naturally observable characteristics as a result of that natural interaction. But, IMO, the supernatural is simply 'the bit science hasn't reached yet', in the same way as the laws of gravity would be supernatural before Newton.
The capacity for religion is there, even if it's not being used. I don't think any athiest is mentally incapable of being religious; they simply choose not to.
And if God exists, there most certainly is a survival benefit to it. God pays attention to those who pay attention to him.
The capacity of aetheism is there. It's completely without foundation - both biologically and statistically - to suggest a physical cause for religion or otherwise. As a survival benefit, it'd be very inconsistent; God has always been seen as non-interventionist to explain why 'bad things happen to good people'. More so, it's rather disturbing and quasi eugenical to suggest religion is some advanced evolutionary feature - even contradictory when you consider that the Catholic church has resisted a number of the more important scientific advances as challenging their orthodoxy. If anything, human evolution is best characterised through the ability to adapt and learn, something a set of firm codifications would actively suppress.
I don't think so. When you paint a picture or tell a story, you don't believe it's true. You may immerse yourself in your work; you may go to great imaginative and creative depths to find your material; but in the end it's just another thing you created and you wouldn't think it's part of your reality. But religious people really believe that their religion is real. That represents a fundamental shift in perception. What possible extra advantage could that shift in perception confer if it was not in fact real?
Advantage? It's simple; conviction and honesty. No-one likes a fraud, and sexual selection is all about legitimate, hard to fake signs. If religious belief was of sexual advantage - and remember this is primitive human evolution - then it'd be of more compelling if it was legit. By imposing religious restrictions, as well as testing faith it tests the 'religious value' or virtue of the individual in respect to sexual selection.
Moreso, we're not talking about conscious evolution here - people don't tell stories, write books, etc, to get laid; it just happens to be a selection benefit that stimulated the further development (or rather, the selection of) that type of imagination. It's also advantageous in the sense of mental security (psychologically) to have convictions and sureties, as a sort of mental bedrock, particularly in historical times when the world was a genuinely inexplicably dangerous place. Finally, if we take religion as a method of imposing societal regulation, it's of benefit in that sense, and propagated because society shuns those who don't conform to it.
Although this is rather mixing the notions of evolved capacity and societal takeup. All we needed to evolve was the cognitive functions that led to the possibility of religion (or really, the possibility and benefit of storytelling). True belief would be a consequence of societal pressure rather than physical evoltion. Think of it this way; storyteller gets laid, cognitive ability to storytell propagates. Storyteller creates religion, religion is advantageous to storyteller or that society, religion propagates through society (guessing about it, i'd imagine religion would become disadvantageous in sexual selection terms after a certain critical mass, when everyone was devout and thus there was no descriminatory value).
Although, frankly, if God was to intervene and make belief a survival advantage, why not just do so directly and skip the whole evolution thing?
[q]Usually that's a matter of interpretation. On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.[/q]
Even when other, older societies (such as the Egyptians, although IIRC the Indians had the most accurate) are and were known to have more accurate values?
[q]
Okay, for every miracle I've cited in this thread, you've proceeded on the assumption that it was false and then tried to compile data to support your assumption. What's wrong with taking them at face value? You can't prove them false on the limited information you have (neither can you prove them true, for that matter). Or what's wrong with even saying, "Okay, these are some things I don't know what to do with, so I'm going to say the jury is still out on them"?
You've previously stated that you don't believe in miracles. Now I've offered some evidence to challenge that position. Yet, instead of conceding that your position is no longer as certain as you previously thought, you say my evidence or interpretation must be flawed. That's an argument a priori, as Kazan would point out in my position, and it's a logical fallacy.
[/q]
The problem is, you've offered incomplete evidence.
Look at my position on the 2 'documented' cases; the first link is a guy who makes a living selling stories of miracles, with no independent evidence, and where AFAIK the miracle took place in Zaire (a country where I would expect it to be rather easy to fake). I don't thinks there's been a single mention ever of a miracle failing at these types of mass events, and that alone raises an alarm bell.
The 2nd case is also incomplete. Even the type of jellyfish is unknown; and the link is to a type that doesn't even range to the area it took place. Moreso, it's inconsistent - he's pronounced dead and yet he wakes up still apparently being treated, for example, plus it's unclear what the external physical symptoms were (comatose or. This is not doubting he believes what he experienced, but as a neutral event from a rational eye - vastly insufficient.
Put it this way - the jury doesn't go out until it hears all the evidence. I'm not asking for much, after all - just documentation from someone without a personal stake, like book sales or fame from being paraded on faith newspapers.
[q]God isn't obligated to jump through your hoops though. No relationships work out well if one party just sits back and dumps all obligations on the other. If you really want to find out, then try looking. He isn't hard to find.[/q]
Y'know, I did go to church. I went to Sunday school. I was an agnostic for a while, really, up till a few years ago when i actually read a few bits of the bible for an arguement like this. I've never seen any consistent and logical evidence for an omniscent/omnipotent diety, let alone a beneficial one. Don't assume that because I don't believe in a religion i'm not capable of it, that - to paraphrase an earlier argeument - my brain isn't sufficiently evolved to do so. Perhaps i just looked about, saw a few million terrible things, people motivated to do more terrible things by religion, a few people cashing in on misery, and thought 'nae chance'.
Because I can't explain a God that'd heal one poor sod yet let 500,000 more die in a Tsunami, y'know?
[q]I would assume not, if all her organs were healed.[/q]
Well, that to me seems rather confusing. Diabetes as an illness doesn't connotate organ damage in the sense of hypoglacemia (which can be fully recovered from); type 1 is usually caused by the immune system killing B-cells in the pancrea, and type 2 by tissue insulin resistance, neither of which IMO constitute 'damage' in that sense. Although i mentioned a complete recovery case earlier, but i don't know the details of that one either (just the paragraph header), so I can't say if it involved type 1 or 2 (I think 1 is more connotated with hypoglacemia, not sure) and whether it involved recovering from diabetes itself (albeit, apparently diabetes in type 1 case can be caused by a combination of environmental factors and genetic susceptibility, so i don't know if it can feasibly 'cure itself' in certain cases, so it's admittedly rather a moot question).
[q]You make him sound like my Dad.[/q]
No, he just moans a lot.
-
I can not accept any god whom requiers me to beleive in him before being so grachious as to give me the slightest hint of it's exsistance. and I sure as hell am not going to take someone elses word on it, especaly in a mater of life and death.
Well, God would argue that he's given us plenty of hints of his existence already; we just take them for granted. :)
I don't know about you, but i'd trust what science can tell me over what I perceive with my human senses, which are quite flawed as they are in all humans. Thus, as science can't help in this situation, I find myself prompted to disregard the "miracle", however convincing it may be.
Well, the scientific method is basically observe, theorize, test, repeat. You're supposed to modify your theories based on your observations, not the other way around.
Religion is just a story passed down through generations, that slowly evolves past the realm of folk-lore and into the world of fact, where you've got people swearing their lives by that story. Humans can believe anything that want to, but simple belief doesn't make for reality.
So maybe it doesn't work correctly 100% of the time. Regardless, I think it's notable that we have this capability.
The same could be said for you. You've obviously approached these "miracles" under the mind-set that there are miracles, and thus you accept these strange events as a miracle on face-value alone. When Aldo comes up with contradictions and evidence against your miracles, you instantly jump to their defence, not even conceding that 'hey, these might be frauds, you've got a point'.
You've got that precisely backwards. As I said before, for a long time I didn't believe major miracles happened in the modern world. They happened in the Bible, and that was cool, but God doesn't work that way any more for whatever reason. That was my firm position for a long time. Then I started seeing odd things that challenged that position and hearing from people who were seeing miracles themselves. I was still very skeptical, but trying to keep an open mind about it. And then finally I saw one for myself.
When you're completely healed of asthma, by people who are speaking in tongues, while feeling a strangely exhilirating bubbly feeling in your chest, and all the while the three of you are giggling uncontrollably like little kids, it's hard to pass that off as anything but a genuine miracle.
So, he's not obligated to 'jump through hoops' for someone like Aldo [even though it wouldn't really require much to convince someone of the existance of a divine being], but when you start mumbling into your palms, he's there in no time to cure your asthma. What makes these sick people you've talked about in your "miracles" so special? Do they have some sort of divine purpose in life? Are they decendants of David? I want to know why your God will appear to heal people like you, no questions asked, and yet leave thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent souls to die pointlessly in ways more horrific than you can imagine? I know it's the basic 'if God's so good, why do bad things keep happening' arguement we've all heard a thousand times before, but it's a valid point, damnit! Why did your friend's mother get to come back to life, when some 5-year old in Africa still gets to die in tremendous pain from lack of clean drinking water?
A valid point. A very valid point. As far as I know, that's totally on account of the sin problem. God would love to reveal himself to everybody, but that would mean an immediate Game Over. In order to give everyone a fair chance to decide for themselves, he conceals himself. He can only intervene to the extent that people come to him.
In the same way, he can only exert his power through the people that serve him. Think of light that's too powerful to be seen except through mirrors - but most of the available mirrors are too cloudy. If you want more light, there are only two solutions: clean the mirrors, or get more mirrors. So when disasters happen, don't blame God for not exerting his power - blame mankind for not allowing him enough mirrors, and blame the Christians for not keeping their mirrors cleaner. ;)
It boggles the mind how people like you can completely disregard all the strife, horror and turmoil in the world, look to a single, strange event, trumpet it as a miracle, and dance around the streets yelling 'God is great! He's so kind for this one thing! God is love!'.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. All the trouble in the world is due to sin, and no Christian should minimize its lure, its power, or its impact. Optimism in the face of sin is only possible if you realize that God is more powerful than it. Eventually, everything will be set right.
But we don't necessarily need to model the entire universe.
Then we must concede that science cannot fully explain it. :) So if it's impossible to fully explain the natural universe, how can we hope to explain the supernatural?
Nope. What i'm thinking is, anything capable of interacting with a naturally observable universe will have some naturally observable characteristics as a result of that natural interaction.
Fair enough. But those characteristics, because they have a supernatural cause, will not be explicable by a natural cause.
But, IMO, the supernatural is simply 'the bit science hasn't reached yet', in the same way as the laws of gravity would be supernatural before Newton.
No; you're confusing "science currently doesn't know the answer" with "science cannot know the answer". Granted, it's not always easy (especially from a subjective viewpoint) to tell the difference, but the difference is there.
[q]Usually that's a matter of interpretation. On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.[/q]
Even when other, older societies (such as the Egyptians, although IIRC the Indians had the most accurate) are and were known to have more accurate values?
The context of that passage is not a mathematical treatise; it's a description of temple artifacts. Strict accuracy wasn't needed; 3 is an acceptable "rounding off" of pi.
That passage isn't even making a proclamation (e.g. "Thus saith the Lord: The measurement round a circle shall be exactly thrice its span"). It's describing something a certain person did.
The problem is, you've offered incomplete evidence.
Well, over the internet is a far cry from seeing it in person. :)
Look at my position on the 2 'documented' cases; the first link is a guy who makes a living selling stories of miracles, with no independent evidence, and where AFAIK the miracle took place in Zaire (a country where I would expect it to be rather easy to fake). I don't thinks there's been a single mention ever of a miracle failing at these types of mass events, and that alone raises an alarm bell.
He's a full-time missionary - his stories are about the only thing he can sell. He still has to make a living.
And if he was just a shyster looking to make a quick buck, why on Earth is he doing it in a third-world country? There's no shortage of televangelists willing to defraud Americans out of their cash, for example. Why go to Zaire?
Put it this way - the jury doesn't go out until it hears all the evidence. I'm not asking for much, after all - just documentation from someone without a personal stake, like book sales or fame from being paraded on faith newspapers.
What sort of personal stake do I have in telling you this? ;)
Y'know, I did go to church. I went to Sunday school. I was an agnostic for a while, really, up till a few years ago when i actually read a few bits of the bible for an arguement like this. I've never seen any consistent and logical evidence for an omniscent/omnipotent diety, let alone a beneficial one. Don't assume that because I don't believe in a religion i'm not capable of it, that - to paraphrase an earlier argeument - my brain isn't sufficiently evolved to do so. Perhaps i just looked about, saw a few million terrible things, people motivated to do more terrible things by religion, a few people cashing in on misery, and thought 'nae chance'.
Well, compare that to people who try a diet for three days with no observable results and conclude it doesn't work. Or, if you thought there was buried treasure in your backyard, would you dig a few holes and conclude it wasn't there? Instant gratification nowadays has dulled us to the things that actually require hard work. :)
-
God eh? >..>
If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an instant.
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
If not, he is not all generous is he .
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.
-
God eh? >..>
If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an instant.
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
If not, he is not all generous is he .
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.
I assume you mean this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
-
God eh? >..>
If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an instant.
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
If not, he is not all generous is he .
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.
I assume you mean this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
Well, interesting read. But I came up with that stuff from discussions between friends.
One of which was a hardcore christian for 9 or so years. He always argued the points similar to goober. But he started asking questions the church couldn't answer. One's similar to above.
I think he's a bit of a Paegen or something now-a-days.
My point is, if god is the big Mr CanDoWhatever, why hasn't he.
-
Indeed. I challenge anyone to read St. Augustine and then tell me that theodicy is not the most absurd line of inquiry ever devised by human thought.
This debate is cyclical. God is an emotion; those who want to assign it empirical validity will do so, and the reasons why some do this and others do not encompass so many spheres of culture, psychology, philosophical anthropology, and personal experience that the battleground for this question becomes nothing short of chaos theory. It's a point of contention about which one could write volumes.
-
Indeed. I challenge anyone to read St. Augustine and then tell me that theodicy is not the most absurd line of inquiry ever devised by human thought.
This debate is cyclical. God is an emotion; those who want to assign it empirical validity will do so, and the reasons why some do this and others do not encompass so many spheres of culture, psychology, philosophical anthropology, and personal experience that the battleground for this question becomes nothing short of chaos theory. It's a point of contention about which one could write volumes.
Pretty much. :yes:
I don't want to bash belief's. But I can't help it. I've seen it abused all my life. The few good people I know who are fairly religeous are exactly that, good people first, religeon second. When people put religeon first... I find they often become bigots to those not of there similar beliefs... >..>
-
[q]
Then we must concede that science cannot fully explain it. So if it's impossible to fully explain the natural universe, how can we hope to explain the supernatural?
[/q]
That's not actually what I said. What I said was that in order to explain such a thing, we don't need to explicitly model the entire universe but a sufficient subset of knowledge.
[q]
Fair enough. But those characteristics, because they have a supernatural cause, will not be explicable by a natural cause.[/q]
That would depend upon the method of action. A truly supernatural cause would be indistinct from natural action, random or otherwise, because an observable miracle or 'divine act' is surely defined by observability.
[q]
No; you're confusing "science currently doesn't know the answer" with "science cannot know the answer". Granted, it's not always easy (especially from a subjective viewpoint) to tell the difference, but the difference is there.[/q]
And you're assuming science cannot know the answer, which is an equally subjective viewpoint. The difference is, the former encourages active questioning and advancement to push towards that answer. The latter deters it by making the act of learning and exploration inconsequential.
[q]
The context of that passage is not a mathematical treatise; it's a description of temple artifacts. Strict accuracy wasn't needed; 3 is an acceptable "rounding off" of pi.
That passage isn't even making a proclamation (e.g. "Thus saith the Lord: The measurement round a circle shall be exactly thrice its span"). It's describing something a certain person did.[/q]
'And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. ' I believe is the quote. This is the specification for the Great Temple of Solomon IIRC, which raises an interesting question as to why you would use a value known to be wrong as an engineering specification? Moreso, the point is that you cannot take the bible literally in this case; in order to accept it as true, you need to twist and rationalise it in some way, making assumptions about the meaning of the passage. As written, it is wrong. Only by interpreting it as an acceptable margin of error, or rounding, etc, can you square it with both what is known now, and what was known then (the Babylonians, for example, had pi to something like the 3rd decimal place).
[q]Well, over the internet is a far cry from seeing it in person. [/q]
Seeing it in person is a far cry from empiracal evidence. St. Elmos fire would be a divine manifestation if seen in person.
[q]He's a full-time missionary - his stories are about the only thing he can sell. He still has to make a living.
And if he was just a shyster looking to make a quick buck, why on Earth is he doing it in a third-world country? There's no shortage of televangelists willing to defraud Americans out of their cash, for example. Why go to Zaire?[/q]
He can cite millions of people seeing it, and say 'look, here's some documentation and believers', then flog a tonne of books. Being in Zaire (now DRC) would mean that it's easier to do it away from scrutiny, and a lot easier to get round tricky red tape - it's a country synonymous with corruption. It's also a country which is in a key area for missionaries (one of the few growth areas of Christianity IIRC, as the developed world tends to lapse), and one where - without wishing to sound insulting - decades of instability and conflict (and the resulting infrastructure damage) would leave a population both undereducated and more desperate for hope.
I mean, I'm pretty sure there are a hell of a lot of missionaries who don't need to release 12 books or so to live or do their job.
[q]
What sort of personal stake do I have in telling you this? [/q]
To go against it would be raise issues of your belief. If you take my position, where religious belief is a method of self-rationalisation enforced by societal status benefits, the last thing you'd want to do - subconsciously - is to leave it unjustified. You'd feel obliged to defend your position, same as I feel onliged to reply and actually try and cite some justification. It's a sort of feedback loop; without debating the veracity of a particular miracle or not, you want to believe in miracles because seeing miracles reinforces your belief, so you become more likely to see miracles. Is the sun coming up every day ultimately a miracle, or ultimately just physics? We all have our opinions.
It's like you say below with the whole 'open your eyes' or whatever type thing. Once you believe, you don't want to turn against what is a nice psychologal bulwark (this goes both ways, of course, and I'm not going to do a Kazan and say you're delusional or some ****e, because it's impolite and arrogant to make that presumption).
It's psychologically complex; where you see some miracle that reinforces your faith, I see something with logical holes that reinforces my doubt. It's highly subjective, no doubt. But I'm not going to assume I'm automatically right, that my view should be held higher than yours, and I'd ask you do the same and not assume that what you believe, no matter how right it feels to you, is right for everyone or anyone else.
[q]
Well, compare that to people who try a diet for three days with no observable results and conclude it doesn't work. Or, if you thought there was buried treasure in your backyard, would you dig a few holes and conclude it wasn't there? Instant gratification nowadays has dulled us to the things that actually require hard work. [/q]
Strangely, it's the 'hard work' of observational results that convinces me there is no justification for organizaed religion beyond the socio-political. You can self-justify it by twisting round the Bible and God to explain the duality of interventional miracles and bad things happening to good people, but you have to want to believe in that justification in the first place. I see holes. That doesn't make me blind, it means I look differently. Not less. differently.
-
some might argue corectly...
-
some might argue corectly...
Some might not. My concern here is which viewpoint per-ce has the most impact on those who would argue differently to it. That's why I support both choice and the use of neutral scientific evidence alone in determining the choices we make available.
EDIT;
This is, to be fair, a classic circular & unresolvable argument. Both Goober and I are probably aware enough to understand our relative positions & motivations for them, but there's still a sort of inherent urge to dance-the-dance of elucidating them to everyone else who reads the thread. I suppose if either of us had the power to enact upon those positions, it might be an entirely different debate, but who knows?
-
Goober spoke from his personal experiences, so I spoke from observations of my own. >..>
Sorry if that offends, I'm just being honest.
-
God eh? >..>
yes
If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
do research on the purpose of earth. i.e. read Genesis. God originally created humans on earth, not in heaven...
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
exactly. Humans were created with free will. which is why adam and even originally made their own (bad) choice. again, read Genesis
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
yes he is
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
again, humans have to make their decisions. do things right, or do them wrong, it's their perogative
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an instant.
mhmm
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
do you realize what you just said? "create a way for us to choose our own will"... that doesn't define "free will" lol...we're already able to choose our own will
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
free will
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
if i say i don't want to beat your ass. does that mean i can't beat your ass? no it doesn't...
If not, he is not all generous is he .
generosity doesn't mean you give everything to undeserving people. it means you're WILLING to give. doesn't mean you shoot out freebies to everyone and everything
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
compassionate, as in, He understands human imperfection. which is why the door's open. again it comes down to how hard an individual is willing to change his/her life
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.
you're free to believe whatever you want. :)
-
I've never understood why an omnipotent, omnipresent being would feel a need to be worshipped. Not like he/she/it is likely to be insecure, after all.
-
respect?
if you designed something that was unheard of, wouldn't you want respect to be given to you as the designer/creator?
now imagine that you are the all powerful being of the universe, and you created life. takes it to a whole new scale
-
respect?
if you designed something that was unheard of, wouldn't you want respect to be given to you as the designer/creator?
now imagine that you are the all powerful being of the universe, and you created life. takes it to a whole new scale
So god has an omni-ego to go along with his omnipotence, omniscience and omni-presence?
-
Heh heh, this is just the textbook Hegelian tragedy, isn't it? God creates humanity for the purpose of receiving humanity's recognition, making God the recognized consciousness and humans the recognizing consciousness. Thus, God is apparently the master, and humanity the slave. But the relationship is self-defeating, as God is inevitably dependent on our recognition-- recognition that would end the moment we elected to engage in the life-and-death struggle to become truly self-conscious ourselves. But then neither wins in that struggle, since either we kill God or God kills us, negating the victor's prospect of recognition. I guess in this case, either God creates another humanity and begins the process again, or we create another God. ;)
-
respect?
if you designed something that was unheard of, wouldn't you want respect to be given to you as the designer/creator?
now imagine that you are the all powerful being of the universe, and you created life. takes it to a whole new scale
Why would God feel such a need? I mean, you're applying natural human characteristics (quite possibly created due to certain evolutionary pressure that made 'respect' an important part of mating competition and thus the desire to gain it a key sexually selected advantage) to what is a fundamentally supernatural and alien 'thing'. i mean, my - human - desire for respect is part of the complex machinations of the human psyche, not something that's an inherent rule of the universe. and it was, that'd only be the observable i.e. natural universe.
-
God is already participating in a relationship that meets all his needs, from eternity past to eternity future. The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit facilitates the relationship. God doesn't need anything else. In fact, created beings aren't capable of fully participating in an infinite relationship anyway, so it's not like creating us made any difference.
One way of looking at worship is that God thought to himself (without a trace of arrogance), "I'm so cool, I want to share this coolness with everybody." So worship is God trying to get us to understand how cool he is. It's for our own good; if we don't worship him, we're missing out.
Another view is that worship is God's due, simply by virtue of what and who he is. Imagine if a runner competes in the Olympics and comes in first place, only to be told, "Okay, that's it, good tournament, time to go home." That's not fair - the gold medal is his rightful due. He earned it.
-
So either way, God created a universe that required him being worshipped to be 'complete', despite God not actually having pressing need to be worshipped due to the whole ominipotent supreme being thing.
Y'see, this is the main reason I'm an aetheist. It's makes absolutely bugger all sense to my fragile little human psyche.
-
That paradox is very telling about the nature of god as a product of the human being. Atheists commonly assume that god is simply a story that we consciously invented either to explain natural phenomena or to provide a basis for normative ethics, neither of which even skims the surface of how deeply-rooted this paradigm is in human thought. There is something about the process of human cognition that makes it fundamentally impossible for us to perceive the world outside the context of this idea of larger consciousness.
I posted an article from the Globe about this a while ago. (Don't know if anyone read it, though.)
-
That paradox is very telling about the nature of god as a product of the human being. Atheists commonly assume that god is simply a story that we consciously invented either to explain natural phenomena or to provide a basis for normative ethics, neither of which even skims the surface of how deeply-rooted this paradigm is in human thought. There is something about the process of human cognition that makes it fundamentally impossible for us to perceive the world outside the context of this idea of larger consciousness.
I posted an article from the Globe about this a while ago. (Don't know if anyone read it, though.)
I remember it, yeah. But I think there's a lot of seemingly abstract human psychological traits than can arguably be tracked back to an evolutionary advantage which was later propagated by society.
-
Why would God feel such a need? I mean, you're applying natural human characteristics (quite possibly created due to certain evolutionary pressure that made 'respect' an important part of mating competition and thus the desire to gain it a key sexually selected advantage) to what is a fundamentally supernatural and alien 'thing'. i mean, my - human - desire for respect is part of the complex machinations of the human psyche, not something that's an inherent rule of the universe. and it was, that'd only be the observable i.e. natural universe.
Genesis 1:27 == "And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. "
-
Why would God feel such a need? I mean, you're applying natural human characteristics (quite possibly created due to certain evolutionary pressure that made 'respect' an important part of mating competition and thus the desire to gain it a key sexually selected advantage) to what is a fundamentally supernatural and alien 'thing'. i mean, my - human - desire for respect is part of the complex machinations of the human psyche, not something that's an inherent rule of the universe. and it was, that'd only be the observable i.e. natural universe.
Genesis 1:27 == "And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. "
Aside from the whole questionability of Genesis, that doesn't really relate to psyche, does it?
Because, God is by nature (AFAIK) infallible, so any flaws in the human psyche and human nature would imply that we are different and hence has different thought processes (if you can apply the idea of thought to a concept such as a divine omnipotence). Otherwise you'd expect God to be as subject to jealousy, thoughtless and pointless anger, insecurity, etc as humans manifestly are. The only alternative is to assume Gods psyche - or the equivalent - to be humanly flawed, which to me would seem to run contrary to the theology.
-
What's a stem cell? :nervous:
:p
Israel is heresy
the messiah was supposed to lead them back to the holy land, and the only people doing any leading around there are butchers and overall very bad people
To wha-ba-hu1? Did you mean "Israel is heretical"?
Regardless, what is the basis for your second statement? I'm not contesting it, I just want to clarify it before I address it. :)
1 A cookie to whoever gets the reference. ;)
-
Aside from the whole questionability of Genesis, that doesn't really relate to psyche, does it?
Because, God is by nature (AFAIK) infallible, so any flaws in the human psyche and human nature would imply that we are different and hence has different thought processes (if you can apply the idea of thought to a concept such as a divine omnipotence). Otherwise you'd expect God to be as subject to jealousy, thoughtless and pointless anger, insecurity, etc as humans manifestly are. The only alternative is to assume Gods psyche - or the equivalent - to be humanly flawed, which to me would seem to run contrary to the theology.
if you're going to be arguing about God's characteristics, then please tell me you're going to acknowledge the Bible as being true... otherwise we can't really have this discussion ;)
That's assuming that demanding respect for something you created is a vice... since when? If you developed a cure for AIDS, would you want people to look up to you and respect you? would you be wrong for doing so?
now imagine if you created the universe, the earth, and humankind.
-
That's assuming that demanding respect for something you created is a vice... since when? If you developed a cure for AIDS, would you want people to look up to you and respect you? would you be wrong for doing so?
Given the pattern God goes by? Yes.
With God's pattern, I would create the cure for AIDs. Then I would leave it lying around someplace. Rather than claiming credit, and preventing others from doing so, I would allow dozens of other people to claim credit, then publish a book that states that I did it. This published book would also contain a number of other statements that directly contradict many other pieces of evidence known to man. Not only that, but I would also totally disappear from civillization and leave behind no evidence of my existence - other than aforementioned AIDs cure.
Finally (and this is my favorite part): For those that chose (against all odds) to respect and credit me with the AIDS cure, I would give a panacea. For those who thought anything else, I would give their address to a serial killer, who would then brutally rape and torture each and every one of them.
-
if you're going to be arguing about God's characteristics, then please tell me you're going to acknowledge the Bible as being true... otherwise we can't really have this discussion
I disagree. If one is going to challenge the plausibility of characteristics attributed to god, then all supposed accounts of the nature of god, including the Bible, must be fair game.
-
Aside from the whole questionability of Genesis, that doesn't really relate to psyche, does it?
Because, God is by nature (AFAIK) infallible, so any flaws in the human psyche and human nature would imply that we are different and hence has different thought processes (if you can apply the idea of thought to a concept such as a divine omnipotence). Otherwise you'd expect God to be as subject to jealousy, thoughtless and pointless anger, insecurity, etc as humans manifestly are. The only alternative is to assume Gods psyche - or the equivalent - to be humanly flawed, which to me would seem to run contrary to the theology.
if you're going to be arguing about God's characteristics, then please tell me you're going to acknowledge the Bible as being true... otherwise we can't really have this discussion ;)
Well, we can pretty much prove parts of it aren't literally true. Genesis primarily. Unless you want to argue that the earth is itself designed to fake a different age and creation method from the bible, which would be rather odd I fell, and in any case is really outside the scope of this arguement IMO.
That doesn't mean I'm making any commment upon the veracity of it as a holy book, because if God was going to dictate the history of earth to people 2000+ years ago, He would use terms and symbolism that they could understand. I think it's only fair in this context to propose that a divinely inspired book written by humans willl have some element of the writer as part of the nature of requiring comprehension both in the translation of divine concept to human concept and indeed for putting that concept onto the page.
That's assuming that demanding respect for something you created is a vice... since when? If you developed a cure for AIDS, would you want people to look up to you and respect you? would you be wrong for doing so?
But I'm human. The psychological mechanisms for desiring respect are in all likelihood evolved from the societal advantages of having it. God doesn't, literally, need respect (AFAIK, unless there's some other theological arguement here). Moreso, if you are doing something in a wholly beneficial and unselfish way, you don't care about the respect, only the positive aspects of it. You may innately care about respect and reward, but that's essentially our flaw; I don't think you can take that characteristic of humanity to be one that is perfect, and hence one you'd expect to see in an perfect being. I'm sure there must be something in Christian theology about giving without expecting in return; the parable of the Good Samaritan perhaps.
now imagine if you created the universe, the earth, and humankind.
Er, obviously see above :)
Although isn't there a line in the bible that says it's wrong to know the mind of God?
-
God eh? >..>
yes
If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
do research on the purpose of earth. i.e. read Genesis. God originally created humans on earth, not in heaven...
Supposedly god loves all humans, god wants all humans to be able to be with him. (originally in eden) Why isn't it so? ~ see next points
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
exactly. Humans were created with free will. which is why adam and even originally made their own (bad) choice. again, read Genesis
yes
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
yes he is
thus anything is possible to god, even things beyond our own comprehension, god is infallible
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
again, humans have to make their decisions. do things right, or do them wrong, it's their perogative
so god can't make the existance of both choice and everyone winning and being with him possible...?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an instant.
mhmm
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
do you realize what you just said? "create a way for us to choose our own will"... that doesn't define "free will" lol...we're already able to choose our own will
nice dodge tactic? so god cannot make this free choice + all go to heaven situation? So god is not infallible, not all powerfull.
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
free will
all powerfull being able to create any situation to be in existance
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
if i say i don't want to beat your ass. does that mean i can't beat your ass? no it doesn't...
so this is gods choice? to torture human kind even when god knows the entire story already from start to infinite
If not, he is not all generous is he .
generosity doesn't mean you give everything to undeserving people. it means you're WILLING to give. doesn't mean you shoot out freebies to everyone and everything
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
compassionate, as in, He understands human imperfection. which is why the door's open. again it comes down to how hard an individual is willing to change his/her life
this is god - knows how everything will end, can create life and existance. but for some reason can't figure out a way for everyone to be happy?
this & the fact man was created in the image of god... to me this suggests god is imperfect, which is a big dimple in any religous belief if you ask me. kind of kills the all powerfull claims and the reasoning why everything god supposedly said should be taken for fact and be taught as word of what life should be lived by.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.
you're free to believe whatever you want. :)
except apparantly, that stem cells don't have souls. =/
-
Here's a slight digression.
Sin is the result of free will. Stem cells / the unborn have no (capacity for) free will, thus cannot commit or have committed sin, and will definately go to heaven. Heaven is seen as better than life; life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc. So being alive isn't by any rational measure going to be better than heaven.
So, who does campaigning against stem cell research, or abortion, actually protect?
My only thought is that if you see it as murder, you're trying to protect the doctor, mother, etc, from going to hell as murderers. Except everyone is free to say '**** off, i'll do what I want with my soul', and most people are sinners in some religions eyes. So i'm not sure what the point is, especially as the most fundamentalist Christians (who tend to be the most vocal protestors) would appear to welcome the rapture, i.e. ascension to heaven, so campaigning against it (generic term for these types of issues) on the basis of the unborn child would be denying that ascension to he/she/it (depend on you characterisation).
I mean, I can see a theological difference for the born, who can then sin and deserve a chance to repent etc etc. but not for those without the capacity for sin.
-
So, by that logic, should a terrorist who massacres a Christian prayer meeting be commended?
It's something I'm not fully sure of either, as I think aborted children (and possibly all children who die before "the age of accountability", which is probably coincident with puberty) go to heaven too. And Paul struggled with it when he wrote about yearning to die and be with Christ but acknowledging that he still had work to do on Earth.
I think the reason to protect children is to give them a fair shot at living life. God could just as easily create people and divide them up into the heaven and hell camps without bothering with life, but I think he allows us to live life so that we gain experiential (not just theoretical) knowledge about our own moral character. By living life, when we're sent into eternity we can recognize, "Yes, this is who I am, and these are the choices that justify my eternal destiny." If someone is killed before their time, they're denied that chance to see how their moral character would have developed.
-
So, by that logic, should a terrorist who massacres a Christian prayer meeting be commended?
No, and I would have hoped that was obvious; the logic is the incapacity to commit sin, something which vanishes as soon as we are born (or perhaps as soon as we are even conscious). I'm pretty sure one of the tenets of Christianity (correct me if wrong), is that everyone in some small way is a sinner, and that's the reason God feld obliged to send down Jesus to die on the cross as an example and sort of mass atonement. Or something. Basically, anyone with the capacity for free will has the capacity to determine their morals up to the day they lose that ability, and it's not something that should be taken by anyone beyond God.
That's be my interpretation of it, anyways.
It's something I'm not fully sure of either, as I think aborted children (and possibly all children who die before "the age of accountability", which is probably coincident with puberty) go to heaven too. And Paul struggled with it when he wrote about yearning to die and be with Christ but acknowledging that he still had work to do on Earth.
I think the reason to protect children is to give them a fair shot at living life. God could just as easily create people and divide them up into the heaven and hell camps without bothering with life, but I think he allows us to live life so that we gain experiential (not just theoretical) knowledge about our own moral character. By living life, when we're sent into eternity we can recognize, "Yes, this is who I am, and these are the choices that justify my eternal destiny." If someone is killed before their time, they're denied that chance to see how their moral character would have developed.
But wouldn't God already know, anyways, being all-knowing and thus able to see all possible eventualities (because that's implied by omniscence and people having free will)? I can understand life as being a test (the idea of any beneficial god creating people just to chuck them into hell would seem rather sadistic and thus I think that'd rule it out as a consideration here), but it's really a test of failure in my eyes; how much do you do wrong, and how clean can you wipe your slate, because it means more to be inherently flawed yet good than born perfect. i.e. it's not a test that taking reveals anything about except yourself, and if the consequences of such a test are good and desirable and consequential, surely they'd also 'occur' in heaven, what with it being paradise.
This is from the view of a non-theologist, of course.
-
...life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.
We aren't worthy of anything but judgement and death. God doesn't love us because of who we are. He loves us because of who He is.
-
...life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.
We aren't worthy of anything but judgement and death. God doesn't love us because of who we are. He loves us because of who He is.
fine, to be worthy of a positive judgement that lets us get into heaven. Hell is still there as a punishment, right?
-
Nothing we can do could make us worthy. Which is why Jesus sacrificed His life for our sins.
If you're trying to get at the reason for existance, according to the Bible we were created to worship God. And yes, I'm quite aware of how "ego" that sounds. But so is rejecting our Creator and focusing on ourselves to the exclusion of all else. *shrug*
-
Nothing we can do could make us worthy. Which is why Jesus sacrificed His life for our sins.
If you're trying to get at the reason for existance, according to the Bible we were created to worship God. And yes, I'm quite aware of how "ego" that sounds. But so is rejecting our Creator and focusing on ourselves to the exclusion of all else. *shrug*
If life isn't a 'test' in some regard, how can there be any judgement based upon it? For there to be a judgement, there has to be some benchmark. For there to be admission, we need to meet said benchmark. Hence, worthy.
To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.
-
All I'm saying is that nobody's worthy. I sure as hell ain't. Nobody I know is.
Life isn't any more of a test from God than it is a test from the authorities and the legal system. Rules were set down. Laws written. Keeping or breaking them is not a "test".
-
All I'm saying is that nobody's worthy. I sure as hell ain't. Nobody I know is.
I am.
-
All I'm saying is that nobody's worthy. I sure as hell ain't. Nobody I know is.
Life isn't any more of a test from God than it is a test from the authorities and the legal system. Rules were set down. Laws written. Keeping or breaking them is not a "test".
If it's not a test, then how can people be judged upon it?
-
To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.
LOL well i'm sure God could care less what you think; as do most people.
-
To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.
LOL well i'm sure God could care less what you think; as do most people.
And why can't we "care less" at what god thinks without expecting retribution? :p
-
...life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.
We aren't worthy of anything but judgement and death. God doesn't love us because of who we are. He loves us because of who He is.
What sort of sick twisted existence is that? I'd take non-existence above the insane demense you view the universe as...
-
De contemptu mundi-- the nihilism of Christianity.
-
So, by that logic, should a terrorist who massacres a Christian prayer meeting be commended?
No, and I would have hoped that was obvious; the logic is the incapacity to commit sin, something which vanishes as soon as we are born (or perhaps as soon as we are even conscious).
K. I knew you didn't mean it that way; my question was to find out precisely which way you did mean it. :)
I'm pretty sure one of the tenets of Christianity (correct me if wrong), is that everyone in some small way is a sinner, and that's the reason God feld obliged to send down Jesus to die on the cross as an example and sort of mass atonement. Or something. Basically, anyone with the capacity for free will has the capacity to determine their morals up to the day they lose that ability, and it's not something that should be taken by anyone beyond God.
That's be my interpretation of it, anyways.
Ya. The problem, though, is that the Bible seems to indicate that sinfulness is inherent in human nature (c.f. Psalm 51:5 - "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful since the time my mother conceived me"). Ever since the Fall, humanity has been separated from God regardless of how many or what kind of sins they commit. So a child killed in the womb still has a sinful nature, even before it is given the opportunity to deliberately sin.
At the same time, the Bible links children with innocence and salvation in a great many places, and nowhere does it describe a little child with the same kind of harshness as an adult. So this has led a great many people to infer that there must be some sort of "age of accountability" before which God doesn't hold a child's sins against him.
But wouldn't God already know, anyways, being all-knowing and thus able to see all possible eventualities (because that's implied by omniscence and people having free will)? I can understand life as being a test (the idea of any beneficial god creating people just to chuck them into hell would seem rather sadistic and thus I think that'd rule it out as a consideration here), but it's really a test of failure in my eyes; how much do you do wrong, and how clean can you wipe your slate, because it means more to be inherently flawed yet good than born perfect. i.e. it's not a test that taking reveals anything about except yourself, and if the consequences of such a test are good and desirable and consequential, surely they'd also 'occur' in heaven, what with it being paradise.
Yeah, God already knows. But we don't. So one might therefore conclude that living life is strictly for our benefit - so we can see exactly how our moral character works before we enter into eternity.
If it's not a test, then how can people be judged upon it?
I'd say that it is a test - but that every single human who has ever taken it (except Jesus) has flunked. So basically God is giving us a chance to ride Jesus's coattails into eternity. All we have to do is decide whether to grab on.
And why can't we "care less" at what god thinks without expecting retribution? :p
Because he's God and you're not? :p
What sort of sick twisted existence is that? I'd take non-existence above the insane demense you view the universe as...
Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it? :nervous:
-
To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.
LOL well i'm sure God could care less what you think; as do most people.
Are you saying most people could care less what I think? Thanks.
[q]Ya. The problem, though, is that the Bible seems to indicate that sinfulness is inherent in human nature (c.f. Psalm 51:5 - "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful since the time my mother conceived me"). Ever since the Fall, humanity has been separated from God regardless of how many or what kind of sins they commit. So a child killed in the womb still has a sinful nature, even before it is given the opportunity to deliberately sin.
At the same time, the Bible links children with innocence and salvation in a great many places, and nowhere does it describe a little child with the same kind of harshness as an adult. So this has led a great many people to infer that there must be some sort of "age of accountability" before which God doesn't hold a child's sins against him.
[/q]
Well, every arguement about the beginning of life - or perhaps more approprately humanity and consciousness - generally centres around when there is a capacity to think. If we attribute a soul to something which can't even think, such as a blastocyst or (approx) pre-20 week embryo, there's literally no way it can commit any sin, even by thinking naughty thoughts. So regardless of nature, there's about as much capacity to do wrong as, say, a rock. My perception was always that the whole concept of life being some test or preparation for entering heaven (or hell) was centred around overcoming human nature by not commiting sin or at least redeeming that which is commited.
[q]
Yeah, God already knows. But we don't. So one might therefore conclude that living life is strictly for our benefit - so we can see exactly how our moral character works before we enter into eternity.[/q]
But this isn't going to be something we need see, is it? Because if it is a big miss, God could insert the experience or alter time so it occurs. I mean, ominipotence & omnipresecence, yeah?
[q]
I'd say that it is a test - but that every single human who has ever taken it (except Jesus) has flunked. So basically God is giving us a chance to ride Jesus's coattails into eternity. All we have to do is decide whether to grab on.[/q]
Well clearly there must be some 'mark' to pass if Hell remains a punishment. It does remain a punishment, doesn't it?
-
*big breath*
Okay, just a few thoughts on observations I've made throughout my life.
Please don't take offence, most is just my opinion, and often subject to change.
Humans are the egotistical ones to think god would go to so much trouble.
Just look at history. That's where alot of the truth lies. Christiananity is ultimately a break off from Catholicism, catholicism originated from something else.
Most of the stuff in the two religeons are assimilated sections of other old religeons. The star, the goat head. Both parts of old religeons that barbarian celtics used to worship iirc. Missionairys came over and say no, assimilate it into their own saying its the devil, move onto the next tribe screaming for wealth at the moon.
We can keep going back, seeing the same patterns of civilization and religeon throughout human history. History is the ultimate source of results and causes when it comes to human patterns. Just look at the middle east and all through europe. All the past events. The corruption of the catholic church, the ultimate power they once held. All driven by fear btw. Inquisitors. Anyone read any of the translated books from Inquisitors and witch hunters?
My original thoughts would be they were plain cruel bastards out for some fun using the church as a front. Their diarys and logs suggest otherwise. They truely believed (or perhaps what they put on paper) they were doing gods work. Torturing and killing people, forcing them into confessions. Then absolving one another from sin.
Minds of the insane? Not so much. More monologues of minds that are brainwashed, warped, and trained for obedience.
Throughout history religeon has acted as a kind of tool used by the rulers of a province / country / nation to keep the populace calm, loyal, and most of all obedient.
If you were to raise a child and convince them to worship rocks all their life, would they go to hell?
Did every single soul that existed before christiananity or even catholicsm goto hell as well?
Every person who currently doesn't believe in religeon x but believes in religeon z or something else is due in hell too?
That's a lot of people. A ****load more than those who would be in heaven.
God is all knowing, surely he knows each circumstance, each point of view, each way of thinking, and surely he would find a way to accept and/or judge those souls. So mostly everyone can all go into his paradise. (assuming there is a god and souls and they are two seperate things)
That's the utmost single largest flaw in every single religeon that has the believe in our views or goto hell syndrome.
Religeon is a result and part of human culture. No more than a formalised way of thinking. (in some cases, gone horribly wrong)
Closest I come to considering the existance of god is by looking at science and by asking questions of myself, and observing those around me.
Philosophically and scientifically Time is a big brain cruncher. The biggest mind warp for me is time. Is time infinite? What was at the begining? Was there a begining, if not how does this work? Or, what if time is not infinite? Perhaps it is recursive \ loops aka something along the lines of big bang \ big crunch? Big bang theory\s? Is the universe infinite?
Looking at the universe, I just simply cannot believe that simple words from the mouth of any human can truely be the will of god.
-
PS i don't think i've ever used a priori to object on this board, though I would like to know how Ford thinks that would be deserving of a pox called upon my house - my best guess is he finds it somewhat hypocritical: which would require such thinking to be based upon a faulty knowledge of my reasoning and worldview
and telling someone they're behaving in a delusional fashion is not rude when it's true aldo
[edit]
oh.. good note on assimilations
Christmass: Christianized winter solstice festival (used to ALWAYS land on dec 25 until calendar reform)
Easter: Christianized spring fertility festival (um... eggs and bunnies... duh)
Halloween: Samhain (`nuff said)
-
Fire in the disco!
[q]
and telling someone they're behaving in a delusional fashion is not rude when it's true aldo[/q]
Well, according to googles' first answer
[q]# (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
# the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas [/q]
The former would be most appropriate in the context here, but any can work. Basically, if we are to fairly define someone as delusional we need to be able to prove that they are wrong and, moreso, there is evidence to the contrary. Now, the nature of religion and the supernatural is such that it is designed be both unproveable and un-disproveable. Because the essential concept of god - any diety - is beyond human comprehension, it is beyond our capacity to devise a series of tests and evidencial objects that would prove the existence or otherwise of the supernatural (if we could do so, it wouldn't be the supernatural).
Ergo, we cannot ever claim to disprove religion any more than it can claim to be proven. We can disprove certain literal interpretations of religion, but the base element of a supernatural being or beings is simply and perhaps intentionally beyond the ability to draw a conclusion upon it. So unless you can bring up some neutral, unquivocal evidence that disproves the rather nebulous concept of God (or any divine being, or indeed the supernatural and inobservable), it's rather assumptative and one might say even insulting to describe someone as wrong in their belief or disbelief in such a concept.
Behaving in a delusional fashion would perhaps be the young earth creationists, who believe that science justifies a young earth despite all the evidence to the contrary. But the base assertion of there not being a supernatural has a lot less evidence than old earth if you wish to contend it.
-
convient that you choose the definition that allows you to build a straw man argument
a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
Check. mate.
-
convient that you choose the definition that allows you to build a straw man argument
a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
Check. mate.
Are you saying the assertion that there is no God can have foundation if there is no evidence nor manner of gathering evidence to support (or disprove) it?
-
convient that you choose the definition that allows you to build a straw man argument
a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
Check. mate.
Are you saying the assertion that there is no God can have foundation if there is no evidence nor manner of gathering evidence to support (or disprove) it?
asserting that something exists but that it's impossible to find evidence to support it is a contradiction
they have no evidence for the existance of a diety therefore their position is unfounded - epsecially when their position makes them assert things in contradiction to evidence (asserting young earth creationism)
-
asserting that something exists but that it's impossible to find evidence to support it is a contradiction
they have no evidence for the existance of a diety therefore their position is unfounded - epsecially when their position makes them assert things in contradiction to evidence (asserting young earth creationism)
Do you have empirical evidence that disproves the possibility of a supernatural diety?
I've already said young earth creationism is delusional because of its dismissal of observable evidence. But young-earth creationism is not a de-facto part of religion or christianity, just certain sects.
-
asserting that something exists but that it's impossible to find evidence to support it is a contradiction
they have no evidence for the existance of a diety therefore their position is unfounded - epsecially when their position makes them assert things in contradiction to evidence (asserting young earth creationism)
Do you have empirical evidence that disproves the possibility of a supernatural diety?
I. don't. have. to. you're pigeonholing this into definition 1 again. Definition 2 makes specific reference to UNFOUNDED. They don't have evidence supportion their position: none, zero, zilch, nada, bupkis
I've already said young earth creationism is delusional because of its dismissal of observable evidence. But young-earth creationism is not a de-facto part of religion or christianity, just certain sects.
I didn't mean to imply so - i was just bolstering my argument by providing an example of a situation fitting Definition 1 to go along with my primary usage which is definition TWO
[edit]
I'm at work - i shouldn't be on here :P
i'll respond later during lunch, then when i get home
-
I. don't. have. to. you're pigeonholing this into definition 1 again. Definition 2 makes specific reference to UNFOUNDED. They don't have evidence supportion their position: none, zero, zilch, nada, bupkis
Do you have empirical evidence supporting your position?
Do you have, for example, a basis for dismissing the possibility of a supernatural / inobservable 'universe', or - perhaps more relevantly - for asserting the absence of evidence (i.e. can you say you have been able to observe all possible sources of evidence in order to determine there is none)?
If you're calling people delusional for not having evidence of the existence of God, shouldn't you be able to provide some concrete evidence of the non-existence of God?
[edit]
I'm at work - i shouldn't be on here :P
So am I. Viewserver is bloody slow, though, so I have an excuse :D.
-
PS i don't think i've ever used a priori to object on this board, though I would like to know how Ford thinks that would be deserving of a pox called upon my house - my best guess is he finds it somewhat hypocritical: which would require such thinking to be based upon a faulty knowledge of my reasoning and worldview
Goober implied that you had dismissed arguments a priori as categorically invalid, which would be plain incorrect. An assertion a priori is not by definition a fallacy. Or, if you really think it is, you'd better be prepared to write a very lengthy dissertation in opposition to much of the philosophical world. I wished a pox on your house because this is my area of academic concentration, and the thought made me cringe. But again, I don't know if you actually did or not. I apologize if I was mistaken.
-
I. don't. have. to. you're pigeonholing this into definition 1 again. Definition 2 makes specific reference to UNFOUNDED. They don't have evidence supportion their position: none, zero, zilch, nada, bupkis
Do you have empirical evidence supporting your position?
I have evidence supporting my assertion that they are behaving in a fashion consistent with the dictionary definition of the word "delusional" and you've seen it yourself
Do you have, for example, a basis for dismissing the possibility of a supernatural / inobservable 'universe', or - perhaps more relevantly - for asserting the absence of evidence (i.e. can you say you have been able to observe all possible sources of evidence in order to determine there is none)?
yes I do - the very definition of existance. If something exists in interacts, contraversely if something does not interact it does not exist as far as our universe is concerned. For a god to be a god it must interact, so to assert that a god exists, cannot be observed (does not interact), but did actions upon our universe is contradictory.
Furthermore I do not have to prove the contrapositive. They're making an assertion "God Exists" (the positive assertion) it is merely my duty to call their position into question: as for now they have yet to present evidence that indicates the existance of god, or any logic (without fallacy) that necessitates the existance of god. This renders their position unfounded thereby satisfying definition 2 of delusional as you posted above.
If they sometime manage to come up with evidence or logic (without fallacy) that supports/necessitates the existance of a deity then their position becomes founded and ceases the satisfy definition 2 of delusional - and I would concede to them this point and consider them rational. However this hasn't yet happened, and I don't anticipate it ever happening (although as a rational individual I leave myself open to the possibility). However this would only restrict the group of people who are delusional to those who satisfy Definition 1 (such as by asserting YEC)
If you're calling people delusional for not having evidence of the existence of God, shouldn't you be able to provide some concrete evidence of the non-existence of God?
Nope. Not in the slightest. I don't have to disprove their position for their position to be delusional. See the definition of the word, which you posted. Their position is unfounded in that they have ZERO evidence to support their position - if they did they would have presented it and it would have been tested.
-
Goober implied that you had dismissed arguments a priori as categorically invalid,
Well being that I do not recall doing so means I did not.
these are the "master lists" i tend to follow
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
(from what I can quickly recall of the meaning of a priori)
I consider a priori to be dangerous, but not inherently invalid. If all parties in the argument can agree that the propositions are valid then it is acceptable. However if one of the propositions is invalid then you have a fallacy
/i've gotten rusty on debating the finer points of logic without you guys to keep me on my feet!
-
I have evidence supporting my assertion that they are behaving in a fashion consistent with the dictionary definition of the word "delusional" and you've seen it yourself
So no, then?
yes I do - the very definition of existance. If something exists in interacts, contraversely if something does not interact it does not exist as far as our universe is concerned. For a god to be a god it must interact, so to assert that a god exists, cannot be observed (does not interact), but did actions upon our universe is contradictory.
Which would be rather ignoring the theological / philosophical nature of the natural/supernatural arguement; also, how can you define existence & non-existence without knowing everything that exists beforehand in order to set bounds?
There's also a secondary arguement, which is rather more dodgy IMO, that not having evidence of God (so to speak, but this also applies to any supernatural 'action' impacting the observable universe) is rather meaningless so long as we cannot observe all the existing universe.
Furthermore I do not have to prove the contrapositive. They're making an assertion "God Exists" (the positive assertion) it is merely my duty to call their position into question: as for now they have yet to present evidence that indicates the existance of god, or any logic (without fallacy) that necessitates the existance of god. This renders their position unfounded thereby satisfying definition 2 of delusional as you posted above.
Can you provide a burden of disproof, i.e. proof for your position?
If they sometime manage to come up with evidence or logic (without fallacy) that supports/necessitates the existance of a deity then their position becomes founded and ceases the satisfy definition 2 of delusional - and I would concede to them this point and consider them rational. However this hasn't yet happened, and I don't anticipate it ever happening (although as a rational individual I leave myself open to the possibility). However this would only restrict the group of people who are delusional to those who satisfy Definition 1 (such as by asserting YEC)
I would speculate that the fundamental purpose of religion is to set up a situation that is both unproveable (requiring faith) and undisproveable (styming arguement against).
Nope. Not in the slightest. I don't have to disprove their position for their position to be delusional. See the definition of the word, which you posted. Their position is unfounded in that they have ZERO evidence to support their position - if they did they would have presented it and it would have been tested.
but can't I just call you delusional if you can't provide evidence to support your position? You've only specified a philosophical arguement about the capacity for the supernatural to influence the observable world and a theoretical 'action' that would be observable; I'd say philosophy is far from being hard evidence.
In order to dismiss someone as delusional, you have to provide hard evidence that their position is wrong. The nature of this arguement precludes that; regardless of how you state your arguement, or even the content of it, the domain of this type of theology/philosophy precludes hard proof.
-
I have evidence supporting my assertion that they are behaving in a fashion consistent with the dictionary definition of the word "delusional" and you've seen it yourself
So no, then?
so yes then since you've seen them assert things WITHOUT evidence repeatedly and you've seen them assert things CONTRARY to evidence repeatedly
yes I do - the very definition of existance. If something exists in interacts, contraversely if something does not interact it does not exist as far as our universe is concerned. For a god to be a god it must interact, so to assert that a god exists, cannot be observed (does not interact), but did actions upon our universe is contradictory.
Which would be rather ignoring the theological / philosophical nature of the natural/supernatural arguement; also, how can you define existence & non-existence without knowing everything that exists beforehand in order to set bounds?
Which would be finding the theological/philosophical assertion that you can have something exist, but not be able to be measured invalid. Or more properly: moot. If something exists, yet doesn't interact with our universe (any interaction makes it observable) than for all purposes that thing doesn't exist in our universe.
because the definition existance and non-existance don't rely on you knowing everything! If something exists it interacts with our universe and is therefore part of it and observable, if something inobservable: therefore meaning it does not interact, it effectively does not exist.
There's also a secondary arguement, which is rather more dodgy IMO, that not having evidence of God (so to speak, but this also applies to any supernatural 'action' impacting the observable universe) is rather meaningless so long as we cannot observe all the existing universe.
argumentum ad ignorantium
Furthermore I do not have to prove the contrapositive. They're making an assertion "God Exists" (the positive assertion) it is merely my duty to call their position into question: as for now they have yet to present evidence that indicates the existance of god, or any logic (without fallacy) that necessitates the existance of god. This renders their position unfounded thereby satisfying definition 2 of delusional as you posted above.
Can you provide a burden of disproof, i.e. proof for your position?
You're shifting the burdeon of proof - burdeon is always on the person ASSERTING something. I am asserting that they're acting in a manner consistent with the definition of the word delusional and I am providing logical arguments and empirical evidence (which you have seen your self on this board) that they are doing so.
They are asserting that god exists so the burdeon of proof for that lies on them. You cannot prove the negative.
If they sometime manage to come up with evidence or logic (without fallacy) that supports/necessitates the existance of a deity then their position becomes founded and ceases the satisfy definition 2 of delusional - and I would concede to them this point and consider them rational. However this hasn't yet happened, and I don't anticipate it ever happening (although as a rational individual I leave myself open to the possibility). However this would only restrict the group of people who are delusional to those who satisfy Definition 1 (such as by asserting YEC)
I would speculate that the fundamental purpose of religion is to set up a situation that is both unproveable (requiring faith) and undisproveable (styming arguement against).
then you are speculating it's purpose is to make you be delusional. believing in the unprovable/unsupportable satisfies definition 2 of delusional THAT YOU POSTED YOURSELF
Nope. Not in the slightest. I don't have to disprove their position for their position to be delusional. See the definition of the word, which you posted. Their position is unfounded in that they have ZERO evidence to support their position - if they did they would have presented it and it would have been tested.
but can't I just call you delusional if you can't provide evidence to support your position?
I already have: I have provided you with sufficient logical proofs (which you have yet to falsify) that they are satisfying the definition of the word, and you have yourself seen them so do so you have the empirical evidence.
You however fail to acknowledge it (For whatever reason I will not speculate) it and simply keep trying to commit a shifting of the burdeon of proof fallacy on me by trying to shift proof THEY are responsible for on my shoulder by demanding a counterproof to their assertion.
You're harping on about definition 1 which requires counterproof when I'm talking about definition 2 which does not, but ALSO pointing out situations in which BOTH 1 and 2 are satisified (their position is unfounded AND counterevidence is available)
You've only specified a philosophical arguement about the capacity for the supernatural to influence the observable world and a theoretical 'action' that would be observable; I'd say philosophy is far from being hard evidence.
no i've asserted that "Supernatural" is linguistically equivalent to "non-existant". The realm of science and logic is all existance, everything that exists can be detected, measured, quantified, and analyzed. If something is not observable it does not exist. So when you specifiy something to be "supernatural" (beyond nature, beyond existance) you are admitting RIGHT THERE that you are talking about fairytail magic voodoo l33tness that doesn't exist.
In order to dismiss someone as delusional, you have to provide hard evidence that their position is wrong.
NO YOU DON'T you posted the very definition which DISPROVES their false assertion YOURSELF
The level if intellectual dishonesty you are displaying is absolutely appauling.
Posted BY YOURSELF on Page 6
# (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
# the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
The nature of this arguement precludes that; regardless of how you state your arguement, or even the content of it, the domain of this type of theology/philosophy precludes hard proof.
Bullocks - something either exists or it doesn't.
-
The nature of this arguement precludes that; regardless of how you state your arguement, or even the content of it, the domain of this type of theology/philosophy precludes hard proof.
Bullocks - something either exists or it doesn't.
Schrödinger's cat?
-
The nature of this arguement precludes that; regardless of how you state your arguement, or even the content of it, the domain of this type of theology/philosophy precludes hard proof.
Bullocks - something either exists or it doesn't.
Schrödinger's cat?
inapplicable
-
Bullocks - something either exists or it doesn't.
It appears that Kazan has single-handedly rendered ontology obsolete.
-
[q]
so yes then since you've seen them assert things WITHOUT evidence repeatedly and you've seen them assert things CONTRARY to evidence repeatedly[/q]
You'll have to provide some examples. Bear in mind I've already qualified things such as young-earth as creationism as deluded, and my comments have been pretty much directed to the root theology, i.e. the proposed supernatural.
[q]
Which would be finding the theological/philosophical assertion that you can have something exist, but not be able to be measured invalid. Or more properly: moot. If something exists, yet doesn't interact with our universe (any interaction makes it observable) than for all purposes that thing doesn't exist in our universe.
because the definition existance and non-existance don't rely on you knowing everything! If something exists it interacts with our universe and is therefore part of it and observable, if something inobservable: therefore meaning it does not interact, it effectively does not exist.
[/q]
But in making that conclusion, you would have to be able to define all interactions both taking place, taken place, and possible of taking place in order in order to assert there has been no supernatural interaction.
Furthermore, the root proposition behind religion has been rooted in a diety which resides outside our universe, i.e would not be expected to exist in our universe. Largely because said diety tends to be credited for the creation of the universe.
[q]
argumentum ad ignorantium[/q]
Can be applied conversely. Neither existence nor non-existance can be proven, that's the whole nature of the problem, and in terms of factual evidence neither position can claim to be anything beyond ignorant.
[q]You're shifting the burdeon of proof - burdeon is always on the person ASSERTING something. I am asserting that they're acting in a manner consistent with the definition of the word delusional and I am providing logical arguments and empirical evidence (which you have seen your self on this board) that they are doing so.
They are asserting that god exists so the burdeon of proof for that lies on them. You cannot prove the negative.[/q]
You are asserting they are wrong, ergo God does not exist. Therefore you also have a burden of proof in proving your own statement correct in order to qualify the accusation. The problem is that in order to prove delusion you need to prove wrong. All you have been able to demonstrate, frankly IMO, the possibility of being wrong because there is a lack of evidence either way. Whilst I am aware of the epistemological difficulties of an arguement about the supernatural, I would say it's pretty bloody impolite to call someone delusional when you can't provide any sort of factual evidence to contradict them.
You will note there have been multiple citations of the meaning of the word delusional, of course, with small yet crucial semantic differences. I, for example, just pasted the top 3 out of the google 'define' result, and you found one with which to contradict that.
Of course, the psychological definition really refers to real life situations (i.e. that can occur in reality, but do not and are imagined by the patient), so I don't think that applies (this is just an aside BTW).
[q]
then you are speculating it's purpose is to make you be delusional. believing in the unprovable/unsupportable satisfies definition 2 of delusional THAT YOU POSTED YOURSELF [/q]
Speculating, yes. Stating it as fact, no, because you missed the gist of the statement. Namely, that religious belief is intended and has a manifest purpose of support by faith, so it selects what is in effect an unknown. Not true, not false, but unknown. It's important to note this when calling people delusional, because the whole purpose of religious belief is based upon the absence of evidence either way. i.e. someone who is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc, is or should be fully aware of the difficulties of evidence and that the entire point of a belief structure is the belief. If they were delusional, they'd claim evidence in x, y, and z that could be contradicted by a,b, and c.
[q]I already have: I have provided you with sufficient logical proofs (which you have yet to falsify) that they are satisfying the definition of the word, and you have yourself seen them so do so you have the empirical evidence.
You however fail to acknowledge it (For whatever reason I will not speculate) it and simply keep trying to commit a shifting of the burdeon of proof fallacy on me by trying to shift proof THEY are responsible for on my shoulder by demanding a counterproof to their assertion.
You're harping on about definition 1 which requires counterproof when I'm talking about definition 2 which does not, but ALSO pointing out situations in which BOTH 1 and 2 are satisified (their position is unfounded AND counterevidence is available)[/q]
You've provided a personal definition of existence which manifestly sits outside the very obvious parameters of a supernatural diety or dieties. If you want accuse people of delusion, you need to prove the basis of your arguement; not cite your own opinion on what constitutes the burden of proof for non-existence. I am not interested in trying to falsify your personal 'proofs' any more than I am trying to form a disproof of God, because it's rather obvious the concept itself is designed to be an unknown and unknowable.
[q]no i've asserted that "Supernatural" is linguistically equivalent to "non-existant". The realm of science and logic is all existance, everything that exists can be detected, measured, quantified, and analyzed. If something is not observable it does not exist. So when you specifiy something to be "supernatural" (beyond nature, beyond existance) you are admitting RIGHT THERE that you are talking about fairytail magic voodoo l33tness that doesn't exist.
[/q]
Again, you miss the point, which is that the whole concept of religion is based on the observable universe not being the only form of existence. You have to disprove that possibility as part of disproving God, and it's simply impossible. It may be designed that way for obvious belief propagation, of course, but it still applies if you want to conclude people are wrong you need to evidence it.
[q]
NO YOU DON'T you posted the very definition which DISPROVES their false assertion YOURSELF
The level if intellectual dishonesty you are displaying is absolutely appauling.
Posted BY YOURSELF on Page 6
[/q]
Oh crap, you've only been un-monkeyed for a day and the dread big red text o doom appears. Nevermind.
Ok, let me think here. you need to prove this is unfounded. To prove it is unfounded, you need to address the factual basis for it. The problem is, God as a belief is, shall we say, designed to be based on an intangible. The basis of belief is the understanding of that and that faith is required in the unknown. For that to be on a delusional basis, I believe you'd have to prove that unknown is actually known.
[q]
Bullocks - something either exists or it doesn't. [/q]
In hard physical terms perhaps. In human philosophical terms, not really. We have a lot of things that are open within the terms of human thought. Are we the only intelligent life in the universe, for example. Within the concept of our societal knowledge, than answer is either. All unknown things are 2 state until we discover them. May exist, may not. Shroedingers' cat being the perfect example of an unknown.
And when we come to the domain of a postulative supernatural diety, we have a domain that is expressly outside the bounds of evidence.
-
actually no - my "ontology" if you want to invoke -ogolies not worthy of the suffix is that something either exists or it doesn't and something only exists if it interacts with our universe
-
actually no - my "ontology" if you want to invoke -ogolies not worthy of the suffix is that something either exists or it doesn't and something only exists if it interacts with our universe
Ah, 'not worthy'. Redefining the problem domain, are we?
-
But in making that conclusion, you would have to be able to define all interactions both taking place, taken place, and possible of taking place in order in order to assert there has been no supernatural interaction.
not at all - the elegance of the definition is you DON'T need this knowledge in advance, if you learn of a form of interaction you previously didn't know about the definition is broad enough to accept the new information without a hitch.
Taking place, taken place and possible are all OBSERVABLE.
You are trying to assert that it is impossible to define existance-nonexistance. Well independantly you cannot - non-existance is easy to define because it is the contrapositive of existance. Existance is EASY to define
All objects that can be observed (which means they interact w/ e/o) can be said to exist.
Furthermore, the root proposition behind religion has been rooted in a diety which resides outside our universe, i.e would not be expected to exist in our universe. Largely because said diety tends to be credited for the creation of the universe.
hence adding to the bull**** factor of religion
Can be applied conversely. Neither existence nor non-existance can be proven, that's the whole nature of the problem, and in terms of factual evidence neither position can claim to be anything beyond ignorant.
No it cannot be applied consersely - i'm not stating that something exists merely because it cannot be disproven. My positive assertion is that "people who believe in things without evidence and despite evidence fit the dictionary definition of delusional" and I have cited support of that.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the existance of dieties - yet people believe in them. This satisifies definition 2 of delusional. We're arguing SEMANTICS and my statement has already been established true because it's a ****ing tautology!
You are asserting they are wrong, ergo God does not exist.
Incorrect - I am stating that they have not provided ANY evidence and therefore their position is unfounded.
Don't use non-equivolant words as standings for creating straw man arguments.
Therefore you also have a burden of proof in proving your own statement correct in order to qualify the accusation.
Incorrect based upon previous assertion being false.
splitting post for emphasis
-
God Bless Schrodinger and his zombie cats! ;)
-
[q]not at all - the elegance of the definition is you DON'T need this knowledge in advance, if you learn of a form of interaction you previously didn't know about the definition is broad enough to accept the new information without a hitch.
Taking place, taken place and possible are all OBSERVABLE.
You are trying to assert that it is impossible to define existance-nonexistance. Well independantly you cannot - non-existance is easy to define because it is the contrapositive of existance. Existance is EASY to define
All objects that can be observed (which means they interact w/ e/o) can be said to exist. [/q]
Answer this.
Do I have a bowl of cottage cheese?
[q]
hence adding to the bull**** factor of religion[/q]
In your opinion, perhaps. But you can't actually disprove it either.
[q]
No it cannot be applied consersely - i'm not stating that something exists merely because it cannot be disproven. My positive assertion is that "people who believe in things without evidence and despite evidence fit the dictionary definition of delusional" and I have cited support of that.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the existance of dieties - yet people believe in them. This satisifies definition 2 of delusional. We're arguing SEMANTICS and my statement has already been established true because it's a ****ing tautology!
[/q]
you have to prove it is unfounded, when it is founded upon belief in an intangible.
[q]
Incorrect - I am stating that they have not provided ANY evidence and therefore their position is unfounded.
Don't use non-equivolant words as standings for creating straw man arguments.
[/q]
you've not provided evidence either, just a personal definition of where you'd expect to find evidence (i.e. the observable universe) for something that expressely resides as a concept outside that area.
[q]Incorrect based upon previous assertion being false.[/q]
you believe.
[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU FIVE TIMES DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
This argument is completely over
i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument
(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)[/q]
Can you prove you're not delusional?
Stop taking the huff. What are you, 12? I thought you did debating at school - did you run away and hide in a corner (shouting along the way, PRESUMABLY) every time you were challenged?
-
Splitted for Emphasis
The problem is that in order to prove delusion you need to prove wrong.
NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
This argument is completely over
i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument
(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea;
unfounded
un·found·ed Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-foundd)
adj.
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.
-
[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
This argument is completely over
i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument
(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
[/q]
Tsch, giving up? I thought you were a master debater, too.
-
Aldo forfeits the argument, commited argumentum ad hominem.
-
Tsch, giving up? I thought you were a master debater, too.
You cannot argue with someone who is IGNORING evidence for their opponant that said person posted themself
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea;
unfounded
un·found·ed Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-foundd)
adj.
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.
-
Aldo forfeits the argument, commited argumentum ad hominem.
Y'know, you can't actually declare yourself a winner in any sort of debate. Rather obvious why, really.
-
Stop ignoring this or you tacitlysurrender
Tsch, giving up? I thought you were a master debater, too.
You cannot argue with someone who is IGNORING evidence for their opponant that said person posted themself
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea;
unfounded
un·found·ed Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-foundd)
adj.
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.
-
Stop ignoring this or you tacitlysurrender
Can't define the 'rules', either. That's another thing I thought you'd have encountered before.
You can't keep shouting the same thing in different combinations of bold and capitals, either. Looks like you have some strange form of internet dyslexia.
-
Aldo i'm not the one resorting to personal attacks because their opponant pointed out that they are ignoring evidence for their opponant.
Stop ignoring definition two - you're commiting straw man fallacy by trying to restrict definition two from consideration after I have repeatedly pointed out that I am speaking of any situation that satisifies either or both of definition 1 and 2.
I will not continue to respond to a straw man argument and off topic argumentation.
I assert again: People who believe in religion are delusional and satisfy one or both of the following definitions of delusional: (as posted by you)
Definition 1: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
Definition 2: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
I have provided examples and evidence of both. All religion satisfies definition 2 until such a time as a member of that religion provides evidence to support their poisiton or logical arguments (free of fallacies) which demostrate the necessity of a deity existing.
(Definition 1 is actually Definition 3 and 2 is 2 in American Heritage 4th Edition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion )
-
Aldo i'm not the one resorting to personal attacks because their opponant pointed out that they are ignoring evidence for their opponant.
Stop ignoring definition two - you're commiting straw man fallacy by trying to restrict definition two from consideration after I have repeatedly pointed out that I am speaking of any situation that satisifies either or both of definition 1 and 2.
I will not continue to respond to a straw man argument and off topic argumentation.
I assert again: People who believe in religion are delusional and satisfy one or both of the following definitions of delusional: (as posted by you)
Definition 1: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
Definition 2: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
I have provided examples and evidence of both. All religion satisfies definition 2 until such a time as a member of that religion provides evidence to support their poisiton or logical arguments (free of fallacies) which demostrate the necessity of a deity existing.
(Definition 1 is actually Definition 3 and 2 is 2 in American Heritage 4th Edition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion )
:sigh: I guess iyou'll keep posting the same bloody post until the end of the world if I don't come back and reiterate myself.
Ok. Let's see.
Religion ultimately boils down to a belief in a supernatural - beyond observable - being or beings who are responsible for creating and tending to the universe. The basis - foundation - for religious belief lies within the belief structure itself, usually defined by a holy book or books. This structure enforces the concept that said deity/dieties (I'll use God for shorthand) exist without the observable universe (because they created it), and are unknowable. This leads to the key concept of faith.
So, anyways, we have religion acting as a support for itself. Religious followers (and ergo religion) know and accept that their faith is based around this God concept that exists in a wilfully inobservable manner. The foundation therefore is not based upon evidence - expressly so - but the act of belief itself. Now, we have a foundation for this idea, namely that there exists (the possibility of) some thing that, abstracted down, is beyond human comprehension. So the act of belief is taken in the knowledge it is not about evidence either way (because you don't expect any), and in fact it's about the spite of the evidence. Most religions, I believe, value the act of faith rather than explicit knowledge.
Now, we have the issue of evidence to the contrary / mistaken. Now, you can't disprove it as being a wrong belief, because religion defines the criteria as being in essence unknowable. All contradiction you can find is from a) the observable universe and b) contradicts your personal belief of what would be necessary to prove or contradict God (such as the expectation that there is no universe beyond observable and that we can observe enough of the universe in order to conclude there is sufficient inprobability). If you want to prove religion wrong you can't redefine the tenets of the religion in order to do so.
This is, of course, noting that religion itself is 'designed' to be undisprovable (and unproveable). That may seem like a cheat, but the very definition of whether it is a cheat is subjective upon personal belief of the validity of that religion. Again, that's kind of the point; faith.
You'll note, I hope, this is by an aetheist who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't believe we should treat people as idiots for believing in something that is unknown in all honest rational terms.
-
actually no - my "ontology" if you want to invoke -ogolies not worthy of the suffix is that something either exists or it doesn't and something only exists if it interacts with our universe
See, that's all well and good, but when you make assertions like that, you have to realize that each individual word in the statement has great implications. Questions of existence are heavily dependent on grammar-- particularly nouns and their referents. There is no universally accepted definition of existence, because no matter what parameters you use, a logical problem will emerge. You can't just come strolling in and say, "Hey, what are you all arguing about? Existence is just such-and-such. The end." It's not simple. Nothing is simple. There are no simple questions, simple answers, or finite debates. You're effectively claiming that 2500 years' worth of philosophy has just been missing the obvious.
Warning - while you were typing 11 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Haha.
-
Aldo you have still failed to address my assertion, and you have yet again ignored definition 2, or you simply don't understand the definition of the word "unfounded" upon which definition two rests. Definition two does not require counter evidence. Period.
You are off topic and your apologizing for the blatently self contradictory assertion that something can both exist and be unobservable is an attemp to distract
-----------------------------------------
Ford: no i'm claiming that 2500 years worth of philosophy should have already established that something doesn't exist if it doesn't interact with our universe as there is no possible way to support it's existance, and since it doesn't affect anything in our universe it doesn't exist.
Things that exist interact.
-
Aldo you have still failed to address my assertion, and you have yet again ignored definition 2, or you simply don't understand the definition of the word "unfounded" upon which definition two rests. Definition two does not require counter evidence. Period.
You are off topic and your apologizing for the blatently self contradictory assertion that something can both exist and be unobservable is an attemp to distract
You're dodging the issue. I covered definition 2 in the 2nd paragraph, including the word 'foundation' twice (as in unfounded, yes?).
i'm not apologizing for anything; shame on you for trying to mischarecterise me (I mean, I presume you understood me, so it must be deliberate....). The concept of what exists but we do not know is a rather basic philosophical one; it's only contradictory if you assume we know everything that there is and that there can be observed.
Now, you can go on about the burden of proof or whatnot, but you know you cannot disprove God if you use the religious definition of it. You can contend the definition, but that's again a matter of theology and philosophy. You're dealing with a concept that the human psyche has (most likely created, but again that's philosophical) used for centuries to define the inexplicable, after all.
Ford: no i'm claiming that 2500 years worth of philosophy should have already established that something doesn't exist if it doesn't interact with our universe as there is no possible way to support it's existance, and since it doesn't affect anything in our universe it doesn't exist.
Things that exist interact.
So you are claiming that 2500 years' worth of philosophy has just been missing the obvious?
-
Kazan, 2500 years of philosophy has not definitively established anything's existence! It is a bloody hard question. You're just spouting off these parameters and saying, "There! Problem solved!" But you don't even have to dig into a university library to find how mind-boggling this problem is. You could probably just type "existence" in frigging Wikipedia and you'd see that your answers are nowhere near as definitive as you think they are.
-
The basis - foundation - for religious belief lies within the belief structure itself, usually defined by a holy book or books.
this does not constitute a foundation in the sense used in the definition
The concept of what exists but we do not know is a rather basic philosophical one; it's only contradictory if you assume we know everything that there is and that there can be observed.
i am unable to grasp where you keep pulling this "you must know everything" out of.
Let me state this more simply
Givens:*
I) Everything that exists interacts
II) Everything that interacts can be measured
III) If something does not interact it cannot be said to exist as it doesn't fall within the bounds of our universe
Claims:
A) $DIETY exists
B) $DIETY cannot be measured
B Contradicts I+II+A, I+II+B contradicts A
I do not have to disprove something for it to be unfounded if they cannot present evidence/logic it is unfounded. Any claim otherwise is an attempt to shift the burdeon of proof.
-
Kazan, 2500 years of philosophy has not definitively established anything's existence! It is a bloody hard question. You're just spouting off these parameters and saying, "There! Problem solved!" But you don't even have to dig into a university library to find how mind-boggling this problem is. You could probably just type "existence" in frigging Wikipedia and you'd see that your answers are nowhere near as definitive as you think they are.
I don't care how difficult some people find the problem, I find it somewhat simple. I do find language somewhat limiting in how to express the idea.
let's start with the easier of the two to define
Non-existance: Anything that doesn't interact (cannot be observed by any means) with our universe doesn't exist
Existance: anything that can/does cause/receive an interaction
the only difficulty here is to define the "polarity".
-
[q]
this does not constitute a foundation in the sense used in the definition[/q]
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a dictionary. All the definitions a cursory check (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3A+foundation&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) reveals seem to include things like "basis" and similar concepts. but I guess they must be wrong, then, eh?
[q]am unable to grasp where you keep pulling this "you must know everything" out of.
Let me state this more simply
Givens:*
I) Everything that exists interacts
II) Everything that interacts can be measured
III) If something does not interact it cannot be said to exist as it doesn't fall within the bounds of our universe
Claims:
A) $DIETY exists
B) $DIETY cannot be measured
B Contradicts I+II+A, I+II+B contradicts A
I do not have to disprove something for it to be unfounded if they cannot present evidence/logic it is unfounded. Any claim otherwise is an attempt to shift the burdeon of proof.[/q]
You defined the givens to prove your arguement. Surely you know any statement is useless if you pick the rules & statements in such a way as to be sure to determine the outcome how you want it?
I'll note, again, that disproof of B) assumes II), but II) is false owing to the bounds of human knowledge. I) is also an unproveable assumption, and III) ignores the whole crux of the arguement, which is the existence of something outwith our universe.
I don't care how difficult some people find the problem, I find it somewhat simple. I do find language somewhat limiting in how to express the idea.
let's start with the easier of the two to define
Non-existance: Anything that doesn't interact (cannot be observed by any means) with our universe doesn't exist
Existance: anything that can/does cause/receive an interaction
the only difficulty here is to define the "polarity".
This is another 'Kazan tells the world how to think' thing, isn't it?
-
Based upon physics alone, the argument that things that exist must interact is unfortunately utter bull****. There about 2 million neutrinos streaming through your body right now, the vast majority of which have not interacted and will never interact with anything. Regardless, they are presumed to exist by almost every noteworthy physicist alive today. Or go look up WIMPs? The existence of something that does not interact is not ruled impossible by phyiscal laws as we understand them. Indeed, many theories of the Big Bang assert that such things almost certainly do exist.
Therefore to assert the existance of something that does not interact is an impossible also means that you wish to deny the combined brains of modern physics and all of human philosophy.
This leads two possible assumptions: either you are being facecious Kazan, or you really do think you are smarter then ALL of them. Both make excellent reasons to dismiss anything you say out of hand.
-
ngtm1r: We have observed neutrinos, and even caught them, thus affecting their behavior, so I think that the interaction parameter holds up for them.
Kazan: Does logic exist?
-
Nice snarky dictionary comment aldo, too bad that being able to describe something with the word "foundation" doesn't always make that a LOGICAL/REASONABLE/RATIONAL foundation for something which is what Definition 2 of Delusional is making reference too by using the word
un·found·ed Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-foundd)
adj.
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.
which I already quoted to you before to preempt this very fallacious line of argumentation.
You defined the givens to prove your arguement. Surely you know any statement is useless if you pick the rules & statements in such a way as to be sure to determine the outcome how you want it?
good, now you're getting the idea - i almost typed a freaking hint in there to direct you to actually attacking the right thing instead of continuing your straw man argument.
II) is false owing to the bounds of human knowledge
bullocks.
i know this is a named logical fallacy i just cannot remember which one
it's related to the fact that: just because we cannot measure it at this moment doesn't mean it cannot be measured, it however DOES mean that it is as of YET not established as interacting
hence why i leave myself open to the possibility that IN THE FUTURE evidence may be found, but until evidence is found a then a claim without evidence remains exactly that an is therefore unfounded.
III is merely the contrapositive of II,
I is a definition - ontology as you and fred like keeping to bring up
This is another 'Kazan tells the world how to think' thing, isn't it?
insultive tone doesn't help your argument
this is another "Kazan states his position" "thing"
------------------------
There about 2 million neutrinos streaming through your body right now, the vast majority of which have not interacted and will never interact with anything.
BULLOCKS
neutrinos DO interact otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure them. They may interact so weakly that it is DIFFICULT to measure them, but we KNOW they DO interact.
Regardless, they are presumed to exist by almost every noteworthy physicist alive today
they're not presumed they've been detected (THEY INTERACTED)
the rest of your post is rendered moot by the fact that they have been detected and therefore they did interact (with the detection device)
-
Kazan: Does logic exist?
nice try
not in the meaning of "existance" that we have been discussing. Leaving myself open to that attack was failure to prefix my definition of existance as physical existance.
Logic is an idea, logic is knowledge, logic is a system - it does not physical exist.
Now you could try and turn around and claim that the same could be said of $DIETY, but that would be ignoring the claims by people that $DIETY interacts with physical existance
-
[q]Nice snarky dictionary comment aldo, too bad that being able to describe something with the word "foundation" doesn't always make that a LOGICAL/REASONABLE/RATIONAL foundation for something which is what Definition 2 of Delusional is making reference too by using the word[/q]
So you're back to quibbling about the difference in definitions between 2 dictionaries?
collins defines foundation as
[q]foundation noun
1. that on which something is founded; basis
2. (often plural) a construction below the ground that distributes the load of a building, wall, etc.
3. the base on which something stands
4. the act of founding or establishing or the state of being founded or established
5. (a) an endowment or legacy for the perpetual support of an institution such as a school or hospital (b) on the foundation entitled to benefit from the funds of a foundation
6. an institution supported by an endowment, often one that provides funds for charities, research, etc.
7. the charter incorporating or establishing a society or institution and the statutes or rules governing its affairs
8. a cosmetic in cream or cake form used as a base for make-up
9. See: foundation garment
10. a card on which a sequence may be built
[/q]
You should presumably observe that unfounded is the absence of foundation... surely which would mean the embolded would have to be disproven.
[q]
good, now you're getting the idea - i almost typed a freaking hint in there to direct you to actually attacking the right thing instead of continuing your straw man argument.[/q]
so you'd admit your 'proof' is actually a statement of your personal beliefs without any rational supporting evidence?
[q]bullocks.
i know this is a named logical fallacy i just cannot remember which one
it's related to the fact that: just because we cannot measure it at this moment doesn't mean it cannot be measured, it however DOES mean that it is as of YET not established as interacting
hence why i leave myself open to the possibility that IN THE FUTURE evidence may be found, but until evidence is found a then a claim without evidence remains exactly that an is therefore unfounded.
III is merely the contrapositive of II,
I is a definition - ontology as you and fred like keeping to bring up[/q]
Does logic normally take the position that the unknown variables are to be defined in the manner that best supports the conclusion you want? Forgive me if so, i'm used to the principle of relying upon known evidence when drawing definitive conclusions.
I've already noted the foundation of religion is not based upon evidence. Almost the converse in fact. It is based upon the act of belief. So to disprove the foundation, you need to go after the belief.
As for II specifically - how do you measure something which we haven't discovered yet?
[q]nsultive tone doesn't help your argument
this is another "Kazan states his position" "thing"[/q]
Kazan states his position and that all philosophy for the last 2500 years or so was missing the point and should be ignored?
Frankly, you're the last person to be whinging about 'insultive tone' Mr Redbold Capsilock.
[q]nice try
not in the meaning of "existance" that we have been discussing. Leaving myself open to that attack was failure to prefix my definition of existance as physical existance.
Logic is an idea, logic is knowledge, logic is a system - it does not physical exist.
Now you could try and turn around and claim that the same could be said of $DIETY, but that would be ignoring the claims by people that $DIETY interacts with physical existance[/q]
So logic does exist, but not physically? And we're using this to disprove something that expressly is said to exist outside the physical universe why?
(Of course, that would only disprove an interventionist god/s anyways, not (a) creator-type god/s; I think I had a similar debate with Goober in this very thread)
-
Kazan, that monkey is going to have a real short vacation from your profile if you keep going at this rate. I'll admit that watching this thread explode between two people who fundamentally believe the same thing is somewhat humurous, but quite frankly this is an argument that aldo won about 4 pages ago, and someone really should have learned by now when to concede a single point once in a while.
-
Kazan, that monkey is going to have a real short vacation from your profile if you keep going at this rate. I'll admit that watching this thread explode between two people who fundamentally believe the same thing is somewhat humurous, but quite frankly this is an argument that aldo won about 4 pages ago, and someone really should have learned by now when to concede a single point once in a while.
So far the posts I've read so far are fairly civil. Although funny enough the thread was reported to the admins. I've read through and I don't see anything so far that requires action...or any sort of monkeying. Although posting in all caps is considered yelling and somewhat argumentative. Just keep it at a respectable tone and I'm happy. Not sure if any of the other admins will decide otherwise.
-
Kazan, that monkey is going to have a real short vacation from your profile if you keep going at this rate. I'll admit that watching this thread explode between two people who fundamentally believe the same thing is somewhat humurous, but quite frankly this is an argument that aldo won about 4 pages ago, and someone really should have learned by now when to concede a single point once in a while.
So far the posts I've read so far are fairly civil. Although funny enough the thread was reported to the admins. I've read through and I don't see anything so far that requires action...or any sort of monkeying. Although posting in all caps is considered yelling and somewhat argumentative. Just keep it at a respectable tone and I'm happy. Not sure if any of the other admins will decide otherwise.
Someone reported it? Crikey.
-
nice try
not in the meaning of "existance" that we have been discussing. Leaving myself open to that attack was failure to prefix my definition of existance as physical existance.
Logic is an idea, logic is knowledge, logic is a system - it does not physical exist.
Now you could try and turn around and claim that the same could be said of $DIETY, but that would be ignoring the claims by people that $DIETY interacts with physical existance
See, the problem I have with this is that it now your criterion for physical existence is no longer exclusive to something that physically exists, because now we have something that does not physically exist, but is at the same time altering empirical reality (via the faculty of judgement, for example). And the same could be said for god.
-
Kazan, that monkey is going to have a real short vacation from your profile if you keep going at this rate. I'll admit that watching this thread explode between two people who fundamentally believe the same thing is somewhat humurous, but quite frankly this is an argument that aldo won about 4 pages ago, and someone really should have learned by now when to concede a single point once in a while.
So far the posts I've read so far are fairly civil. Although funny enough the thread was reported to the admins. I've read through and I don't see anything so far that requires action...or any sort of monkeying. Although posting in all caps is considered yelling and somewhat argumentative. Just keep it at a respectable tone and I'm happy. Not sure if any of the other admins will decide otherwise.
Oh I wasn't implying any imminent action from this particular thread, as this has really just been the same Kazan that earned his 'Don Quixote' title. I was more insinuating that those who do not learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. But I'm a little confused on who would have reported it at this stage. Everyone who's posted has been around long enough to know that this is just Kazan on one of his rants.
-
surely which would mean the embolded would have to be disproven.
or that what is being used as for foundation doesn't QUALIFY as such
"unfounded" in the case of of definition 2 was synonmous with "groundless"/"baseless" in terms of evidence and logic
so you'd admit your 'proof' is actually a statement of your personal beliefs without any rational supporting evidence?
no i don't - because i can provide rational support
Does logic normally take the position that the unknown variables are to be defined in the manner that best supports the conclusion you want?
No, it takes the position "that which you do not have evidence/logical support for cannot be considered logical"
it's not coincidental that I take that position.
Forgive me if so, i'm used to the principle of relying upon known evidence when drawing definitive conclusions.
Then we agree and why are you arguing?
There is no evidence for the existance of $DIETY therefore believing in $DIETY is baseless (unfounded) and therefore can be considered being delusional.
I've already noted the foundation of religion is not based upon evidence.
then it fails to be grounded in the meaning used for definition 2 of Delusional
Almost the converse in fact. It is based upon the act of belief. So to disprove the foundation, you need to go after the belief.
no, you need to attack the misuse of the word foundation and the faulty attempt to say "it's founded on belief" to satisfy the requirement to be rationally founded upon evidence and logic as implied by the term "unfounded"
As for II specifically - how do you measure something which we haven't discovered yet?
YOU DON'T and that is the entire point
If you don't have evidence for something you cannot rationally believe in it - if you EVENTUALLY find evidence for it then you can rationally believe in it.
Kazan states his position and that all philosophy for the last 2500 years or so was missing the point and should be ignored?
continue to presume that i'm trying to act like a know it all - be my guest. I'll simply add you to ignore if you keep falsely attributing crap like that to me.
Frankly, you're the last person to be whinging about 'insultive tone' Mr Redbold Capsilock.
yes because bold+red "hey look at this!" translates to "you're a ****ing idiot"
totally. undeniably.
So logic does exist, but not physically? And we're using this to disprove something that expressly is said to exist outside the physical universe why?
no they're not claiming it exists outside the physical world becuase they're claiming it interacts with the physical world - which automatically makes it part of the physical world
they're merely contradicting themselves in an attempt to trick
--------------------------
StratComm
how has he won? he failed to raise a reasonable on-topic objection to my assertion that believing in something without evidence fufills the definition of delusional by being unfounded
he's merely apologizing for them and claiming that they're rational and should be respected. I'm saying bullocks, they're delusional - they have the right to be delusional - but let's cut the political correctness crap and call it how it is
They believe in things without evidence, that qualifies as delusional under definition two.
I will not concede when I have not been defeated - he's abusing the word "foundation" to try and claim something is founded when it's clearly not founded logically and rationally as the definition of delusional referenced by using UNFOUNDED
furthermore i haven't insulted him, i haven't resorted to argumentum ad hominem. If I get monkeyed for FOLLOWING THE RULES that would be the most BS monkey in history and I WILL LEAVE and never return
-
I reported it - i reported aldo's argumentum ad hominem
nice try
not in the meaning of "existance" that we have been discussing. Leaving myself open to that attack was failure to prefix my definition of existance as physical existance.
Logic is an idea, logic is knowledge, logic is a system - it does not physical exist.
Now you could try and turn around and claim that the same could be said of $DIETY, but that would be ignoring the claims by people that $DIETY interacts with physical existance
See, the problem I have with this is that it now your criterion for physical existence is no longer exclusive to something that physically exists, because now we have something that does not physically exist, but is at the same time altering empirical reality (via the faculty of judgement, for example). And the same could be said for god.
No, logic is not altering physical reality - it's altering our understanding of physical reality
-
ngtm1r: We have observed neutrinos, and even caught them, thus affecting their behavior, so I think that the interaction parameter holds up for them.
Actually, no, we've never directly observed them or caught them. The best we've done is a big tank of ammonia that had an occasional change in it due to what are presumed to be neutrinos. Their existance is at best inferred. More to the point, we are only able to detect one or two in what we presume to be several million. The rest do not apparently interact with anything. So no, my point remains valid Kazan. So does my post. Address it or forfeit.
-
We have observed them, if indirectly, and we have sound logical arguments that necessitate their existance.
I already covered those several pages ago
-
StratComm
how has he won? he failed to raise a reasonable on-topic objection to my assertion that believing in something without evidence fufills the definition of delusional by being unfounded
he's merely apologizing for them and claiming that they're rational and should be respected. I'm saying bullocks, they're delusional - they have the right to be delusional - but let's cut the political correctness crap and call it how it is
They believe in things without evidence, that qualifies as delusional under definition two.
I will not concede when I have not been defeated - he's abusing the word "foundation" to try and claim something is founded when it's clearly not founded logically and rationally as the definition of delusional referenced by using UNFOUNDED
furthermore i haven't insulted him, i haven't resorted to argumentum ad hominem. If I get monkeyed for FOLLOWING THE RULES that would be the most BS monkey in history and I WILL LEAVE and never return
Aldo has won because he has posted his arguments in a concise, supported, and (believe it or not) logically consistant fashion in such a way that actually encourages people to take him seriously. (In fact, he has almost won by default because you have categorically failed to do so) I find it hard to believe that you've ever done any serious debating if you don't understand the importance of behaving in any rational fashion. Furthermore (and this covers one or two other things that you raised) aldo has given plenty of counterarguments to you, and it's you who aren't listening. He has repeatedly gone to the source of the confusion - the definition - and provided ample examples of why it is inapproprate to refer to someone's belief in God as being delusional. And yet you fall back on the same "see definition 2" argument every single time. Did you write the dictionary? Study the eptimology of the word "unfounded" as used in the context of the definition of "delusional" that you're so fond of telling everyone to read again and again? Because unless you can give some more reason that your exact meaning is the only one that can be inferred (which is clearly not the case as aldo has constructed an inference that has quite a different - and more reasonable - meaning) then you're talking out of your ass, to put it nicely. That's the shortcoming of using language to define language; you wind up with one word potentially meaning many many different things. I've yet to see any indication that you aren't looking things up and going "hey, that one proves he's wrong (even though these three others don't) so that one definition must be the only one we can apply!"
As has been pointed out before, putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA-LALA-LALA-LA" doesn't make you right. It just makes you look like an idiot.
And I never said your behavior in this thread would get you monkeyed. For someone who yells about people making assumptions about what he means, you sure do it a hell of a lot.
-
No, logic is not altering physical reality - it's altering our understanding of physical reality
Yes, and our understanding of reality affects how we act. Therefore, by a basic principle of logical association, logic has affected reality.
Actually, no, we've never directly observed them or caught them. The best we've done is a big tank of ammonia that had an occasional change in it due to what are presumed to be neutrinos. Their existance is at best inferred. More to the point, we are only able to detect one or two in what we presume to be several million. The rest do not apparently interact with anything. So no, my point remains valid Kazan. So does my post. Address it or forfeit.
If we can detect even one, then its existence is not inferred. Unless you're going to say that the presence of neutrinos is scientifically untestable, then the notion of interaction still holds up. I'm well aware of the techniques they use to look for them, and I know that the actual results match those predicted. Neutrinos simply are not analagous to metaphysical constructs.
This thread is too god damn fast.
-
I think there were some huge 'detector' set up far enough underground that the only thing that could penetrate the ground that deep was something the size of a neutrino, and were picking up the impacts of them...
Found it : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/neutrino.html
Neutrinos are far too small to be physically seen in the forseeable future, but then, we are perfectly prepared to accept Black Holes. Quasars and even planets orbiting ditant stars from viewing only the effects they have on the space around them.
-
[q]or that what is being used as for foundation doesn't QUALIFY as such
"unfounded" in the case of of definition 2 was synonmous with "groundless"/"baseless" in terms of evidence and logic[/q]
By your definition of what would qualify.
[q]no i don't - because i can provide rational support[/q]
You can disprove God? A concept residing outside the observable universe? I doubt that.
[q]No, it takes the position "that which you do not have evidence/logical support for cannot be considered logical"
it's not coincidental that I take that position.[/q]
Based upon your definition of what would be applicable as evidence. See below.....
[q]Then we agree and why are you arguing?
There is no evidence for the existance of $DIETY therefore believing in $DIETY is baseless (unfounded) and therefore can be considered being delusional.
[/q]
There is no evidence supporting the absence, either. There is no evidence full stop either way. That was the whole point. That you're using an incomplete manipulated statement of 'logic' to try and prove your opinion only emphasises the absence and impossibility of a definitive answer.
[q]then it fails to be grounded in the meaning used for definition 2 of Delusional[/q]
Only by your interpretation.
But I digress. I should have said religion was not based upon 'the absense or presence of observable universe evidence to define a non-observable entity'.
[q]no, you need to attack the misuse of the word foundation and the faulty attempt to say "it's founded on belief" to satisfy the requirement to be rationally founded upon evidence and logic as implied by the term "unfounded"[/q]
So you admit it's a misuse of foundation? You have, I hope, noted that the definition you gave of unfounded doesn't actually cover the enterity of the boldened definition in my post in any case. There is no explicit statement that foundation requires observable evidence as a basis, just a basis.
[q]YOU DON'T and that is the entire point
If you don't have evidence for something you cannot rationally believe in it - if you EVENTUALLY find evidence for it then you can rationally believe in it.[/q]
So how can you say the observable universe rules out God based on your set of logical 'rules'?
[q]
continue to presume that i'm trying to act like a know it all - be my guest. I'll simply add you to ignore if you keep falsely attributing crap like that to me.[/q]
See below.
Kazan, 2500 years of philosophy has not definitively established anything's existence! It is a bloody hard question. You're just spouting off these parameters and saying, "There! Problem solved!" But you don't even have to dig into a university library to find how mind-boggling this problem is. You could probably just type "existence" in frigging Wikipedia and you'd see that your answers are nowhere near as definitive as you think they are.
I don't care how difficult some people find the problem, I find it somewhat simple. I do find language somewhat limiting in how to express the idea.
let's start with the easier of the two to define
Non-existance: Anything that doesn't interact (cannot be observed by any means) with our universe doesn't exist
Existance: anything that can/does cause/receive an interaction
the only difficulty here is to define the "polarity".
[q]yes because bold+red "hey look at this!" translates to "you're a ****ing idiot"
totally. undeniably.[/q]
So you're resulting to childish insults now because you feel defensive? Did you do that in debate class?
[q]no they're not claiming it exists outside the physical world becuase they're claiming it interacts with the physical world - which automatically makes it part of the physical world
they're merely contradicting themselves in an attempt to trick[/q]
Does it? Have you now defined the rules by which the non-observable universe works all by yourself? It would strike me - a doubter - that the basic concept is of an unobservable cause to observable actions. But in any case, I've already had this debate with Goober, and I'd suggest you look back down the thread to gain the perspective of someone who believes in it.
[q]
No, logic is not altering physical reality - it's altering our understanding of physical reality[/q]
How do we know physical reality is unchanged if our perception of it has altered in the process of logic? the base arguement is, I think, that 'reality' is defined by how we observe and that, insofar as the human mind and human perception goes, logic changes that reality as we apply it to ourselves.
EDIT; you reported it? What next, are you going to take your ball and go home?
-
If we can detect even one, then its existence is not inferred. Unless you're going to say that the presence of neutrinos is scientifically untestable, then the notion of interaction still holds up. I'm well aware of the techniques they use to look for them, and I know that the actual results match those predicted. Neutrinos simply are not analagous to metaphysical constructs.
This thread is too god damn fast.
I think the Higgs Boson & string theory are currently inferred (close to finding the former and still unable to test the latter), although I'm not 100% sure. Think this may be a tangent, though, because this is talking about inference from evidence when the key to the theological debate is of course the impossibility of evidence.
-
Well my point is that something whose existence can theoretically be tested according to the scientific method is fundamentally different from anything that is said to exist metaphysically, i.e. a concept. There is no conceivable way to test the "existence" of logic, and the same is true of god. I don't claim to be well-read in science, but I'm just saying that regardless of whether or not we have actually seen neutrinos, the example is not an appropriate one.
-
Well my point is that something whose existence can theoretically be tested according to the scientific method is fundamentally different from anything that is said to exist metaphysically, i.e. a concept. There is no conceivable way to test the "existence" of logic, and the same is true of god. I don't claim to be well-read in science, but I'm just saying that regardless of whether or not we have actually seen neutrinos, the example is not an appropriate one.
I'd agree with that. Certainly I think it's important to note that 'reality' as we understand it is rather dependent on our understanding of it. So to speak.
Although really I'm just posting to say I'm off to bed. :)
-
Um. Wow. Okay, I'm just going to respond to aldo's first post, and address one thing Kazan posted:
Well, every arguement about the beginning of life - or perhaps more approprately humanity and consciousness - generally centres around when there is a capacity to think. If we attribute a soul to something which can't even think, such as a blastocyst or (approx) pre-20 week embryo, there's literally no way it can commit any sin, even by thinking naughty thoughts. So regardless of nature, there's about as much capacity to do wrong as, say, a rock. My perception was always that the whole concept of life being some test or preparation for entering heaven (or hell) was centred around overcoming human nature by not commiting sin or at least redeeming that which is commited.
A common perception, and a common position of many religions IIRC. But Christianity holds that it's incorrect. The first sin automatically separated the entire human race from God, which means that Hell is everybody's default destination. There's no possible way for humanity to pass the test or prepare or bargain or whatever. The fall automatically made Heaven impossibly beyond reach. That's why it was necessary for God to step in.
Think of it as beginning a game of Monopoly on the "Go to Jail" square. The game is currently paused while we decide whether to use the Get Out of Jail Free card or not. But eventually, someone's going to press Play and we'll either have the card or we won't.
But this isn't going to be something we need see, is it? Because if it is a big miss, God could insert the experience or alter time so it occurs. I mean, ominipotence & omnipresecence, yeah?
Yup. But again, this isn't for God's benefit. Think of it as learning a lesson - which is more effective; sitting in a lecture or discovering it yourself?
Can you provide a burden of disproof, i.e. proof for your position?
You're shifting the burdeon of proof - burdeon is always on the person ASSERTING something. I am asserting that they're acting in a manner consistent with the definition of the word delusional and I am providing logical arguments and empirical evidence (which you have seen your self on this board) that they are doing so.
They are asserting that god exists so the burdeon of proof for that lies on them. You cannot prove the negative.
Theists assert that God exists. Athiests assert that God does not exist. Agnostics assert nothing. The only position which does not carry a burden of proof is agnosticism.
-
Balls. I really am going to bed, y'know.
[q]A common perception, and a common position of many religions IIRC. But Christianity holds that it's incorrect. The first sin automatically separated the entire human race from God, which means that Hell is everybody's default destination. There's no possible way for humanity to pass the test or prepare or bargain or whatever. The fall automatically made Heaven impossibly beyond reach. That's why it was necessary for God to step in.
Think of it as beginning a game of Monopoly on the "Go to Jail" square. The game is currently paused while we decide whether to use the Get Out of Jail Free card or not. But eventually, someone's going to press Play and we'll either have the card or we won't.[/q]
That's not what I mean. There is some bar upon heaven, yes? And that bar is attainable through lack or recompense for sin, i.e. bad things. Unless you are suggesting we are born as sinners before doing anything atall as people/souls/individuals, which is what it seems, and that strikes me as being rather unfair for what is supposedly a benevolent diety. I mean, purgatory is one thing. Straight to hell for literally doing nothing to deserve it?
God must hold one hell of a grudge. And there's me expecting a perfect diety to be free of human-esque emotions.
[q]
Yup. But again, this isn't for God's benefit. Think of it as learning a lesson - which is more effective; sitting in a lecture or discovering it yourself?[/q]
Neither, in my experience. Although surely God would be able to make it such that there is no difference, anyways. I mean - omnipotence. Knows all, sees all, sees the future, we have free will, ergo God must be able to see al infinite futures and thus the 'life' a particular embryo would/could have led.
-
I reported it - i reported aldo's argumentum ad hominem
You do realize that immediately after the supposedly offending post (which I don't see as very offending although you did correctly tag it as a basic ad hominem) you launch a...shall we say...strongly worded attack back at Aldo?
Listen, try and play nice with the folks here ok? They are all basically taking you for a ride here...you get riled up and they play on that energy very easily.
-
There's about three posts in there that could be considered basic ad hominem by both parties, so I'm curious which one Kazan reported. If it's the "Master Debater" post, then I suppose there's a tinge of a point in there (somewhat nullified by Kazan's refusal to read replies cicera the post above). If it's the one ending with
Stop taking the huff. What are you, 12? I thought you did debating at school - did you run away and hide in a corner (shouting along the way, PRESUMABLY) every time you were challenged?
Then Kazan's being misleading. His tirade following that post was split from a post above (how else could aldo have quoted it without the "edited by" flag showing up) for "emphesis" and so chronologically actually comes first in the argument.
-
I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"
however
goober
Athiests assert that God does not exist.
FALSE
atheism
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
that is the definition I, and most other atheists I know follow.
Now I assert that it is IRRATIONAL to believe in god UNTIL there is evidence.
Often I will state simply "there is no god" but if you challenge it i will say "i was simplifying and I will not defend that unqualified statement" and I will qualify the statement "you cannot rational believe in god since there is no evidence to support the existance of such so if you believe in one you are irrational"
-
please tell me what part of
[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
This argument is completely over
i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument
(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
[/q]
constitues an argumentum ad hominem
Yelled yes, but i did not attack him with a personal insult
-
please tell me what part of
[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
This argument is completely over
i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument
(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
[/q]
constitues an argumentum ad hominem
Yelled yes, but i did not attack him with a personal insult
I didn't say it was a argumentum ad hominem although I am aware of the definition. I said it was a strongly worded attack. You told him he doesn't understand (swearing while were at it), you told him he needs to "balls up" which I take to be somehow insulting his manhood, and so forth. Lets try and not have any double standards...adlo has about as much right to report your little comeback as you do his post. That is to say...not a whole lot. This is the last I'm going to say on this subject.
Try and not get caught up in arguments that get to the point where it requires you or someone else to report it. Save that to the posts that actually do need some more serious moderation. Savvy?
-
ok, Kaz is right, but as usual his argumentation style and inability to shift position to essentaly say the same thing but in a way that people might be willing to accept bites him in the ass.
I beleive the current argument is weather or not religion has a foundation?
yes it does, but that foundation is in the happy-go-lucky world of beleife, things in this magical land of wonder may correlate with the world of logic, or they might... not. so I think if we Just shift things a bit, religion is logicly unfounded. and therefor anything based, soly, on religion cannot be consitered logicaly valid.
now, onto the implecations of this.
I don't think delusional would be the right word to use, as it has implecations of wide reaching major insanity, I supose 'irrational' would probly be a better choice. while technicaly delusional may be right, however most religious people are more than capable of functioning in society, it is only when you corner them into one of the political traps that no one ever realy thinks about, and they feel threatened is when this irrationality becomes a problem.
however this sticking point becomes irrelevent when we return to the highest level of the argument, should religious people be respected, well yes, if for no more than the same reason you respect a 250 pound rottweiler, religion is powerfull, and if you make yourself a thorn in there side they will wipe you off like dog **** on a sidewalk. but asside from this machiavelion reasoning, most people are rational most of the time, you can respect religious people without respecting the reasoning upon wich some minor aspect of there understanding of the universe is founded.
-
thanks bob :D
my point was they technically meet the definition of the word delusional, not that we shouldn't respect them [well... we shouldn't, but for entirely different reasons like their penchant for wanting to hold guns to other peoples heads and saying "BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE"]
-
I just like to disagree by default with whatever Kazan says.
Is it just me?
-
I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"
So you are taking your ball home and refusing to play?
-
@Ford Prefect: No. Frankly I liked these threads better when he was a monkey; I got to read interesting intellectual debate instead of this egocentric nonsense.
-
I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"
So you are taking your ball home and refusing to play?
why debate with a person who refuses to debate in good faith and simply ignores the evidence against them?
I presented logic, and referenced evidence (examples) to prove my point, while instead you abused the definition of "foundation" to try and say religion is not unfounded when "unfounded" is specifically a reference to "found" in a manner which implies "founded upon evidence"
-
@Ford Prefect: No. Frankly I liked these threads better when he was a monkey; I got to read interesting intellectual debate instead of this egocentric nonsense.
oh yes because a debate on semantics and logic is "egocentric"
yup
totally
:wtf:
-
I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"
So you are taking your ball home and refusing to play?
why debate with a person who refuses to debate in good faith and simply ignores the evidence against them?
I presented logic, and referenced evidence (examples) to prove my point, while instead you abused the definition of "foundation" to try and say religion is not unfounded when "unfounded" is specifically a reference to "found" in a manner which implies "founded upon evidence"
I debate both the existence and definition of this 'evidence', as well as your definition of founded and unfounded, especially as the definition you provide of unfounded is not a converse to the definition of founded.
But the egocentrism I believe vyper is referring to is the assumption of certain base abstract concepts to be true or false, when it's patently obvious those same concepts have been left unresolved and unresolvable by 2500 years of philosophical discussion. Now,frankly, if you want to take the huff because I have the audacity to disagree with you, then it's your problem. But I note seemingly no-one has jumped to your (positions) defense here, so at the very least perhaps you should examine your oratory skills to see why.
-
i was "in a huff" because you were ingoring basic evidence
The reason your usage of "foundation" is not the conserve of unfounded is because "foundation" has more than one meaning, but only one that unfounded is specifically the antinym to - the meaning YOU are [ab]using is NOT the antinym of unfounded which is what completely invalidates your semantic argument
foun·da·tion Audio pronunciation of "foundation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (foun-dshn)
n.
1. The act of founding, especially the establishment of an institution with provisions for future maintenance.
2. The basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported. See Synonyms at base1.
3.
1. Funds for the perpetual support of an institution; an endowment.
2. An institution founded and supported by an endowment.
4. A foundation garment.
5. A cosmetic base.
see
found1 Audio pronunciation of "founded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (found)
tr.v. found·ed, found·ing, founds
1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872.
2. To establish the foundation or basis of; base: found a theory on firm evidence.
reference
un·found·ed Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-foundd)
adj.
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.
the repeated appeals to "2500 years of blah blah blah" is a mix of argumentum ad verecundium and argumentum ad Populum - just because "blah blah" hasn't been able to decided what constitutes existing/non-existing doesn't mean I haven't a definition.
I don't care if they haven't been able to reach a stable definition as a whole - I have stated my postulates, you can argue against them, but that is a seperate argument. continued "2500 years blah blah blah" does nothing for you
-
so you are in a huff? Thought so.
Y'know, i'm not arguing against your belief in your postulated evidence. Really, I'm not - that was kind of the point. I'm just pointing out that your postulation for establishing unfounded-ness is based on your own selective definitions and evidence that is based on what you think is required, based upon your own belief.
Now, you may with to go 'atheism isn't a belief', which in a sense is fair, but in a sense is also incorrect as you can't prove that position is correct. You can't prove it is wrong either, of course. I believe it's right, but I'm not going to declare myself as being better informed than anyone else who has a dissenting view because I recognise - and it's really very simple - that a belief system like religion is founded upon something which is not only unknown, but never knowable.
I'm not sure how many times I can restate that concept. I know it's alien from an aetheistic point of view, and I personally don't hold it, but it's not exactly complex either to understand the foundation of it is quite simply faith.
y'see, I'm not debating your definition of 'blah blah'. i'm debating you stating it is correct for every human being in the world ever and cannot be challenged, which is effectively what you're doing. Certainly in my eyes.
-
Kazan if you continue to add snide, petulant remarks into your arguments you will be stopped from arguing.
You don't debate, you dictate. Your phrasing and self righteous tone make your own 'arguments' look narrow minded and incapable of accounting properly for other's arguments. Everyone can see this except for yourself. You're fast coming to a point where people will make an opposing point to yours simply to see how quickly and in what fashion you make yourself look silly.
No more needless capitalisation, or use of italics. No more repeating phrases verbatim unless it is to clarify your meaning and most importantly, you will keep a civil tone in your posts.
-
Kazan if you continue to add snide, petulant remarks into your arguments you will be stopped from arguing.
how about some even handedness? Aldo has put more petulent snarkiness into his posts then i have, and he has engaged in argumentum ad hominem when i have not. He's in more serious violation of the rules than I am
I'm not going to respond to the rest of the post - I am not going to consider your opinion fair and unbiased when you attack the person who has not violated the rules instead of the person who has, simply because of who they are.
-
what happened to my "logicaly unfounded". you must clarify this stuff because something that is founded on a dream you had can still be defined as haveing a foundation. 'founded in fanticy' would also work, but is a bit more likely to provoke anger.
-
so you are in a huff? Thought so.
Y'know, i'm not arguing against your belief in your postulated evidence. Really, I'm not - that was kind of the point. I'm just pointing out that your postulation for establishing unfounded-ness is based on your own selective definitions and evidence that is based on what you think is required, based upon your own belief.
they're not my own selective definitions! they're the accepted meanings of the word - look specifically at the definition of unfounded. Furthermore you posted the original definition of delusional which I used to make my entire argument of. How is it my own "selective" definition of something when A) you posted the definition and B) i've described examples of when TWO of the different definitions of "delusional" were met.
Now, you may with to go 'atheism isn't a belief', which in a sense is fair, but in a sense is also incorrect as you can't prove that position is correct.
atheism isn't a belief, and it doesn't hold a burdeon of proof either. Atheism is the lack of belief. In debate it's called "the negative assertion" (only the positive assertion holds BOP)
the negative assertion fundamentally has the advantage because it isn't "I assert X" it's "I don't assert X, I do not find your logic and evidence for X compelling"
We're all atheists to so many dieties - for example take christians, they believe in only one god while they do not believe in every other god in existance. Do we term their lack of belief for Zeus as "a belief"? no because that would be absurd. Atheists just go one god further than christians.
Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof.
You can't prove it is wrong either, of course.
Yes you can, you can prove atheism incorrect by proving the existance of a deity. Atheism is falsifiable.
(Wait a second, didn't you say religion ("beliefs") fundamentally rested upon being both unfalsifiable and untprovable? that makes your definition of either religion/beliefs and atheism internally inconsistent, however this isn't a valid argument to falsify your statment - it is an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque - however it is interesting to note in light of my above falsification)
I believe it's right, but I'm not going to declare myself as being better informed than anyone else who has a dissenting view because I recognise - and it's really very simple - that a belief system like religion is founded upon something which is not only unknown, but never knowable.
being "founded" semantically doesn't mean it's founded with evidence and logic. The term "unfounded" is specifically a reference to logic and evidence and to claim otherwise is to be doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing: cherry picking definitions.
I'm not sure how many times I can restate that concept. I know it's alien from an aetheistic point of view, and I personally don't hold it, but it's not exactly complex either to understand the foundation of it is quite simply faith.
No, i understand what you're saying completely - but i'm not finding it a valid and compelling argument against my fundamental assertion. You are making a fallacy in your usage as founded - you're using a version that is not an antinym of unfounded and then trying to equate it to such.
y'see, I'm not debating your definition of 'blah blah'. i'm debating you stating it is correct for every human being in the world ever and cannot be challenged, which is effectively what you're doing. Certainly in my eyes.
Well i'm not the one who wrote the definition of the word unfounded which is clearly a reference to not being based upon evidence and logic.
-
what happened to my "logicaly unfounded". you must clarify this stuff because something that is founded on a dream you had can still be defined as haveing a foundation. 'founded in fanticy' would also work, but is a bit more likely to provoke anger.
the definition of unfounded is clearly a reference to what you stated "logically unfounded"
Aldo's abuse of "founded" doesn't pass the fundamental smell test: I've never heard anyone use it that way to defend against a claim of something being unfounded. Every single defense against that claim i've ever seen (personally, on TV, in a debate hall, in an english class) has been based upon evidence and logic
----------
ok people i'm at work - i'll arguel ater
-
you can thank karajorma for the following concession:
I will conceed that calling someone delusional can be considered rude, even if it's true.
[08:52] karajorma: On pretty much ever point since the first one. Right from the comment that calling someone delusional is rude
[08:52] lordkazan: something that is true cannot be rude
[08:52] karajorma: Yes it can
[08:52] lordkazan: oh bullocks
[08:52] karajorma: If I point to a fat person in the street and shout "You're fat" is that not rude?
[08:53] lordkazan: [08:52] karajorma: If I point to a fat person in the street and shout "You're fat" is that not rude? <=== it's an unpleasant truth, i guess it could be considered rude, i'll conceed that point
-
[q]Yes you can, you can prove atheism incorrect by proving the existance of a deity. Atheism is falsifiable.
(Wait a second, didn't you say religion ("beliefs") fundamentally rested upon being both unfalsifiable and untprovable? that makes your definition of either religion/beliefs and atheism internally inconsistent, however this isn't a valid argument to falsify your statment - it is an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque - however it is interesting to note in light of my above falsification)[/q]
you just don't get it, do you? The concept of God is one which is beyond observation, i.e. proof, i.e. disproof, i.e. any form of conclusion. That should be quite incredibly obvious to anyone with the merest idea what the idea a superme diety or dieties represents.
i'm not sure how many times I can try to restate this. Religion is based upon a foundation of believing in something that is fundamentally unknowable. aka 'faith'.
I'm sorry. It seems to simple to me, but perhaps you can't see beyond your own little biases. To call someone delusional, you have to disprove their faith. Faith is expressly designed and valued to accept and effectively ignore the lack of evidence to support it. you cannot disprove it, because you've shown several times the only way to do so is to selectively define the meaning of God to be within this universe, and to assume that if so he/she/it must be acting in a manner currently observable.
Now, you can throw around latin phrases, use bold text, triple post, call for the admins to close the thread, whatever. But ultimately all your actually acting is towards supporting your faith in your own correctness for something which you have said has no way in which it can be proven. You can throw around allegations of delusion towards people, but ultimately you can't throw any more hard evidence down on the table than, say, Goober can. When you insult people, then you have a burden of proof in order to ensure you're not just being prejudiced or a bigot, that you have a right to judge. You've not provided that proof that you are any more competent to say who is and who is not right than me, Ford, Strat, Goober, anyone, and for all the linguistic mishy-mashing you've only been able to provide your personal definitions and purport them as global.
-
The concept of God is one which is beyond observation, i.e. proof, i.e. disproof, i.e. any form of conclusion. That should be quite incredibly obvious to anyone with the merest idea what the idea a superme diety or dieties represents.
understanding such and ACCEPTING such is two different things
I fundamentally reject the notion that something can be both existant and inobservable
i find it contradictory.
To call someone delusional, you have to disprove their faith.
No you don't - the dictionary disagrees with you, and I side with the dictionary.
---
I have NO faith in anything and i consider you saying that I do as a personal insult. I do not have FAITH that I am correct about the dictionary definition of delusional - i simply cited the authoritative source. If you wish to debate the dictionary definition of the word take it up with Oxford's English Dictionary, Websters and American Heritage - i'm done with that argument. The dictionary definition agrees with me whether you like it or not.
I am not the person asserting something exists, I do not hold the burdeon of proof. They fit the dictionary definition of delusional whether you like it or not.
I'm done with you - you insult me, you refuse to debate honestly, you cherrypick definitions then have the chutzpah to accuse me of doing so when i'm simply quoting the dictionary to you, repeatedly.
i'm done with you, completely.
-
[q]understanding such and ACCEPTING such is two different things
I fundamentally reject the notion that something can be both existant and inobservable
i find it contradictory.[/q]
I'm perfectly aware you do. But what has that got to do with anything beyond your personal mindset and perhaps an inability (perfectly natural) to be willing to understand other points of view?
[q]
No you don't - the dictionary disagrees with you, and I side with the dictionary.[/q]
Uh, Kaz? Dictionaries don't talk to people. I'd see someone about that if I were you.
[q]
I have NO faith in anything and i consider you saying that I do as a personal insult. I do not have FAITH that I am correct about the dictionary definition of delusional - i simply cited the authoritative source. If you wish to debate the dictionary definition of the word take it up with Oxford's English Dictionary, Websters and American Heritage - i'm done with that argument. The dictionary definition agrees with me whether you like it or not.[/q]
you still are unable to understand religion, then. foundation is the act of faith.
[q]
I am not the person asserting something exists, I do not hold the burdeon of proof. They fit the dictionary definition of delusional whether you like it or not.[/q]
you can't dictate absolute truths to me or anyone, sonny jim.
[q]
I'm done with you - you insult me, you refuse to debate honestly, you cherrypick definitions then have the chutzpah to accuse me of doing so when i'm simply quoting the dictionary to you, repeatedly.
i'm done with you, completely.[/q]
Stop moaning -it's not an insult to have your views and interpetations be challenged. Live with it, or you will end up with bananas for breakfast again.
NB: you quoted certain bits of the dictionary. For example, a definition of unfounded that contradicted the inverse definition I pointed out for 'founded'. you also ignored the basic foundation of religious belief - faith - because you disagreed on a personal level, created loaded 'rules' of disproof based on a fundamental mistake (that a diety has to exist within the observable universe, thus contradicting every religious belief of one that I can think of) derived solely to prove your opinion, and decided to ignore or dismiss the history of 2500 years of philosophical debate because it contradicted you.
Furthermore, I've seen red text, bold text, large text, caps lock, you've called me a "you're a ****ing idiot", tried to get the thread locked because it wasn't going the way you wanted it, repeatedly and false accused me of insulting you because I think you are wrong (how dare! Eek!), and tried to declare the arguement 'over' and won multiple times because I wouldn't kow tow to you, in a rather obvious contradiction of what a debate is supposed to be. Kudos.
-
ok, you two are basicly arguing over the definition of a word...
actualy you are arguing over, I supose what you could call the default qualifiers of a word, founded means built upon something, Kaz asserts that by default this something is logic, aldo that there is no default qualifier and so if you can use any qualifier (ie founded on faith/magic/happy thoughts/bull****/ect) then the useage is correct, looking at dictionary.com's definition it seems Kaz is right, however my personal understanding of the word is more in line with Aldo's point. so, Kaz, if you just incert 'logicly' infront of every utterance of the word (un)founded I don't think he'll have anywere to go, as both you and him agree religion is 'founded' on non-logical thinking (ie faith), it is founded, just not on logic, in order to atack religion you must atack it's foundation, faith, wich it'self I think could be said to be unfounded. when you have layers of bull**** you must work one layer at a time.
also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.
lets try to keep from getting anyone banned, or threads closed untill I get home tonight.
-
Aldo you yet again engage in argumentum ad hominem.
Bobboau: thank you
-
ok, you two are basicly arguing over the definition of a word...
actualy you are arguing over, I supose what you could call the default qualifiers of a word, founded means built upon something, Kaz asserts that by default this something is logic, aldo that there is no default qualifier and so if you can use any qualifier (ie founded on faith/magic/happy thoughts/bull****/ect) then the useage is correct, looking at dictionary.com's definition it seems Kaz is right, however my personal understanding of the word is more in line with Aldo's point. so, Kaz, if you just incert 'logicly' infront of every utterance of the word (un)founded I don't think he'll have anywere to go, as both you and him agree religion is 'founded' on non-logical thinking (ie faith), it is founded, just not on logic, in order to atack religion you must atack it's foundation, faith, wich it'self I think could be said to be unfounded. when you have layers of bull**** you must work one layer at a time.
also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.
lets try to keep from getting anyone banned, or threads closed untill I get home tonight.
My definition, actually, is that foundation in this context (and by the emboldended definition a few pages back) is simply an abstract basis. For something to be unfounded, i.e. delusional, you need to be able to disprove that basis, otherwise it is just a 'I'm right and you're wrong' type insult. When that basis is explicitly faith, and faith in something determined to be supernatural, i.e. beyond observation, you cannot prove that basis is wrong (it is unproveable either way) and ergo it is unfair to declare someone delusional when you cannot claim to have the answers or proof yourself (at least, not unless you try to redefine the issue to suit yourself and injure their position).
-
For something to be unfounded, i.e. delusional, you need to be able to disprove that basis, otherwise it is just a 'I'm right and you're wrong' type insult.
and here is your error - you're committing a Shifting of the Burdeon of Proof Fallacy
unfounded specifically means unfounded logically, lacking evidence. The burdeon of proof is the person asserting something, until they have evidence their position meets the dictionary definition of unfounded. It doesn't matter what their reason for believing it is, it doesn't matter if they consider it "founded on faith" - it isn't founded
the clearest way to demonstrate this is in a court of law "I have faith in X" doesn't make assertion X founded in a court of law, it's "unfounded" - there is no definition of "unfounded" that allows for faith to be considered as a valid basis.
-
also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.
Why would anyone do that? That would just be deriving cheap, immature entertainment from another person's excitability. Come on guys, that's terrible. Cut it out.
-
also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.
Why would anyone do that? That would just be deriving cheap, immature entertainment from another person's excitability. Come on guys, that's terrible. Cut it out.
:rolleyes:
-
If you look at a few definitions of 'founded', you'll find there is no evidencial quantifier.
Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"
Note; reason or fact. now, I've already stated - and I think it is fair to say this is really a given - that religion is founded, upon the faith in something whose existence is factually unknowable.
A quick glance at reason gives
# a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
# an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason a steady state was never reached was that the back pressure built up too slowly"
# the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil"
# rationality: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
# decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
# cause: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
# argue: present reasons and arguments
# a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion; "there is reason to believe he is lying"
# think logically; "The children must learn to reason"
you'll note it does not explicitly require a fact, although that is a definition, but - for this context - some form of justification or, er, reasoning.
no doubt you want to quibble over 'rational'.
# consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
# intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
# capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers; "rational numbers"
# rational number: an integer or a fraction
# having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis"
Again, not dependent upon factual evidence.
now, going back to delusion
# (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
# the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
Well, one is out. No evidence to the contrary, rather obvious given the problem domain. Three is also out, because you need to prove that idea is illusory. Otherwise it's just an idea.
So we get back to two. Which leads us back up to founded/unfounded, and the lack of a definition in that chain that requires actual factual evidence. So your main thrust has to be rationality, which is intellectual and hence subjective.
Now, you've also asserted you are right in regarding religion as 'wrong', I believe. So by your statement, you have a burden of proof to prove that statement true in the same universal sense as you assert that religious peeps are delusional. But you can't, because god is impossible to prove or disprove, owing to its nature as, dependent upon personal philosophy, a construct to explain the inexplicable.
i.e. you can explain your own personal philosphy, but applying it to judge others necessitates a stronger basis than simply self-justifying. Certainly I can't see it as anything beyond hypocritical if you're berating people for a position with no less evidence than your own.
I think, I've said this lot already, though.
-
Which leads us back up to founded/unfounded, and the lack of a definition in that chain that requires actual factual evidence.
this is incorrect, you admitted so much yourself, and I have already posted the definition proving such multiple times
Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"
"rational/reason" does require logic btw because rationality/reasoning is the application of logic as very CLEARLY implied by all definitions of both words
-
this is incorrect, you admitted so much yourself, and I have already posted the definition proving such multiple times
I believe the correct term is a definition proving....etc.
Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"
"rational/reason" does require logic btw because rationality/reasoning is the application of logic as very CLEARLY implied by all definitions of both words
Logic
# the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
# reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"
# the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
# a system of reasoning
# the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations [/q]
Hmm. Philosophy... nope. Reasonable... subjective opinion.
don't see it, sorry.
-
this is incorrect, you admitted so much yourself, and I have already posted the definition proving such multiple times
I believe the correct term is a definition proving....etc.
no - THE definition. there is not significant disagreement between variosu dictionaries on the definition, and all definitions of the word agree with my assertion.
Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"
"rational/reason" does require logic btw because rationality/reasoning is the application of logic as very CLEARLY implied by all definitions of both words
Logic
[q]# the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
# reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"
# the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
# a system of reasoning
# the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations [/q]
Hmm. Philosophy... nope. Reasonable... subjective opinion.
don't see it, sorry.
:rolleyes:
that definition still fails to allow for faith to be considered a basis
it remains unfounded
PS: reasonable is not subjective opinion since we've established rules called "Logic" for determining whether it's reasonable or not
-
[q]
no - THE definition. there is not significant disagreement between variosu dictionaries on the definition, and all definitions of the word agree with my assertion.[/q]
I already provided a differing definition. Therefore, not 'the' in any permutation of capitals, bold, red, italics, supersize.......at least one definition thus disagrees with your personal assertion.
[q]that definition still fails to allow for faith to be considered a basis
it remains unfounded[/q]
Explain why faith is not covered.
[q]
PS: reasonable is not subjective opinion since we've established rules called "Logic" for determining whether it's reasonable or not[/q]
No, you've personally defined the rules that you wish to use. Both those rules and the application are subject to your personal opinion; logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.
-
On the subject of faith and logic: Has anyone ever read St. Anselm's inductive argument for the existence of god? Obviously it's not airtight, but it's actually really scary how close he gets to proving god through logic.
-
logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.
Oh, and that's really very true. Kazan, in all seriousness, I would highly advise not contending that point.
-
[q]
no - THE definition. there is not significant disagreement between variosu dictionaries on the definition, and all definitions of the word agree with my assertion.[/q]
I already provided a differing definition. Therefore, not 'the' in any permutation of capitals, bold, red, italics, supersize.......at least one definition thus disagrees with your personal assertion.
no, you quoted one that while worded differently did not differ in meaning from the one i posted
[q]that definition still fails to allow for faith to be considered a basis
it remains unfounded[/q]
Explain why faith is not covered.
it doesn't qualify as any definition of: "fact", "evidence" or "establishment"
[q]
PS: reasonable is not subjective opinion since we've established rules called "Logic" for determining whether it's reasonable or not[/q]
No, you've personally defined the rules that you wish to use. Both those rules and the application are subject to your personal opinion; logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.
strange that i've personally defined it and yet i follow the formal established rules and even use the named fallacies from the established rules.
Logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy - but the fundamentals are no longer debated so far as I've ever seen, we haven't gone beyond the fundamentals.
-
logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.
Oh, and that's really very true. Kazan, in all seriousness, I would highly advise not contending that point.
as posted above - I don't contest that logic itself isn't subject of debate, i contend that the parts we're using aren't
more importantly I contest the RELEVANCE of the statement.
-
In an attempt to be as uniform in my meaning as possible I will re-state that not only is Kazan's behaviour under scruitiny but anyone who does not argue in a civil manner. If you can't make a point in this thread without undertones, character attacks, etc. etc. then the only outcome will be a locked thread.
-
[q]no, you quoted one that while worded differently did not differ in meaning from the one i posted[/q]
within your interpretation, perhaps.
[q]it doesn't qualify as any definition of: "fact", "evidence" or "establishment" [/q]
Neither of which have any relevance to the definitions I posted of logic. Otherwise all philosophy would surely be delusion, for example.
[q]strange that i've personally defined it and yet i follow the formal established rules and even use the named fallacies from the established rules.[/q]
Personally. Exactly my point.
[q]Logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy - but the fundamentals are no longer debated so far as I've ever seen, we haven't gone beyond the fundamentals.[/q]
Define how the fundamentals apply to the proposition of an inobservable 'thing' please. in fact, best define the fundamentals. Oh, and how you select which parts to use and why they are definitively to only possible and correct parts of logic of reference.
Although this is more Fords' area, to be fair. I believe he studies it.
-
thanks Maeg
-
[q]no, you quoted one that while worded differently did not differ in meaning from the one i posted[/q]
within your interpretation, perhaps.
yes, isn't it odd that my interpretation is consistent with how it's used in universities and other places of academia
[q]it doesn't qualify as any definition of: "fact", "evidence" or "establishment" [/q]
Neither of which have any relevance to the definitions I posted of logic. Otherwise all philosophy would surely be delusion, for example.
no.......... it wouldn't. Logic isn't a claim, logic is a system for evaluting claims, "unfounded" is a word used in this system
[q][sarcasm] strange that i've personally defined it[/sarcasm] and yet i follow the formal established rules and even use the named fallacies from the established rules.[/q]
Personally. Exactly my point.
your sarcasm dectector is malfunctioning, please have it service. Allow me to add [sarcasm] tags
I've been following the formal established rules and even citing the named fallacies from the established rules. I haven't been using personally defined logic
[q]Logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy - but the fundamentals are no longer debated so far as I've ever seen, we haven't gone beyond the fundamentals.[/q]
Define how the fundamentals apply to the proposition of an inobservable 'thing' please. in fact, best define the fundamentals. Oh, and how you select which parts to use and why they are definitively to only possible and correct parts of logic of reference.
Although this is more Fords' area, to be fair. I believe he studies it.
Off Topic
PS: The inobservable can NEVER have evidence [therefore it cannot ever be considered a fact] or become established
-
[q]
no.......... it wouldn't. Logic isn't a claim, logic is a system for evaluting claims, "unfounded" is a word used in this system[/q]
But you've repeatedly redefined the claim that was made in trying to assert a logical disproval of it. I've already cited a reason for 'unfounded' being abstracted or removed from the issue of factual evidence, moreso because we're talking about a belief system that recognises and acknowledges that inevidenceability.
[q]
your sarcasm dectector is malfunctioning, please have it service. Allow me to add [sarcasm] tags
I've been following the formal established rules and even citing the named fallacies from the established rules. I haven't been using personally defined logic[/q]
Specify these rules, then. specify why you selected them for use. specify what rules you objected to the use of.
[q]
Off Topic[/q]
so you're not willing to answer?
-
To be honest, this entire discussion was off topic the moment we departed from the actual content of the first post.
-
Off Topic
That's so far removed from being relevant to where this topic is now that I'm just going to have to call you out on it. How has anything said in the last 4 or 5 pages been on topic? How was the post that started this whole damned argument on topic? The debate between Goober and aldo was only marginally so, and we've now digressed so far from the content of the original post that it's laughable.
-
[q]
no.......... it wouldn't. Logic isn't a claim, logic is a system for evaluting claims, "unfounded" is a word used in this system[/q]
But you've repeatedly redefined the claim that was made in trying to assert a logical disproval of it. I've already cited a reason for 'unfounded' being abstracted or removed from the issue of factual evidence, moreso because we're talking about a belief system that recognises and acknowledges that inevidenceability.
what have I redefined? nothing.
Sure you've cited a reason that doesn't mean that it's a compelling reason, or even a reason with merit.
Even if I were to accept that something could both exist and be inobservable (which i most certainly do not) that thing would STILL not satisfy the definition of "evidence", "fact", "establish(ment/able/ed)" and would remain ungrounded.
[q]
your sarcasm dectector is malfunctioning, please have it service. Allow me to add [sarcasm] tags
I've been following the formal established rules and even citing the named fallacies from the established rules. I haven't been using personally defined logic[/q]
Specify these rules, then. specify why you selected them for use. specify what rules you objected to the use of.
I'm not a professor: take a college course in logic
[q]
Off Topic[/q]
so you're not willing to answer?
no, it's not relevant to whether or not faith constitutes basis/grounds/evidence/fact
This is going no where - you keep repeating the same piece of semantics which i've already explained why it's incorrect over and over
you're engaged in argumentum ad nauseam
-
Off Topic
That's so far removed from being relevant to where this topic is now that I'm just going to have to call you out on it. How has anything said in the last 4 or 5 pages been on topic? How was the post that started this whole damned argument on topic? The debate between Goober and aldo was only marginally so, and we've now digressed so far from the content of the original post that it's laughable.
it was off topic from aldo's and my debate - not the thread. It was irrelevant to our debate - it was off topic, a red herring, and attempt to change the subject
-
This is over, i'm not replying again aldo. You've engaged in Shifting the Burdeon of Proof, argumentum ad verecundiam in fallicious usage, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam
You are wasting my time.
-
Off Topic
That's so far removed from being relevant to where this topic is now that I'm just going to have to call you out on it. How has anything said in the last 4 or 5 pages been on topic? How was the post that started this whole damned argument on topic? The debate between Goober and aldo was only marginally so, and we've now digressed so far from the content of the original post that it's laughable.
it was off topic from aldo's and my debate - not the thread. It was irrelevant to our debate - it was off topic, a red herring, and attempt to change the subject
It was a request for clarification in addition to a continuance of the dabate. It was not an attempt to change the topic or otherwise divert attention from anything else. At least that's how I see it, not being in between you two or anything. I think this whole debate has been stupid, since you're quibbling over a) the context of a word used in the definition of another word and b) what constitutes being needlessly rude to a group of people because they do not believe the same thing as you. Of course, you're not replying to this thread any more.
-
You've engaged in Shifting the Burdeon of Proof, argumentum ad verecundiam in fallicious usage, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam
Not to mention cogito ergo sum, habeas corpus, ex post facto, sanctus, dominus deus, in pace requiem, and Marcus Aurelius.
-
Well the whole argument seems to be going Flamus Maximus anyway...
-
You are wasting my time.
You are wasting your own time. If you don't want to be here, don't come in.
-
We're all atheists to so many dieties - for example take christians, they believe in only one god while they do not believe in every other god in existance. Do we term their lack of belief for Zeus as "a belief"? no because that would be absurd. Atheists just go one god further than christians.
That's incorrect. We believe that there are many gods. We just don't worship most of them. :p
We worship the Most High God - the God above all others.
you can thank karajorma for the following concession:
I will conceed that calling someone delusional can be considered rude, even if it's true.
Thank God for small victories. :)
For something to be unfounded, i.e. delusional, you need to be able to disprove that basis, otherwise it is just a 'I'm right and you're wrong' type insult.
and here is your error - you're committing a Shifting of the Burdeon of Proof Fallacy
unfounded specifically means unfounded logically, lacking evidence. The burdeon of proof is the person asserting something, until they have evidence their position meets the dictionary definition of unfounded. It doesn't matter what their reason for believing it is, it doesn't matter if they consider it "founded on faith" - it isn't founded
the clearest way to demonstrate this is in a court of law "I have faith in X" doesn't make assertion X founded in a court of law, it's "unfounded" - there is no definition of "unfounded" that allows for faith to be considered as a valid basis.
This isn't strictly correct. In a trial by jury, the defendant is presumed innocent even if that isn't known with certainty. Both guilt and innocence can be proved, you know. Our legal system chooses to presume innocence if there's not enough evidence to decide one way or the other, but that's strictly speaking an arbitrary moral convention. We could just as easily choose to presume guilt.
It's the same way with your position. For lack of proof there is a God, you're presuming that there isn't. For lack of proof there isn't a God, others presume that there is.
On the subject of faith and logic: Has anyone ever read St. Anselm's inductive argument for the existence of god? Obviously it's not airtight, but it's actually really scary how close he gets to proving god through logic.
Thanks, I'll have to check it out. :)
-
Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it? :nervous:
If one is forced into an existence with no ability to unmake that act, there is no free will.
-
This is over, i'm not replying again aldo. You've engaged in Shifting the Burdeon of Proof, argumentum ad verecundiam in fallicious usage, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam
You are wasting my time.
Heehee. I've been away for like a day and you kept going. Ok, let me see.
Burden of proof; well, I disagree with your placement of it in such a manner as satisfies your own ends.
argumentum ad verecundiam; i'm not entirely sure where you get that from. I'm pretty sure I could contend your entire arguement has been based upon your own (opinion of your) authority rather than a quantative assesment.
argumentum ad populum; Um, I don't where you got that from. I never asserted anything was true due to weight of belief. If I had, I'd have been contradicting my own personal philosophy. Unless you mean that more people seem to be nipping in here to agree with me than you, which I think is only a fair point to raise.
argumentum ad hominem; presumably you think I've insulted or attacked you in some. you tend to regard disagreement that way, I've noticed. But the only time I've done that is when you've made rather (IMO) arrogant and egocentric statements along the lines 'this is the end' or 'I've won' or soforth. Effectively trying to subvert what is supposedly a debating process.
argumentum ad nauseam; If I'm guilty of this, so are you. Welcome to the internet.
And all these are kind of personal things, really. I think you seem to be having a go at me as much as anything I've said, to be honest. I'm not sure any of these logic rules apply to the crux of this, which IMO is whether you can call someone delusional without being able to prove what say wrong.
I have merely asked, before, about the rules of logic which you are using to assert yourself in such a...positive...manner. Y'know, how you can confidently claim to be absolutely right about what is and is not knowable. My suspicion is (based upon your $DIETY based stuff a few pages back) that you're basing it upon something akin to propositional/predicate logic, which in my experience can't function with this amount of unknown factors (i.e. essentially everything is unknown), and you can't evaluate or infer based on unknowns. And why i'm interested, which I'd say is not OT, is because you said earlier that, in essence, the ancient philosophical debate on this subject is invalid. Which leads me to question how you could just dismiss such a long, ancient debate, which in many ways reflects strongly upon human nature (i.e. how we conceptualize the unknown).
Unfortunately, this whole thing seems to revolve not around that, but differing interpretations of a word. Perhaps I too strongly stated my interpretation, because in reality the point is (or should have been made as) that there are multiple linguistic interpretations that vary ever so slightly in focus and specific meaning. and it has switched rather off topic from the original bone of contention, I guess. so I'll go back to that, and if you want to carry on, by all means. If not, fair enough.
Ok... so why i think it is wrong to call religious people delusional (I've said is before, but perhaps not in so few words);
1) You can't prove your position of the converse. Now, I know you'll bring up 'can't prove doesn't exist' etc, but we're dealing with a concept that is expressly outside proof or disproof, so I don't think you can adequetely contradict it. I mean, if you went 'gravity doesn't exist' or something, you'd still have to qualify that Likewise with something like the Higgs Boson doesn't exist (neither are ideal analogies, of course, as it's not such a nebulous and explicitly inobservable concept). That's not a commentary of which I feel is the most sensible or believeable proposition, as you know.
2) The foundation of religion is faith. Any sane religious peep I think recognises and acknowledges that the fundamental tenet of their belief system is based upon belief in something outside observability. They don't say 'look, there's God at the bus stop' or something. Were they to be delusional, I think that would entail they did not recognise the faith basis of their religion and instead cited some form of 'evidence'.
Now, as a really quick aside. 2,3 posts or so (of mine) ago I posted a big list of inference as to the meaning of (offhand) delusion, foundation, etc. I couldn't find any explicit requirement for hard factual/neutral/scientific evidence within them.
-
Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it? :nervous:
If one is forced into an existence with no ability to unmake that act, there is no free will.
Free will isn't absolute. We don't have a choice whether to exist. We do have a choice what to make of it. We aren't able to jump up and fly around. We are able to invent airplanes.
-
Free will isn't absolute. We don't have a choice whether to exist. We do have a choice what to make of it. We aren't able to jump up and fly around. We are able to invent airplanes.
...and research stem cells to assist those in need. :)
-
And you have a moral obligation to ensure that it's done without exploiting embryos. :D
You have free will to make your own moral choices. That doesn't change whether they are morally good or morally bad ones. :D
-
/me listens to the screech of brakes as Grug attempts to violently steer the thread back on-topic.
-
And you have a moral obligation to ensure that it's done without exploiting embryos. :D
You have free will to make your own moral choices. That doesn't change whether they are morally good or morally bad ones. :D
Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science. :)
Fogging it up with philosophical explanations and morality is impeding so much of a medical breakthrough its just diabolical.
;) @ngtm1r
-
Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science. :)
Fogging it up with philosophical explanations and morality is impeding so much of a medical breakthrough its just diabolical.
Isnt' that a moral judgement? :p
-
It's a moral judgement on your point of view. Not on the research itself.
-
Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.
Wow! The Nazis were into that too!
Hey, make no moral judgements...
-
Duck and Cover people!...
-
You don't need to bring in the Nazis. Just invoke the Japanese. Remove random organs and chop off limbs, all in the name of science. :D
-
See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.
Morals apply to people because they are sentient, highly developed beings. Stem cells are well... cells.
Trying to counter that they are people too, is just a form of said fog. Plain silly IMO. >..>
-
Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it? :nervous:
If one is forced into an existence with no ability to unmake that act, there is no free will.
Free will isn't absolute. We don't have a choice whether to exist. We do have a choice what to make of it. We aren't able to jump up and fly around. We are able to invent airplanes.
Your analogy is false and incorrect. Technology transcends the physical limitations of the species. However your theological structure denies comprable trascendence beyond the inevitable binary opposition faced: paradise or torment.
Limited free will is not free will at all. The act of creation alone is coercive and even moreso when *any* action is channeled into only two outcomes.
More outcomes, (willful non-existence being but one, the antithesis of the entire act of creation) ideally infinite possible variability, is necessary for true free will. Such outcomes are not permissable within the orthodox Christian, Judaic, or Muslim faith structures. Thus free will does not exist within your religions, making the god-head coercive which contradicts the concept of absolute good.
-
Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.
Wow! The Nazis were into that too!
Hey, make no moral judgements...
The Nazi's were into building planes too. Should we stop with that as well? :p
You'd better make a much clearer point. Blanket statements are easy to make and harder to disprove because you're expecting anyone answering to state your side of the debate too. If you want to claim that embryological stem cell research is close to Nazism you're going to have to state why. I suspect I know what you're on about but if you can't be bothered to state your case properly why should I waste my time refuting it?
-
See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.
It's certainly not the end of the story if your faith says that they are, for reasons which science can neither prove nor disprove.
Your analogy is false and incorrect. Technology transcends the physical limitations of the species. However your theological structure denies comprable trascendence beyond the inevitable binary opposition faced: paradise or torment.
Huh?
Limited free will is not free will at all. The act of creation alone is coercive and even moreso when *any* action is channeled into only two outcomes.
More outcomes, (willful non-existence being but one, the antithesis of the entire act of creation) ideally infinite possible variability, is necessary for true free will. Such outcomes are not permissable within the orthodox Christian, Judaic, or Muslim faith structures. Thus free will does not exist within your religions, making the god-head coercive which contradicts the concept of absolute good.
Okay, then we don't have absolute free will, according to your definition. But we can still make our own individual moral choices within a certain set of limitations.
And coercing doesn't contradict absolute good. A parent can let her toddler run amok in the back yard, but will prevent him from doing so in the front yard, because there's a possibility he might run into the street.
EDIT: 10,000th post :nervous:
-
See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.
It's certainly not the end of the story if your faith says that they are, for reasons which science can neither prove nor disprove.
A matter of faith (a particular branch of faith even) is not a matter of science, keep it in the church. To blindly impede the research of science without any other reason or evidence except faith is folly. It is the end of the story, because yours starts where your faith begins.
Science is not about the whim of the almighty. If it is wrong to you, be consolidated in those that will be judged or whatever. Don't go brandishing your ideals around on others. >..>
-
A matter of faith (a particular branch of faith even) is not a matter of science, keep it in the church. To blindly impede the research of science without any other reason or evidence except faith is folly. It is the end of the story, because yours starts where your faith begins.
Science is not about the whim of the almighty. If it is wrong to you, be consolidated in those that will be judged or whatever. Don't go brandishing your ideals around on others. >..>
If you're not willing to stand up for your ideals, regardless of whatever, then you're not faithful in them, much less your religion. You cannot truly make such a distinction between secular and religious life if you actually believe, because you would then act on your belief.
-
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." --Friedrich Nietzsche
-
See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.
It's certainly not the end of the story if your faith says that they are, for reasons which science can neither prove nor disprove.
It's also certainly not a reason to deny those who disagree with you the option of care derived from the research. It also raises to me a fundamental question regarding free will, as in the free will not to adhere to a specific religious orthodoxy if any. When a moral objection is derived from that religion (and it's not even common across, for example, all Christianity - recently the Church of Scotland IIRC said it didn't object to the use of IVF eggs in stem cell research as they - and I forget the exact quote - wouldn't be used for reproductive purposes anyways), then at most I think you can only legislate it across people who share that religion.
Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.
Wow! The Nazis were into that too!
Hey, make no moral judgements...
I think the Nazis had what you might call clear cut 'moral' convictions too. That any rational person could tell they were immoral didn't make them any less convictions. I mean, if you want to get in science vs morality, then you have to recognise morals can be rather warped from any perspective.
-
I was waiting for Goober to reply. >..>
But yeah, that particular morality is a choice of belief. One when defined by pure science is quite clear. If that is one's belief, then refuse treatment in hopsitals. Same deal as with resuscitation.
Why is it so hard to see both views, and allow for both sides their choice, rather than blatenly push one's view on the other by banning it all together?
-
I have no problem with allowing others to make their own personal choices regarding whether to drink alcohol, support the war or oppose it, marry whom they wish, etc. It's their right to decide for themselves. But I can't support the same with regard to fetal stem cell research because there is another person involved. Fetal stem cell research infringes on the rights of the fetus.
I don't even think it's wrong to use the knowledge gained from fetal stem cell research, as it's a sunk cost and presumably the deed was already done by the time the patient came along and used that knowledge. But the research itself, as well as anything that directly relies on a supply on fetal stem cells, should be probited.
Surely scientists can be content researching adult stem cells? They've already made progress on many fronts in that area.
-
I have no problem with allowing others to make their own personal choices regarding whether to drink alcohol, support the war or oppose it, marry whom they wish, etc. It's their right to decide for themselves. But I can't support the same with regard to fetal stem cell research because there is another person involved. Fetal stem cell research infringes on the rights of the fetus.
I don't even think it's wrong to use the knowledge gained from fetal stem cell research, as it's a sunk cost and presumably the deed was already done by the time the patient came along and used that knowledge. But the research itself, as well as anything that directly relies on a supply on fetal stem cells should be probited.
(Hmm, this is a bit of a retread)
Well, the infringes upon person is the whole debate; even in italics, it's not a fact. I would say in scientific terms the converse arguement is far, far stronger in that a blastocyst isn't. Moreso, the cells used are not being garnered from blastocysts specifically aborted for the purpose (created, perhaps, which is a side argeument as well), and the research itself does nothing to encourage, discourage or even comment upon the abortion issue. Likewise for the use of fertilized-but-discarded IVF eggs.
Anyways. Key point, there is not another person involved. There is the possibility you may consider another person to be involved, in spite of the general scientific consensus, but that possibility has to be weighed against a massive potential benefit that you'd be removing for those who disagree with your view.
Surely scientists can be content researching adult stem cells? They've already made progress on many fronts in that area.
Um, no. Otherwise they wouldn't be asking, nay begging, to do so. Think I said why way back, namely that adult stem cells are very limited in what they can be 'turned' into.
-
Aldo pretty much beat me to the punch.
The fact of the matter is that the "other person's" existance is subject to one's viewpoint, contrare to the science which pretty much describes that it is not a person.
What say you to the already discarded matter?
Would it not be better if used for research of a beneficial gain to humanity?
Rather than discarding the cells or prohibiting all the research under the possibility, nigh the belief of the existance of a soul in a miniscule cell?
I'm positive that if there is an all knowing being making our existance possible, that it would be quite understanding of our plight to benefit humanity in this regard.
-
Anyways. Key point, there is not another person involved. There is the possibility you may consider another person to be involved, in spite of the general scientific consensus, but that possibility has to be weighed against a massive potential benefit that you'd be removing for those who disagree with your view.
On one side, you have a substantial potential benefit. On the other, you have the taking of (what many believe is) the life of a person. And the life of a person far outweighs any potential benefits gained by his death.
It's one thing for a person to sacrifice his life voluntarily for science. It's quite another for it to be forced upon him without his consent.
I'm positive that if there is an all knowing being making our existance possible, that it would be quite understanding of our plight to benefit humanity in this regard.
Understanding, probably. Approving, probably not.
-
i prefer to step back from the earth a bit. all we are, all any of this is, is the grime coating a rock, floating around a fusion reaction, in the middle of a sea of nothingness
when you realize the truth of the grime, everything else, made up things like god and nations, becomes incredibly trivial
-
Anyways. Key point, there is not another person involved. There is the possibility you may consider another person to be involved, in spite of the general scientific consensus, but that possibility has to be weighed against a massive potential benefit that you'd be removing for those who disagree with your view.
On one side, you have a substantial potential benefit. On the other, you have the taking of (what many believe is) the life of a person. And the life of a person far outweighs any potential benefits gained by his death.
It's one thing for a person to sacrifice his life voluntarily for science. It's quite another for it to be forced upon him without his consent.
It's one thing to wiegh harm against benefit. It's another thing entirely to have a weight for that harm (i.e. science), and then alter it arbitrarily for everyone else.
-
So the weight of thousands of years of religious history doesn't matter?
-
So the thousands of years of weight of religious history doesn't matter?
Nope. Why not invoke the Greek myths or the Aztecs while your at it?
-
So the weight of thousands of years of religious history doesn't matter?
When you're talking about blanket applying a law to a body of people with disperaging religious beliefs (or no religious beliefs) then absolutely not. In fact, the very act of grounding such a law in religious terms makes it wholly unsuitable for being, well, law.
-
I thought that for thousands of years the start of life in judao-christian religions was first breath, untill it became politicaly expedient to define it elseways.
-
I thought that for thousands of years the start of life in judao-christian religions was first breath, untill it became politicaly expedient to define it elseways.
I think it tends to change based on the society. Y'know, shift about emphasis on particular words or translations in light of societal changes.
-
There are scientists and doctors out there who view fetuses as human beings.
"Science" usually isn't one ironclad single opinion.
-
There are scientists and doctors out there who view fetuses as human beings.
Generally for religious reasons though.
-
There are scientists and doctors out there who view fetuses as human beings.
"Science" usually isn't one ironclad single opinion.
There's not a scientific basis I've seen evidenced for personhood within a pre-22 week (offhand; specifically the point where the brain is capable of cognition and receipt of sensory information via the spinal cord) period, as well as the medical neurological definition of life (because we use that definition for death) being brain EEG waves which don't form until said period. In any case, the debate with regards to stem cells is the blastocyst stage, which is where the egg has divided into a clump of about 120 or so cells. The scientific view is, of course, the majority of scientific opinion rather than all, but the other hand is that we know people can be wrong intentionally or unintentionally (which is why we use the majority view, as that entails the majority of supportable research).
-
On one side, you have a substantial potential benefit. On the other, you have the taking of (what many believe is) the life of a person. And the life of a person far outweighs any potential benefits gained by his death.
It's one thing for a person to sacrifice his life voluntarily for science. It's quite another for it to be forced upon him without his consent.
Its a cell. It has no concience, nor will it ever have a concience as its heading for the waste bin outside.
It is scientifically not a person.
Many other people, many other religeous people, many other religeous factions seem fine with it.
To assume it is a person, is to to assume your own viewpoint of the religeon you believe in is correct. To do this assumes all other religeons are wrong. Hence why yours is a religeous argument, hence why it doesn't belong in science. Hence why a blanket assumption such as the cell being a person due to the assumption of a soul being in existance at that point, is simply an invalid viewpoint when deciding if the research should be allowed to be on a scientific basis.
-
Except that it's not a blanket assumption, and it's not wishful thinking. It's a postulate - stated without proof - that's based on the authority of a religion backed by the experience of billions of people.
-
Except that it's not a blanket assumption, and it's not wishful thinking. It's a postulate - stated without proof - that's based on the authority of a religion backed by the experience of billions of people.
so if billions of people, over hundreds of years, believed that american cheese was actually real cheese, you would believe them?
-
Except that it's not a blanket assumption, and it's not wishful thinking. It's a postulate - stated without proof - that's based on the authority of a religion backed by the experience of billions of people.
More could be said for religeons that have been around longer, and touched more people. What's your point?
-
Cows are sacred beings with self awareness, no one may eat them or imprison them...
-
Except that it's not a blanket assumption, and it's not wishful thinking. It's a postulate - stated without proof - that's based on the authority of a religion backed by the experience of billions of people.
According to the first entry in a define: postulate, postulate imeans
[q]A basic assumption that is accepted without proof[/q]
So it is an assumption. I don't even think it's a blanket one across, say, all Christianity as, for example, the Church of Scotland has switched from supporting the use of cloned eggs to latterly the use of fertilized IVF 'discards'. Now, the authority of (a) religion etc etc has been used to justify some of the worst acts in history, from the Marquis de Torquemada to Osama Bin Ladin, which is a very good reason why we don't use such a fluid thing as religious interpretation as a basis for legislating across all humanity. In Iran they do that, for example, and you wouldn't want to live there. At one point the majority of people in the world thought the world was flat and 6000 years old on the basis of religion, and that only changed through being challenged by rational thinkers who observed it.
In any case, asserting laws across the entire population on this basis is not just asserting that your religion is greater than all others, it's legislating that your particular interpretation is greater than all others. It's not all that far removed from mandatory church.
-
In any case, asserting laws across the entire population on this basis is not just asserting that your religion is greater than all others, it's legislating that your particular interpretation is greater than all others. It's not all that far removed from mandatory church.
I'm not advocating legislation of belief, establishing a state church, or forcing people to do whatever pious act is necessary to be a good person. I'm limiting this to a very specific goal: protecting the life of another. The only place belief comes in is how that life is defined.
And this isn't fiat belief either. It's tested belief, backed up by historical, anecdotal, and personal experience. (I suppose you wouldn't be interested to hear that my friend forwarded me another miracle?)
More could be said for religeons that have been around longer, and touched more people. What's your point?
A lot of them are based on truth. From a Christian point of view, a corrupted or shadowed view of The Truth, but truth nonetheless. So their claims are entitled to be given consideration. If they're shown to have a solid foundation, I don't think I'd have a problem with following them.
Cows are sacred beings with self awareness, no one may eat them or imprison them...
That's a valid claim to make - but I would want to see the rationale behind it before accepting it as correct. :)
-
I'm not advocating legislation of belief, establishing a state church, or forcing people to do whatever pious act is necessary to be a good person. I'm limiting this to a very specific goal: protecting the life of another. The only place belief comes in is how that life is defined.
And this isn't fiat belief either. It's tested belief, backed up by historical, anecdotal, and personal experience. (I suppose you wouldn't be interested to hear that my friend forwarded me another miracle?)
(fiat=flat?)
No, I wouldn't be interested in how your friend saw some presumably inexplicable occurance that was ascribed to his particular religion. Even if something is genuinely inexplicable, it in no way entails God due to the inconsistency of results (i.e. if you link praying God to one supposed miracle, what about the vast majority of equally heartfelt and/or feverant yet unanswered prayers?)
If religion was in any way proveable, we'd only have one of them, after all; from a historical aetheistic or even secular perspective, all religion is an attempt to both explain the world (including the inexplicable bits of the time that religion was created) and to enforce some form of constraint, moral dictat or control upon society. The concept of testing is very much subjective to that persons existing beliefs; as is the interpretation of history (especially as most myth contains elements of actual history) and, of course, anecdotal evidence is even more subject to personal skew whether intentional or accidental.
The true 'test' of a religion is applied to the people who doubt it, not those who already believe it.
The banning of embryonic stem cell research would be legislating belief. Specifically, removing a very promising field of medical and healtchare research on the basis of a religious belief in consciousness, life, soul (i.e. what defines a human as a person worthy of rights, whose death has an impact or abstractly defineable value, and hence protected in a manner not accorded to other cell clumps) at conception rather than the point where such a concept is biologically possible. Essentially, it would be holding the values of a belief structure above the secular neutral 'values' of science. Akin to preventing the eating of beef by anyone on the basis of Hinduism.
A lot of them are based on truth. From a Christian point of view, a corrupted or shadowed view of The Truth, but truth nonetheless. So their claims are entitled to be given consideration. If they're shown to have a solid foundation, I don't think I'd have a problem with following them.
But aren't you defining a 'solid foundation' and the 'Truth' by your belief system?
-
(fiat=flat?)
Fiat = "because I said so", basically.
No, I wouldn't be interested in how your friend saw some presumably inexplicable occurance that was ascribed to his particular religion. Even if something is genuinely inexplicable, it in no way entails God due to the inconsistency of results (i.e. if you link praying God to one supposed miracle, what about the vast majority of equally heartfelt and/or feverant yet unanswered prayers?)
That's the wrong way to look at it. Lots of prayers go unanswered or answered in ways other than what we expect, so you could think of them not having a 100% success rate. It's the same as if you're trying to start your car on a cold day and the engine only turns over on the fifth try.
If religion was in any way proveable, we'd only have one of them, after all; from a historical aetheistic or even secular perspective, all religion is an attempt to both explain the world (including the inexplicable bits of the time that religion was created) and to enforce some form of constraint, moral dictat or control upon society.
Not quite. If religion is true, and there really is a cosmic battle of good vs. evil going on, then evil would do everything in its power to stop people from finding out about the good.
And I agree that religion is twisted all the time. But it's the same with counterfeiting: people counterfeit $100, $50, and $20 bills, not pennies.
The concept of testing is very much subjective to that persons existing beliefs; as is the interpretation of history (especially as most myth contains elements of actual history) and, of course, anecdotal evidence is even more subject to personal skew whether intentional or accidental.
The true 'test' of a religion is applied to the people who doubt it, not those who already believe it.
Someone needs to invite you to church then. :)
But aren't you defining a 'solid foundation' and the 'Truth' by your belief system?
Truth comes from God. He reveals truth through many different avenues, one of which is Christianity. There are other methods of revelation too, like general revelation through creation, raising up moral people like Socrates and Ghandi, inspiring scientific achievements, etc.
And even human establishments of Godly systems can be corrupted over time. Polygamy, for example, wasn't prohibited in the early Christian church.
-
Fiat = "because I said so", basically.
And that's the wrong way to look at it. Lots of prayers go unanswered or answered in ways other than what we expect, so you could think of them not having a 100% success rate. It's the same as if you're trying to start your car on a cold day and the engine only turns over on the fifth try.
But i don't interpret my car as starting thanks to divine intervention, even when i don't know why it took 5 goes.
[q]
Not quite. If religion is true, and there really is a cosmic battle of good vs. evil going on, then evil would do everything in its power to stop people from finding out about the good.[/q]
Bloody big if. And rather assumptative of what the good and evil is; you're making the implicit suggestion IMO that stem cell research falls into the evil category, but what about knowingly denying research that can help people without good rational reasons?
[q]And I agree that religion is twisted all the time. But it's the same with counterfeiting: people counterfeit $100, $50, and $20 bills, not pennies.
[/q]
I'm not sure why the counterfeiting analogy is used, especially as it's an example of where you can have faith in something (i.e. the legitimacy of your money) but verify it as right or wrong by using simple rational measurements based upon fact.
[q]
Someone needs to invite you to church then. [/q]
I've been to church. I stopped going as soon as my parents felt I was old enough to make the choice. don't assume my agnostic and now aetheistic beliefs have come about as a result of ignorance or inexperience; I'd say it's the opposite. The more i learnt, the more I felt it was (no offence) a load of claptrap intended to assert control and power.
[q]
Truth comes from God. He reveals truth through many different avenues, one of which is Christianity. There are other methods of revelation too, like general revelation through creation, raising up moral people like Socrates and Ghandi, inspiring scientific achievements, etc.[/q]
Pretty much all of which (if not all) are entirely subjective attributions to God, rather than things requiring God (and that's even in the general diety context rather than the specific Christian God).
[q]And even human establishments of Godly systems can be corrupted over time. Polygamy, for example, wasn't prohibited in the early Christian church.[/q]
But really you're redefining what is and what is not 'Godly' within a modern context, with respect to modern opinions. Polygamy is a perfectly natural, if perhaps rude & somewhat sexist, part of human nature and which remains in many societies as a perfectly acceptable practice. This is a perfect example IMO of the use of religion as a social control.
-
Cosmic battle of good vs evil... o.O
Someone's been watching too many movies.
Truth comes from God. He reveals truth through many different avenues, one of which is Christianity. There are other methods of revelation too, like general revelation through creation, raising up moral people like Socrates and Ghandi, inspiring scientific achievements, etc.
There lies one of the many gripes I have with christianity, it gives the credit of what humans do to God or the Devil. To me, that is humanity shining through at our best and worst. Not god. Not satan. These are things humans are capable of, and are doing. Saying that god was acting through someone can be said so ambiguously on any situation, it loses all creditability in my eyes.
We're kind of getting sidetracked here though. The point is, morals do exist without religeon, and to me, they don't conflict with stem cell research. It is not a person. It is being discarded anyway. A fact you keep dodging around. You don't seem to give a **** that its going in the waste bin anyway.
-
It is quite simple really. These... beings aren't ever going to be given even the slightest chance for life. By doing this, they do contribute to save lives while they themselves will never have one.
In the end, it's all an issue of your being a hypocryte. I don't see you signing women up to be impregnated with these embryos. So in the end it doesn't matter whether or not you think they have some abstract soul, they aren't being given life.
The moral issue of them being 'killed for science' is not at hand. It is a moral issue of these beings existence actually being given some meaning to help others as opposed to being thrown away.
To that end, you are the one who is morally reprehensible. Instead of offering a chance for service to humanity/god/whathaveyou you condemn them to a brief and pointless corporeal existence.
-
But i don't interpret my car as starting thanks to divine intervention, even when i don't know why it took 5 goes.
Yeah, but starting the car is much more mundane than seeing somebody spontaneously healed of cancer in the middle of a prayer meeting.
Bloody big if. And rather assumptative of what the good and evil is; you're making the implicit suggestion IMO that stem cell research falls into the evil category, but what about knowingly denying research that can help people without good rational reasons?
Stem cell research isn't the root moral issue. The root moral issue is whether a blastocyst or embryo is a person. In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't. And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.
Organ donations can save people's lives too. But we don't go harvesting organs from people in jails or mental institutions.
I'm not sure why the counterfeiting analogy is used, especially as it's an example of where you can have faith in something (i.e. the legitimacy of your money) but verify it as right or wrong by using simple rational measurements based upon fact.
You can verify faith too - through experience.
I've been to church. I stopped going as soon as my parents felt I was old enough to make the choice. don't assume my agnostic and now aetheistic beliefs have come about as a result of ignorance or inexperience; I'd say it's the opposite. The more i learnt, the more I felt it was (no offence) a load of claptrap intended to assert control and power.
Well, a lot of it is. But - sorry - when I meant "church", I didn't mean the institutional buildings. I meant real church - Christians gathering together for friendship, fellowship, study, sharing meals, etc. I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to that; few people are. That's worthwhile.
[q]And even human establishments of Godly systems can be corrupted over time. Polygamy, for example, wasn't prohibited in the early Christian church.[/q]
But really you're redefining what is and what is not 'Godly' within a modern context, with respect to modern opinions. Polygamy is a perfectly natural, if perhaps rude & somewhat sexist, part of human nature and which remains in many societies as a perfectly acceptable practice. This is a perfect example IMO of the use of religion as a social control.
The modern contextual opinion of polygamy is that it's "rude and sexist", isn't it? But it's expressly permitted in the Bible (although it isn't the ideal). This is one of the ways in which the church has gotten things backwards: polygamy is frowned upon while adultery is given a pass.
In the end, it's all an issue of your being a hypocryte. I don't see you signing women up to be impregnated with these embryos. So in the end it doesn't matter whether or not you think they have some abstract soul, they aren't being given life.
I'm not picketing the stem cell lines, either. At this point, for me, it's all theoretical. It doesn't change the rightness and wrongness of it; and it doesn't change what I would advise someone in a given situation.
The moral issue of them being 'killed for science' is not at hand. It is a moral issue of these beings existence actually being given some meaning to help others as opposed to being thrown away.
It's a tactical decision. Yes, they've already been discarded/aborted/whatever, but the stem cell research lines are relying on them. If some big fetal stem cell breakthrough happens in the future, there might be a high demand for them. Just like we have organ donors now, we might have "blastocyst donors" for the fetal stem cell factories.
And organ donors are already dead too, but the difference is that they can consent beforehand.
To that end, you are the one who is morally reprehensible. Instead of offering a chance for service to humanity/god/whathaveyou you condemn them to a brief and pointless corporeal existence.
Actually, I see it as being allowed to die with whatever dignity they have left rather than be forced to be cut up and used in experiments.
-
we might have "blastocyst donors" for the fetal stem cell factories.
that actually doesnt sound like a bad idea at all. the little clump of cells goes from a mistake to a benefit to humanity
-
[q]
Yeah, but starting the car is much more mundane than seeing somebody spontaneously healed of cancer in the middle of a prayer meeting.[/q]
But both are an assumption of the cause of something inexplicable in the face of a person or persons knowledge.
[q]Stem cell research isn't the root moral issue. The root moral issue is whether a blastocyst or embryo is a person. In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't. And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.
Organ donations can save people's lives too. But we don't go harvesting organs from people in jails or mental institutions.[/q]
THat's muddling the issue; taking the possibilites of medical care offered by stem cells and turning it into an abstract person-or-no-person is removing one massive side of the equation here. We are weighing the religious belief of 120 cells having a soul (effectively) against the massive potential cures for multiple diseases and disorders. You may want to ignore the medical value of stem cells to reduce the cost of opposing it, but it cannot be removed from the discussion. You have to consider how evil it is to want a cure for, say, altzheimers if you're going to judge who is 'good' and 'evil'.
And I'd note that people in jails or mental institutions are most verifiably people in scientific and medical terms, so that is a frankly insulting analogy.
[q]
Well, a lot of it is. But - sorry - when I meant "church", I didn't mean the institutional buildings. I meant real church - Christians gathering together for friendship, fellowship, study, sharing meals, etc. I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to that; few people are. That's worthwhile.[/q]
I'm sure a lot of people would say the same about scientology meetings.
[q]
The modern contextual opinion of polygamy is that it's "rude and sexist", isn't it? But it's expressly permitted in the Bible (although it isn't the ideal). This is one of the ways in which the church has gotten things backwards: polygamy is frowned upon while adultery is given a pass.[/q]
So what you are effectively saying is that even organized religion can't decide what their own holy book requires. Why in the name of cell should it then be used to legislate over all society? I mean, that is what we're talking about; denying all creeds and faiths (and non-faiths) hope on the basis of a religious belief.
EDIT; possibly relating a bit to the 'other' side of religious belief; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
-
In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't. And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.
Oh so now we're evil for debating from the more logical side of things?
-
THat's muddling the issue; taking the possibilites of medical care offered by stem cells and turning it into an abstract person-or-no-person is removing one massive side of the equation here. We are weighing the religious belief of 120 cells having a soul (effectively) against the massive potential cures for multiple diseases and disorders. You may want to ignore the medical value of stem cells to reduce the cost of opposing it, but it cannot be removed from the discussion. You have to consider how evil it is to want a cure for, say, altzheimers if you're going to judge who is 'good' and 'evil'.
And what is it you're doing? Casting this issue strictly in terms of scientific benefits is removing one massive side of the equation: the disposition of a human life and a human soul.
A cure for Alzheimers at the cost of several thousand inanimate puddles of goo is certainly an easy choice. But a cure for Alzheimer's at the cost of several thousand persons is another matter.
I'm not trying to minimize either side of the debate. I'm just saying that the potential scientific advances, while significant, are outweighed by the inherent human dignity of the embryos.
I'm sure a lot of people would say the same about scientology meetings.
Well, I haven't been to scientology meetings. But AFAIK scientology is all about demanding things from you. On the other hand, the Christian meetings I've been to have been all about people having a genuine interest in being friends.
So what you are effectively saying is that even organized religion can't decide what their own holy book requires. Why in the name of cell should it then be used to legislate over all society? I mean, that is what we're talking about; denying all creeds and faiths (and non-faiths) hope on the basis of a religious belief.
Well, humans are fallible, so they're going to make mistakes legislating from either a secular or a religious point of view. So, to minimize the places where things can go wrong, I'd advocate passing only the laws necessary to protect each individuals core rights (e.g. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) and then leave people to find God, or not, without the government interfering one way or the other.
EDIT; possibly relating a bit to the 'other' side of religious belief; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
Hmm. Not sure how to respond to that, except to say that in my personal and local experience, it's not accurate.
In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't. And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.
Oh so now we're evil for debating from the more logical side of things?
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
Logic, like so many other things, is just a tool. It's not intrinsicly good or evil. But people can use it for both good and evil purposes.
-
[q]Well, humans are fallible, so they're going to make mistakes legislating from either a secular or a religious point of view. So, to minimize the places where things can go wrong, I'd advocate passing only the laws necessary to protect each individuals core rights (e.g. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) and then leave people to find God, or not, without the government interfering one way or the other.[/q]
Except your definition of life is different from mine due to religious beliefs. Therefore any legislation on that "life" part is going to involve religion or secualr viewpoints.
-
Except your definition of life is different from mine due to religious beliefs. Therefore any legislation on that "life" part is going to involve religion or secualr viewpoints.
Ding ding ding!
The only correct legislative approach would be to pass no laws concerning embryonic stem cells up until the point that there is consensus of the start of conscious life. No one is forcing anyone to do the research, nor are they forcing anyone to use the products of that research (which would also be legislating morality in a sense) so passing a law banning it and passing no laws supporting it are not equivalent.
-
[q]And what is it you're doing? Casting this issue strictly in terms of scientific benefits is removing one massive side of the equation: the disposition of a human life and a human soul.
A cure for Alzheimers at the cost of several thousand inanimate puddles of goo is certainly an easy choice. But a cure for Alzheimer's at the cost of several thousand persons is another matter.
I'm not trying to minimize either side of the debate. I'm just saying that the potential scientific advances, while significant, are outweighed by the inherent human dignity of the embryos.[/q]
I'm casting it in terms of neutral, non-religious and verifiable concepts. The idea of a soul is inherently religious and is a belief or viewpoint that has no form of scientific support. The 'inherent human dignity' is exactly what is missing from viewing this in scientific terms; all the medical/scientific characteristics that we use to define individual personhood (i.e. what makes a human life more protected than, say, an amoeba) are not present in a blastocyst or even an early stage embryo.
If you want to include the concept of a soul, you also have to argue that your belief - the belief of that soul - takes precedence over all other beliefs and is worth denying the people holding these beliefs that opportunity. I think you recognise that from a scientific and medical perspective it is an easy choice, which is why you're introducing the nebulous concept of a soul.
IIRC (and certainly if taking a hypothetical standpoint) some religions believe transplants are wrong; would you ban those across every person because of that?
[q]
Well, I haven't been to scientology meetings. But AFAIK scientology is all about demanding things from you. On the other hand, the Christian meetings I've been to have been all about people having a genuine interest in being friends.[/q]
All religious - nay, social - structures are self-reinforcing, from prayer meetings to footie teams.
[q]
Well, humans are fallible, so they're going to make mistakes legislating from either a secular or a religious point of view. So, to minimize the places where things can go wrong, I'd advocate passing only the laws necessary to protect each individuals core rights (e.g. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) and then leave people to find God, or not, without the government interfering one way or the other.
[/q]
And the right to health as part of the right to life?
The only way you can ban stem-cell research in that type of legal structure is to insert a Christian definition of life (personhood) different to secular scientific knowledge. You're defining the places 'where things can go wrong' by using a personal belief to define what you think will go wrong. At least if we base laws, legislational upon rational evidence, we can change those things if we learn different; base it upon nothing more than belief and the justification is effectively arbitrary. Even the terminology 'find God' is suppositional, implying there is actually a God to find.
-
you can't kill sacred life! (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3)
-
What I'd like to know is how come condoms are murdering sperm and yet the withdrawal technique isn't?
-
What I'd like to know is how come condoms are murdering sperm and yet the withdrawal technique isn't?
Because it gives sperm a fighting chance!
-
It's medical experiments for the lot of ya!
I think I recall the catholic church finally reviewing the use of condoms as being unnacceptable.
-
I'm casting it in terms of neutral, non-religious and verifiable concepts. The idea of a soul is inherently religious and is a belief or viewpoint that has no form of scientific support. The 'inherent human dignity' is exactly what is missing from viewing this in scientific terms; all the medical/scientific characteristics that we use to define individual personhood (i.e. what makes a human life more protected than, say, an amoeba) are not present in a blastocyst or even an early stage embryo.
There are lots of laws passed on belief. Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc. We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.
If you want to include the concept of a soul, you also have to argue that your belief - the belief of that soul - takes precedence over all other beliefs and is worth denying the people holding these beliefs that opportunity. I think you recognise that from a scientific and medical perspective it is an easy choice, which is why you're introducing the nebulous concept of a soul.
I attempted to argue from a scientific, medical, and logical basis on the SectorGame thread. And I thought my arguments were pretty coherent and firmly grounded, but I didn't manage to convince anyone. So I tried the religious tack on this thread.
I think both the scientific and religious approaches hold up equally well in an argument. But I think the religious approach is more reliable because scientific conclusions have been amended and overturned in the past, while God remains the same yesterday, today, and forever.
So I haven't been able to convince anyone using either scientific or religious arguments. I'm not sure whether that points to others' stubbornness or my lack of skill as a debater. Probably both. :)
IIRC (and certainly if taking a hypothetical standpoint) some religions believe transplants are wrong; would you ban those across every person because of that?
This is a different issue. Whether a person accepts a transplant or not will only affect him, while allowing fetal stem cell research will harm fetuses more than it helps patients. Outlawing transplants is an attempt to control a person's own moral decisions, while outlawing fetal stem cell research is an attempt to protect the rights of a defenseless person. That's a significant difference IMHO.
And the right to health as part of the right to life?
One person's rights end where another person's rights begins. A cancer patient does not have the right to be healed at the expense of an innocent person's life.
The only way you can ban stem-cell research in that type of legal structure is to insert a Christian definition of life (personhood) different to secular scientific knowledge. You're defining the places 'where things can go wrong' by using a personal belief to define what you think will go wrong. At least if we base laws, legislational upon rational evidence, we can change those things if we learn different; base it upon nothing more than belief and the justification is effectively arbitrary. Even the terminology 'find God' is suppositional, implying there is actually a God to find.
Laws are neither based on science nor logic. They're based on ethics and morality - traditionally, religion. Laws are passed by common consent on shared values. In Islamic countries they pass laws based on the Koran, and in Christian countries they pass laws based on the Bible.
The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.
-
This is, to my mind, why Religion and Spiritualism is just as vital to humanity as Science and Technology, a good analogy would be that Science has the potential to be Humanities Brain, whilst Religion has the potential to be it's Heart. That's an idealism I know, but Science without Ethics is every bit as dangerous, I think, as Religion without Logic.
Edit : As for the whole Abortion thing, I'm not commenting either way, we can argue till we are blue in the face and not agree, nor change the minds of those that make the rules. I have my opinions, you have yours.
-
The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.
can you tell me where to find this place?
it sounds awesome
-
There are lots of laws passed on belief. Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc. We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.
Belief in a common good does not refer to an unprovable ontological system; it's a condition based on the notion of happiness. Rape is illegal because its harmful consequences are self-evident. We have only to invoke the categorical imperative to defend laws against violence; they are in accordance with a maxim whose universalization we cannot help but desire. The same cannot be said for stem cell research because the argument against it is not based in the existence of self-evident consequences, but instead must refer to an external standard that is grounded in an unprovable ontological view. In contrast, the argument for stem cell research is based in the existence of positive, self-evident consequences. We do not need to refer to a standard grounded in dualism to prove that preventing disease is good.
Laws are neither based on science nor logic. They're based on ethics and morality - traditionally, religion. Laws are passed by common consent on shared values. In Islamic countries they pass laws based on the Koran, and in Christian countries they pass laws based on the Bible.
The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.
Moral reasoning is a faculty that exists independently of religion, as is demonstrated by the scores of philosophers who wrote volumes on ethics without any reference to exclusively religious notions. It's a mistake to assume that ethics without religion are just cold logic; people who consciously reject the notion of god are equally predisposed to deriving ethical principles from emotional reactions.
-
can you tell me where to find this place?
it sounds awesome
North Korea? China? Soviet Russia?
-
... oh, oh that was too good. That was... *dies laughing* Sorry for the lack of constructive input, but given your last post Goob things couldn't get any worse...
-
Doesn't America have a founding law regarding the mixture of Church and State?
-
There are lots of laws passed on belief. Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc. We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.
Wait a minute; none of these are baseless issues of belief, they're issues where you can measure the societal benefit or damage of an act and legislate accordingly. It's more likely that religion evolved codes to enforce these laws, not created them; especially as they are common across disparate human society.
I attempted to argue from a scientific, medical, and logical basis on the SectorGame thread. And I thought my arguments were pretty coherent and firmly grounded, but I didn't manage to convince anyone. So I tried the religious tack on this thread.
I think both the scientific and religious approaches hold up equally well in an argument. But I think the religious approach is more reliable because scientific conclusions have been amended and overturned in the past, while God remains the same yesterday, today, and forever.
So I haven't been able to convince anyone using either scientific or religious arguments. I'm not sure whether that points to others' stubbornness or my lack of skill as a debater. Probably both.
You know I don't think you have a scientific basis to stand on. However, the religious arguement is essentially an arguement of one belief over another; and that is always wrong IMO.
EDIT; what I find interesting is that you're assuming you're right and it's just that 'other people don't get it'
This is a different issue. Whether a person accepts a transplant or not will only affect him, while allowing fetal stem cell research will harm fetuses more than it helps patients. Outlawing transplants is an attempt to control a person's own moral decisions, while outlawing fetal stem cell research is an attempt to protect the rights of a defenseless person. That's a significant difference IMHO.
Again, you're making this huge 'defenseless person' assumption.
One person's rights end where another person's rights begins. A cancer patient does not have the right to be healed at the expense of an innocent person's life.
And when that 'innocent person' isn't a person?
Laws are neither based on science nor logic. They're based on ethics and morality - traditionally, religion. Laws are passed by common consent on shared values. In Islamic countries they pass laws based on the Koran, and in Christian countries they pass laws based on the Bible.
The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.
No. The majority of laws are based upon the rather simple rational law of the common good of society, basic conventions of civilisations. Religion, I think, is likely to have been created or modified at least partially to enforce those laws. If you look across most societies, you'll find the commonalities to evidence that, even in tribal ones that are effectively isolated from modern civilisations. There are also evolutionary benefits in certain behaviours, that would lead to their adoption as standard.
When we come to purely religious laws with no measurable benefit, like the stoning of adulterers or forcing women to cover up, then it becomes very hard to justify them IMO.
I think what you'll find, is that secular countries pass laws based on rationality, evidence and logic rather than holding one religious belief as being over all others, and forcing it upon those others by legislation. Or you could pass in, say, Iran as an example of primarily religious legislation.
EDIT; I'd note also that both N.Korea, China and Soviet Russia all seek/sought to create a religious cult of the leader (Jong-Il, Mao, Stalin) in order to try and control the people; so they're not actually aetheistic states. I'd also note the UK is also the most secular nation in the world based on a poll in Feb 2004, and the French (for example) have a clear policy of secular state.
-
Doesn't America have a founding law regarding the mixture of Church and State?
There are only a few places that approach something like this in the Constitution. One is a prohibition on the use of any religious test as a qualification for office. Another is a prohibition on Congress passing laws giving preference to a particular establishment of a religion.
The original intent was to prevent any sort of situation where there would be a church run by the state (like the Anglican Church in England) or a state run by the church (like Vatican City). Power politics inevitably cause corruption in this sort of arrangement. This was only intended to prevent the church from taking orders from the state or the state taking orders from the church - never to prevent a government official from governing according to his beliefs.
There are lots of laws passed on belief. Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc. We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.
Wait a minute; none of these are baseless issues of belief, they're issues where you can measure the societal benefit or damage of an act and legislate accordingly. It's more likely that religion evolved codes to enforce these laws, not created them; especially as they are common across disparate human society.
Oh really? Next time you see a rape victim, ask her if she supports anti-rape laws because of the societal impact or because of her personal belief that rape is wrong. She may say both, but her primary reason will be belief.
A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.
As for the others, yes, many of them can be supported with scientific studies showing that they have a positive effect on society. But that's not why they're written. They're written in accordance with certain beliefs. Justification after the fact has nothing to do with it.
EDIT; what I find interesting is that you're assuming you're right and it's just that 'other people don't get it'
Yeah, but that's not on account of dogma or control or anything like that. It's because I've seen too much evidence, both firsthand and through others, for me to doubt it. I'm a naturally skeptical person, but I've become convinced through sheer weight of experience that what I believe is true.
You can choose to believe, or not to believe, and I won't stop you from making that choice. But it would be heartless for me to keep silent when I know that thousands of children being murdered each day.
No. The majority of laws are based upon the rather simple rational law of the common good of society, basic conventions of civilisations. Religion, I think, is likely to have been created or modified at least partially to enforce those laws. If you look across most societies, you'll find the commonalities to evidence that, even in tribal ones that are effectively isolated from modern civilisations. There are also evolutionary benefits in certain behaviours, that would lead to their adoption as standard.
When we come to purely religious laws with no measurable benefit, like the stoning of adulterers or forcing women to cover up, then it becomes very hard to justify them IMO.
Let me ask you which of two scenarios makes more sense:
1) A tribe shares a common set of beliefs. They decide to govern themselves according to those beliefs, and they eventually develop a set of laws (written or oral) putting those principles into concrete form.
2) A tribe experiments with a series of laws, trying to determine which ones are most beneficial to their long-term survival. Once they have a series of laws that seem to work well, they set up a belief system to enforce them.
Scenario 2 doesn't make any sense IMHO. Laws proceed from beliefs; beliefs do not proceed from laws.
-
A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.
:wtf:
You realise your "strictly scientific evaluation" would lead to either a dark ages society (which ironically would cause a reverse in human development, teaching, etc...) or completly destroy civilization.
That is not scientific, that's your belief (preconception if you will) that science is a cold hearted, evil evil thing.
-
Oh really? Next time you see a rape victim, ask her if she supports anti-rape laws because of the societal impact or because of her personal belief that rape is wrong. She may say both, but her primary reason will be belief.
A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.
As for the others, yes, many of them can be supported with scientific studies showing that they have a positive effect on society. But that's not why they're written. They're written in accordance with certain beliefs. Justification after the fact has nothing to do with it.
Goober, that's complete and utter rubbish and you bloody well know it. Rape is damaging for many reasons, particularly upon the womens physical and mental health and the consequences that trauma has upon the children (assuming born). Not to mention the social damage that would be inherent by having that type of society (namely, the breakdown of sexual selection and the inherent evolutionary benefits that conveyed, such as charity and caring), nor to mention that any societal permissiveness towards rape would be rapidly destroyed by a society of children without parents. And of course the characteristics associated with rapists (i.e. that would be contributed to the genetic pool) are universally negative (sociopathic, for example).
You are, frankly, talking out your arse, and that is a repulsive statement which I can only hope was made in ignorance rather than intentional bias.
Yeah, but that's not on account of dogma or control or anything like that. It's because I've seen too much evidence, both firsthand and through others, for me to doubt it. I'm a naturally skeptical person, but I've become convinced through sheer weight of experience that what I believe is true.
And yet sheer weight of evidence convices me of the converse.....increasingly so.
You can choose to believe, or not to believe, and I won't stop you from making that choice. But it would be heartless for me to keep silent when I know that thousands of children being murdered each day.
And it's not heartless for me to ask for people to be given the chance to make their own choice, not to hold one belief over another and deny hope because of it.
Let me ask you which of two scenarios makes more sense:
1) A tribe shares a common set of beliefs. They decide to govern themselves according to those beliefs, and they eventually develop a set of laws (written or oral) putting those principles into concrete form.
2) A tribe experiments with a series of laws, trying to determine which ones are most beneficial to their long-term survival. Once they have a series of laws that seem to work well, they set up a belief system to enforce them.
Scenario 2 doesn't make any sense IMHO. Laws proceed from beliefs; beliefs do not proceed from laws.
Well, frankly, I think you're completely wrong in that. If it was solely belief, there wouldn't be the level of constancy we see across cultures with regards to things like, say, stealing, murder, etc. Moreso, you have absolutely no reason why those beliefs would emerge, nor what the beneficial aspect of them is; if, taking your example, legislation by logic leads to rape (ignoring the cases where things like Shariah law see women stoned to death for adultery when they are raped) and soforth being legitimised, why and how could a belief system emerge that condemmed it?
Of course, you've twisted this anyways. Laws are not 'experiments'. Laws are the codification of societal behaviour that is beneficial to the group. Now, you may wish to spin it as if these (laws) are random - shame on you if so.
But it's really very simple and rather basic group dynamics, and I expect you're making some rather odd assumption that 'law' came before behaviour.
Take a basic hunter-gatherer society;
is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food? Yes.
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering? No.
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying? No.
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? Yes (sexual selection plays into beneficial behaviour).
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities? Yes.
Now imagine this spun out over thousands of years of societal and individual evolution, where these beneficial characteristics are not just propagated by society but in some cases may be genetic traits.
-
Laws proceed from beliefs; beliefs do not proceed from laws.
I think we have a different concept of "belief".
I see "belief" as just such; belief without any proof or grounds necessary. That is a belief IMO. And laws should *not* be derived directly from them.
Then there are "opinions" which can be based on either facts or beliefs. There's a subtle but meaningful difference in there. Opinion can be either a belief or a fact-based statement, belief can not (by definition) have basis on fact.
[The irony is that by definition, a fact is "a belief that is commonly accepted to be true".]
These opinions are the ones that form the base of ethic system (morality, if you wish) in a community. Make enough people think along same lines of thought, and you have an almost unanimous set of opinions. These opinions then become rules and taboos and traditions, and when the community gets more organized, the name of these things (well, some of them) changes into "legislation". In the beginning, very many laws were based on opinions originally based on beliefs, but also many were based on solid logics or fact. And during time, most cultures have reduced the amount of laws having basis on beliefs and increased the relative amount of laws based on other common opinions (that is, ethics/morality/whatever).
So what I'm trying to say is that beliefs do contribute to legislation more or less, but in most cultures and legal systems to day the beliefs contribute to legislation indirectly, by first becoming an opinion and if enough people think it is a good opinion, fine; let's make it a law. This is a big difference between, say, Sharia, which just is and cannot be changed if it's not liked. It either is, as whole, or isn't. And it is based solely on beliefs. Most laws in most countries are based more on fact and opinions derived/based on fact. Of course there are many laws that have solid basis on religion - say, marriage, for example. But, it is a really old tradition and as such it has become more of an opinion of how things should be, and until that opinion changes, well, I can't see marriage as an institution going anywhere, even though common-law marriages are, well, quite common nowadays.
By the way, almost all the teachings of christianity (at least the most basic ones) concerning interaction between people can be (and has been) achieved by solid logics. Take, for example, the single most important direction old Jese gave in the gospels - "do to your fellow man as you'd wish to be done to yourself", and compare this with the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative: ""Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
It's really just the same thing and can be achieved with common sense... One shouldn't need a priest to tell one that you should think like this. It should be quite clear as it is.
But, as it is, I really don't know if this is the fact. What is clear to me is partially because I've always lived in a culture greatly based on ethic base laid on top of christianity, and thus I do hold important a lot of values considered christian. Nevertheless I think all religions as equal crap and also so treat them - in my mind. In interaction with representatives of different religions, I tend to not talk about my opinions if not directly asked, and even then I usually try to tell my thoughts in a respectful way. I could go bashing their deities again and again but it wouldn't get me anywhere and could cost me a friend or a few. I really didn't want anyone come bashing me because I'm an agnostic, saying that I'm a piece of crap because I don't think like he or she do. I'd just leave him or her to their own solitaire magnificence, and I know other people would do the same to me if I tried that. :p
I think it's fascinating how people of quite the same background can think so differently of things.
-
:wtf:
You realise your "strictly scientific evaluation" would lead to either a dark ages society (which ironically would cause a reverse in human development, teaching, etc...) or completly destroy civilization.
That is not scientific, that's your belief (preconception if you will) that science is a cold hearted, evil evil thing.
:wtf:
Pitching it a little high, there? Or perhaps a whole frickin' lot too high?
Much of the secondary damage you cite, aldo comes from the societal stigma of it; the traits you cite certainly come from the fact it is illegal. If rape were an accepted part of society, as it has been in the past, then those things would be of much lesser degree at the very least. Goober is not as insane as you'd like to think.
-
:wtf:
You realise your "strictly scientific evaluation" would lead to either a dark ages society (which ironically would cause a reverse in human development, teaching, etc...) or completly destroy civilization.
That is not scientific, that's your belief (preconception if you will) that science is a cold hearted, evil evil thing.
:wtf:
Pitching it a little high, there? Or perhaps a whole frickin' lot too high?
Much of the secondary damage you cite, aldo comes from the societal stigma of it; the traits you cite certainly come from the fact it is illegal. If rape were an accepted part of society, as it has been in the past, then those things would be of much lesser degree at the very least. Goober is not as insane as you'd like to think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory)
-
well, hows about this, while we work on trying on comeing up with a way to save lives with stem cells you wrok on comeing up with an experiment that will conclucively determine if they do or do not have soal or not.
-
:wtf:
Pitching it a little high, there? Or perhaps a whole frickin' lot too high?
Much of the secondary damage you cite, aldo comes from the societal stigma of it; the traits you cite certainly come from the fact it is illegal. If rape were an accepted part of society, as it has been in the past, then those things would be of much lesser degree at the very least. Goober is not as insane as you'd like to think.
So how come soldiers get shell shock when there isn't/wasn't a societal stigma on war? Trauma is not an environmentally caused problem.
Think about it. Goober is saying science justifies rape as it is a reproductive excercise; "A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.".
That is complete and utter bollocks. Let's look at this from a simple reproductive scientific POV.
Firstly, human females hide their ovulation far more than other primates. Even if rape was for sexual purposes (rather than violent domination), it would be mostly ineffective as a reproductive method - how many women in the street can you look at and say whether they are ovulating or not?
Secondly, rape itself is an act of violence; it requires the attacker to use up - bluntly - energy reserves and risk serious injury when the victim fights back (especially if we consider early human society when women would be very strong).
Thirdly, rapist characteristics are negative; from a scientific standpoint they are not ones you wish conveyed to the next generation through inheritance. Also, human reproduction is characterised by best-mate selection; rape (for reproduction) actually counteracts the 'reproduction of the fittest' mechanic, damaging society wholesale.
Fourthly, 'anti-rape' characteristics - i.e. those which contribute to a male assisting in the prevention or punishment of rape - are sexually attractive and thus propagated via sexual selection, meaning that individuals who act to stop rape are more likely to procreate (see the first point about hidden ovulation).
In fact, there is not actually any form of scientific benefit to rape, as Goober would like us to think. Of course, he also said using science or rationality as a basis would lead to us living in the USSR or North Korea......
I'd like you to cite, though, a society which tolerated rape (the sexual meaning of the word) upon it's own members.
-
So I haven't been able to convince anyone using either scientific or religious arguments. I'm not sure whether that points to others' stubbornness or my lack of skill as a debater. Probably both.
That's a form of extremism. I'd go so far as to say nigh on your whole argument pivots on a form of an extremist viewpoint.
You fail to even consider the other side of the fence, backing up your arguments with stretched science and personal beliefs. Alot of your viewpoint hinges around your personal experiences. What if I said I could come visit, see all the same things you do, experience all the same things you do, yet still refute your views?
What would you say then, to someone who has shared the same or similar experiences, yet still doesn't see things the same way you do?
I would say welcome to humanity, welcome to individuality, welcome to freedom of individual thought.
Everyone sees things differently. I can accept that. You however declare that everyone must see this particular thing the same way you do (that stem cells have souls). Why?
Stem cells are people too?
Bull. There is no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest what you are proposing. That is your belief, fine.
When it comes down to it, there is no single foot you stand on that doesn't rely on your belief system being true.
"God" gave us the intelligence to find this knowledge, God didn't make any clear indication in science that it is wrong to gain this knowledge. God isn't going to be upset over us gaining so much benefit to mankind over using a potentially grey area as seen in some possibly old fashioned people's eyes.
-
Goober, that's complete and utter rubbish and you bloody well know it. Rape is damaging for many reasons, particularly upon the womens physical and mental health and the consequences that trauma has upon the children (assuming born). Not to mention the social damage that would be inherent by having that type of society (namely, the breakdown of sexual selection and the inherent evolutionary benefits that conveyed, such as charity and caring), nor to mention that any societal permissiveness towards rape would be rapidly destroyed by a society of children without parents. And of course the characteristics associated with rapists (i.e. that would be contributed to the genetic pool) are universally negative (sociopathic, for example).
You are, frankly, talking out your arse, and that is a repulsive statement which I can only hope was made in ignorance rather than intentional bias.
If you think it through deliberately instead of following a knee-jerk response, you'll see that it's not as unlikely a possibility as you may think.
Rapists tend to have more partners, thus spreading their genes farther. They're stronger, more motivated, and more competitive, especially if they're up against other rapists. And their children, being fatherless and presumably less well-adjusted, will be more likely to become rapists themselves.
So if you evaluate it strictly from the sense of how well it propagates the species, rape is clearly an evolutionary advantage. Why, then, is it wrong? Because we believe it's wrong.
Well, frankly, I think you're completely wrong in that. If it was solely belief, there wouldn't be the level of constancy we see across cultures with regards to things like, say, stealing, murder, etc. Moreso, you have absolutely no reason why those beliefs would emerge, nor what the beneficial aspect of them is; if, taking your example, legislation by logic leads to rape (ignoring the cases where things like Shariah law see women stoned to death for adultery when they are raped) and soforth being legitimised, why and how could a belief system emerge that condemmed it?
Simple. God has a standard, and the various cultures' beliefs are their attempts to measure up to that same standard. Since it's the same standard, they're all going in the same direction, but since they're only human, they can only measure up to it with varying levels of success.
Take a basic hunter-gatherer society;
is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food? Yes.
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering? No.
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying? No.
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? Yes (sexual selection plays into beneficial behaviour).
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities? Yes.
This isn't universally true. This works well if resources are scarce, but imagine if resources are abundant (say, in a particularly lush area of Africa or in the Fertile Crescent).
Is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food? No. In fact, since food isn't a problem, competition will increase the members' fitness and reproductive attractiveness.
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering? What does it matter if a few women are injured? Others can do the gathering, and in the meantime these women can bear children.
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying? Inapplicable; abundance of food.
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? No; see the first point.
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities? No.
Secondly, rape itself is an act of violence; it requires the attacker to use up - bluntly - energy reserves and risk serious injury when the victim fights back (especially if we consider early human society when women would be very strong).
Actually, polygamy increases sexual dimorphism - the males get larger, and the females get smaller. Only comparatively recently has monogamy become the norm, and then only in Western societies. Even in Western societies, women never compete on the same terms as men. Basketball, golf, soccer, track, martial arts, etc., all rank women on a separate scale than men.
Secondly, how effective do you think fighting back would have been? Back before women were taught self-defense, they were pretty worthless in a fight. I would imagine the fear response would kick in and they'd simply freeze.
Thirdly, rapist characteristics are negative; from a scientific standpoint they are not ones you wish conveyed to the next generation through inheritance. Also, human reproduction is characterised by best-mate selection; rape (for reproduction) actually counteracts the 'reproduction of the fittest' mechanic, damaging society wholesale.
Depends on how you define "fit". Rapists are strong, competitive, motivated, and prolific. If the sole concern is how many babies you father - not how much you contribute to society - then rape is a very attractive prospect.
Fourthly, 'anti-rape' characteristics - i.e. those which contribute to a male assisting in the prevention or punishment of rape - are sexually attractive and thus propagated via sexual selection, meaning that individuals who act to stop rape are more likely to procreate (see the first point about hidden ovulation).
Doubtful. First of all, the same characteristics that help a male prevent rape (strength, intimidation, competition, etc.) also help a male commit rape. Second of all, a woman rescued from rape (having been traumatized and possibly injured) is in no mood to willingly reproduce with her rescuer. For a male to gain any reproductive benefit from the rescue, he'd have to rape her himself.
I'd like you to cite, though, a society which tolerated rape (the sexual meaning of the word) upon it's own members.
There are societies which do this even today. Some Islamic societies, as mentioned above, do - because, if they wished to punish the rape, they'd stone the rapist, not the victim. Some African American urban cultures do as well - he who has the most power, or drugs, or bling, gets the girl; and who cares what the girl thinks.
You fail to even consider the other side of the fence, backing up your arguments with stretched science and personal beliefs. Alot of your viewpoint hinges around your personal experiences. What if I said I could come visit, see all the same things you do, experience all the same things you do, yet still refute your views?
You're welcome to come visit and see for yourself. I doubt many people would long continue doubting Christianity if they experienced it firsthand.
What would you say then, to someone who has shared the same or similar experiences, yet still doesn't see things the same way you do?
I would say that they are either blind (prevented from seeing by spiritual forces) or have some overriding concern or protest that prevents them from accepting it.
"God" gave us the intelligence to find this knowledge, God didn't make any clear indication in science that it is wrong to gain this knowledge. God isn't going to be upset over us gaining so much benefit to mankind over using a potentially grey area as seen in some possibly old fashioned people's eyes.
God gave us science, yes. But God also gave us instructions on how to live our lives, and that results in boundaries that science cannot cross.
-
If you think it through deliberately instead of following a knee-jerk response, you'll see that it's not as unlikely a possibility as you may think.
Rapists tend to have more partners, thus spreading their genes farther. They're stronger, more motivated, and more competitive, especially if they're up against other rapists. And their children, being fatherless and presumably less well-adjusted, will be more likely to become rapists themselves.
So if you evaluate it strictly from the sense of how well it propagates the species, rape is clearly an evolutionary advantage. Why, then, is it wrong? Because we believe it's wrong.
Wrong (again). I've already explained why rape is inefficient from a reproductive perspective, with respect to energy expenditure, risk, and timing (ovulation). Moreso, you can say it is a distinct evolutionary disadvantage because it firstly encourages anti-social offspring (if we take rape as genetic) damaging group survival,and secondly because it 'breaks' sexual selection. Additionally, rape characteristics are converse to positive sexual selection (consensual reproduction) characteristics; basic sexual selection shows charity and caring as beneficial sexual traits, as they show that the giver is fit (i.e. good for mating) based upon the amount of energy, time or effort they can freely expand for no immediate gain (as we see in modern society with males, etc, splashing out on shows of wealth or competing at sports).
I've already explained all this, and you've ignored it. i'm not writing that again.
Simple. God has a standard, and the various cultures' beliefs are their attempts to measure up to that same standard. Since it's the same standard, they're all going in the same direction, but since they're only human, they can only measure up to it with varying levels of success.
So you remove God from any responsibility for human negativity,and yet give all responsibility for beneficial behaviour? In other words, then, there is no need for God unless you twist rationality to be 'evil'.
This isn't universally true. This works well if resources are scarce, but imagine if resources are abundant (say, in a particularly lush area of Africa or in the Fertile Crescent).
If resources are abundant, then there exist benefits of charity in terms of sexual selection (even food gathering takes time; for the fitness indicator value of this, see in particular the male tendency to hunt for hard, large game rather than easier abundant game). See 1st part.
Is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food? No. In fact, since food isn't a problem, competition will increase the members' fitness and reproductive attractiveness.
Negative. This runs contrary to sexually attractive characteristics.
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering? What does it matter if a few women are injured? Others can do the gathering, and in the meantime these women can bear children.
Wrong, again. In most hunter-gatherer societies the majority of food gathering is done by women, and males focus on big game (see, again, sexual selection).
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying? Inapplicable; abundance of food.
Applicable. Regardless of abundance, obtaining food still requires time and effort.
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? No; see the first point.
Yes. Sharing - charity - is a valuable fitness indicator in sexual selection (see, for example, the peacocks tail as a wasteful yet reproductively beneficial feature).
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities? No.
Always. Group survival and expansion.
EDIT; wait a minute, you're trying to use the bloody garden of Eden as an analogy, aren't you?
Actually, polygamy increases sexual dimorphism - the males get larger, and the females get smaller. Only comparatively recently has monogamy become the norm, and then only in Western societies. Even in Western societies, women never compete on the same terms as men. Basketball, golf, soccer, track, martial arts, etc., all rank women on a separate scale than men.
Yes, i believe I mentioned that before to you. The human dimorphism is about 10% (mild polygamy).
Let's also note, though, that male sports are higher regarded because of the male urge to impress their reproductive fitness through competition; i.e. sexual selection. Note that this competition is not in general harmful; most threat displays by animals tend to be purely that - displays - rather than harmful.
Secondly, how effective do you think fighting back would have been? Back before women were taught self-defense, they were pretty worthless in a fight. I would imagine the fear response would kick in and they'd simply freeze.
Oh, really? That's classic sexism. Remember the majority of human characteristics are originating from evolution in a small initial population in Africa. Women in these hunter-gatherer societies would be tremendously fit and strong.
Depends on how you define "fit". Rapists are strong, competitive, motivated, and prolific. If the sole concern is how many babies you father - not how much you contribute to society - then rape is a very attractive prospect.
Again, you've completely managed to miss my point. Frankly, I'm getting sick of this twisting. Firstly, rapists are not usually all that strong; they rely upon fear and usually weapons. What they do have, is a lack of basic compassion and a willingness to use extreme violence and intimidation. They will prey on weak, vulnerable targets.
Secondly, for the 3rd time, rape is not effective reproduction. Can you look at a women in the street and judge if she's ovulating?
Thirdly, evolutionary benefit - for selection - is not purely physical. Both society and sexual selection reward what we'd term 'moral' or charitable acts, because a good person is attractive. That doesn't mean these acts are done to get laid, it means society and people have evolved to view them as beneficial through their evolutionary adoption. I've made this whole point umpteen times.
Doubtful. First of all, the same characteristics that help a male prevent rape (strength, intimidation, competition, etc.) also help a male commit rape. Second of all, a woman rescued from rape (having been traumatized and possibly injured) is in no mood to willingly reproduce with her rescuer. For a male to gain any reproductive benefit from the rescue, he'd have to rape her himself.
You have completely missed the point here.
Firstly, we're not talking about physical but mental attributes; i.e. charity. I've explained the benefit of charity multiple times RE: sexual selection.
Secondly, the characteristics such as charity are uniformly attractive and in general (I also explained this) would increase the chance of sexual selection from most women (accounting for some taste variations), and the formation of a long term reproductive relationship.
And you've drawn a nonsensical conclusion totally at odds to what i said.
There are societies which do this even today. Some Islamic societies, as mentioned above, do - because, if they wished to punish the rape, they'd stone the rapist, not the victim. Some African American urban cultures do as well - he who has the most power, or drugs, or bling, gets the girl; and who cares what the girl thinks.
Islamic, eh? So that's a religious viewpoint. Are you saying, though, all African American cultures condone rape? Or just a small segment of lawless individuals already running contrary to societal group benefit logic? Is this a position supported by the women? Can you actually put this down to cultural acceptance, or acceptance caused by fear? Any sources to cite?
What i find interesting, Goob, is the last few pages. Now, i do actually have a lot of respect for you, at least till justnow. But the past few posts you've done nothing but try and twist my posts in ways that run contrary to what i've said, ignoring basic arguments - facts even - I've said several times.
You seem to be hell-bent on creating some ridiculous strawman, totally in the face of basic logic, that thinking rationally leads to rape and Stalin. That, frankly, disgusts me, because it is downright wrong. And to me it seems you now view the opposing viewpoint in the same manner as viewing a convicted criminal, presuming we are 'blind' (one could infer being 'prevented from seeing' as meaning by the Devil....).
I honestly expected better, because I don't think I've ever been so pissed off at wilfull misrepresentation as to post anything like the prior 2 paragraphs.
EDIT; I'm sorry if that seems rather an angry rant. Perhaps you just didn't get the point I was making, which is a rather well established one. However, in my eyes what you seem to be trying to do is to chalk up every positive aspect of human behaviour as down to God or religion, even when this aspect can be perfectly well explained without the supernatural, and ergo move on either branding aetheism as evil, or claiming that anyone who is in any way 'good' must be in some way religious. And i'm sorry, but if that is what you are trying to do, then it deeply offends me because it's one of the most bigoted, biased and sectarian things you could say. If that's what you were trying to say.
-
God gave us science, yes. But God also gave us instructions on how to live our lives, and that results in boundaries that science cannot cross.
Nope.
You think God gave boundaries, I don't think so. Am I not to cross boundaries you feel offensive but are not that to me?
If that's true, then you also shouldn't eat ham because there are a lot of people that believe the God has forbidden eating pig. Also, you should not eat cow meat for same reasons (except for that in that case there would be multiple gods and the law of Karma behind the idea.)
You also shouldn't drink any alcohol (not sure you do, but anyways). You also must be very careful about what you say or do in any regards, because some people believe their God has forbidden them to do something, or to do that particular thing in a particular way.
Also, the president of the United States of America believes he has been given a mission by god, therefore all his actions are justifiable, eh? :shaking: A line from The Blues Brothers crossed my mind... "They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God." -Elwood Blues
Actually, there are more than one religions stating that heretics must die because they have wrong beliefs. Therefore, all the people have to die because all of us are by definition, and effectively, heretics. :nervous:
Can you see where it leads if we start using religious authority in legislation? How do we know which religion is the right one? The one that has (all the directions combined) the most followers (remember hear the analogy about **** and flies)?
Nope, no religion can be set upon any other, therefore all the religions should be disregarded completely when setting up laws. Instead, when legislating, one should rather use the common sense and currently valid ethic principles that are widely accepted.
Granted that religious views might (and do, sometimes significantly) affect the general moral standing of population, but there is a slight difference between this and using plain religious beliefs as basis of law. I understand the religious background on some older, existing laws (say, about blasphemy, marriage and other things like that) but I frankly couldn't accept legislative forbiddance on research, especially when the subjects of the research would die anyways, as has been stated multiple times on this thread.
And I haven't yet heard, how do the (hypothetic) souls of embryos suffer from the research work more than just being tossed into garbage...?
-
Wrong (again). I've already explained why rape is inefficient from a reproductive perspective, with respect to energy expenditure, risk, and timing (ovulation). Moreso, you can say it is a distinct evolutionary disadvantage because it firstly encourages anti-social offspring (if we take rape as genetic) damaging group survival,and secondly because it 'breaks' sexual selection. Additionally, rape characteristics are converse to positive sexual selection (consensual reproduction) characteristics; basic sexual selection shows charity and caring as beneficial sexual traits, as they show that the giver is fit (i.e. good for mating) based upon the amount of energy, time or effort they can freely expand for no immediate gain (as we see in modern society with males, etc, splashing out on shows of wealth or competing at sports).
I've already explained all this, and you've ignored it. i'm not writing that again.
I haven't ignored it. I'm saying that that doesn't apply in every scenario. Let me back up and try to lay out my argument in its entirety:
Take cholera transmission. In populations where the only supply of water is a large contaminated reservoir, cholera is extremely virulent. Epidemics are common, and infection symptoms are extremely serious. On the other hand, in populations where there are many sources of water, not all of which are contaminated, cholera spreads much more slowly and produces fewer symptoms.
Essentially, the fecundity of cholera depends on its environment. In situations where it's easy for cholera to spread, it runs rampant. Hosts have no choice but to be infected, so the cholera is free to do as much damage as it can. In contrast, in situations where cholera has only a small beachhead from which to infect the population, it's forced to minimize the damage so it can spread from person to person as well as from the contaminated water supply. If it attacks its host too quickly, it kills it off and can't spread. Only after all the water supplies have been contaminated is it free to wreak havoc.
So I'm assuming, based on this example, that there's a similar equilibrium of fecundity in humans. Admittedly it's an extrapolation, but I think it holds. In populations with easy and plentiful access to food, humans are likely to reproduce rapidly, with rape being a likely significant contributor. In populations where food is scarce, or where conditions are harsh, it then becomes advantageous to develop societal checks and balances.
My point in all this is to establish that morals are not necessarily connected to group dynamics. If rape is wrong, it should be just as wrong for the population with plentiful resources as for the population with scarce resources.
In other words, then, there is no need for God unless you twist rationality to be 'evil'.
No; rationality is morally neutral. It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.
EDIT; wait a minute, you're trying to use the bloody garden of Eden as an analogy, aren't you?
No, not that I know of.
Secondly, how effective do you think fighting back would have been? Back before women were taught self-defense, they were pretty worthless in a fight. I would imagine the fear response would kick in and they'd simply freeze.
Oh, really? That's classic sexism. Remember the majority of human characteristics are originating from evolution in a small initial population in Africa. Women in these hunter-gatherer societies would be tremendously fit and strong.
If you took an average man and an average woman and had them fight, on their own without any tools or weapons, the man would win (BOCTAAE). This has been empirically demonstrated so many times it is now taken for granted. I don't think that's sexism. Sexism is undeserved prejudice without regard to fact.
As for the ovulation argument, I don't have an answer to that (and according to Wikipedia it's disputed), but if a woman is fertile 1/3rd of the time, and a male mates with three likely candidates, he probably stands a good chance of impregnating one of them.
What i find interesting, Goob, is the last few pages. Now, i do actually have a lot of respect for you, at least till justnow. But the past few posts you've done nothing but try and twist my posts in ways that run contrary to what i've said, ignoring basic arguments - facts even - I've said several times.
You seem to be hell-bent on creating some ridiculous strawman, totally in the face of basic logic, that thinking rationally leads to rape and Stalin. That, frankly, disgusts me, because it is downright wrong. And to me it seems you now view the opposing viewpoint in the same manner as viewing a convicted criminal, presuming we are 'blind' (one could infer being 'prevented from seeing' as meaning by the Devil....).
I honestly expected better, because I don't think I've ever been so pissed off at wilfull misrepresentation as to post anything like the prior 2 paragraphs.
Well, I have a lot of respect for you too, and I'm definitely not (consciously) trying to twist any of the things you said. As for "ignoring" arguments - I read everything you wrote, and if I don't respond to something it means either 1) I don't have a response to it but I don't think it affects the point I'm trying to make; or 2) I believed something I wrote in response to one point was an effective counter to other points as well.
EDIT; I'm sorry if that seems rather an angry rant. Perhaps you just didn't get the point I was making, which is a rather well established one. However, in my eyes what you seem to be trying to do is to chalk up every positive aspect of human behaviour as down to God or religion, even when this aspect can be perfectly well explained without the supernatural, and ergo move on either branding aetheism as evil, or claiming that anyone who is in any way 'good' must be in some way religious. And i'm sorry, but if that is what you are trying to do, then it deeply offends me because it's one of the most bigoted, biased and sectarian things you could say. If that's what you were trying to say.
Well, part of my worldview is that humans, having been separated from God, would literally make hell on Earth if it weren't for God "plugging the holes in the dam", so to speak. So that's going to show through in my posts. I realize that this is tangential to my main point and quite likely counterproductive when talking to non-Christians, and so I try not to bring it up.
I'm just trying to establish a few key things here. 1) God is still actively intervening in the world, and my experiences with that are the basis for trusting him on the next few points; 2) God is the source of morality, and his morality trumps any emergent group dynamics which are morally neutral and depend on circumstance; 3) God values, and is interested in prolonging the life of, every human being, from conception to natural death.
Can you see where it leads if we start using religious authority in legislation? How do we know which religion is the right one? The one that has (all the directions combined) the most followers (remember hear the analogy about **** and flies)?
Nope, no religion can be set upon any other, therefore all the religions should be disregarded completely when setting up laws. Instead, when legislating, one should rather use the common sense and currently valid ethic principles that are widely accepted.
This is a good strategy when dealing with differing opinions, but my key point is that my belief is more than an opinion - it has been proven to be true through both logic and experience. I try to be very accommodating when dealing with different opinions, but likewise I try to be very stubborn when defending the truth.
And I haven't yet heard, how do the (hypothetic) souls of embryos suffer from the research work more than just being tossed into garbage...?
Part of it comes from respecting the dead (proper burial or disposition rather than mutilation) but part of it is meant to reduce demand for abortion in the first place.
-
Take cholera transmission. In populations where the only supply of water is a large contaminated reservoir, cholera is extremely virulent. Epidemics are common, and infection symptoms are extremely serious. On the other hand, in populations where there are many sources of water, not all of which are contaminated, cholera spreads much more slowly and produces fewer symptoms.
Essentially, the fecundity of cholera depends on its environment. In situations where it's easy for cholera to spread, it runs rampant. Hosts have no choice but to be infected, so the cholera is free to do as much damage as it can. In contrast, in situations where cholera has only a small beachhead from which to infect the population, it's forced to minimize the damage so it can spread from person to person as well as from the contaminated water supply. If it attacks its host too quickly, it kills it off and can't spread. Only after all the water supplies have been contaminated is it free to wreak havoc.
This is a very poor analogy. It makes no sense. You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see. On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.
Part of it comes from respecting the dead (proper burial or disposition rather than mutilation) but part of it is meant to reduce demand for abortion in the first place.
I have no idea that hospitals actually let people take the embroys home so they can perform a funeral or burial ceremony for the dead.
Do you even have proofs on the reduction for abortion claim?
-
...no religion can be set upon any other, therefore all the religions should be disregarded completely when setting up laws. Instead, when legislating, one should rather use the common sense and currently valid ethic principles that are widely accepted.
This is a good strategy when dealing with differing opinions, but my key point is that my belief is more than an opinion - it has been proven to be true through both logic and experience. I try to be very accommodating when dealing with different opinions, but likewise I try to be very stubborn when defending the truth.
Yeah, I bet you feel your own religion is something special. I also bet that so do everyone else that has such strong belief. Quite a bit of people can say that their beliefs are more than opinions and have been proven to be true, by either logic or experience or both. The trouble is that logic can be flawed and experiences about these things tend to be quite difficult to verify. Also, it is suspicious to me how many religions tend to have their own proving pieces of evidence and logics stating that the have the right God and right way to serve him.
The point is that as long as you can't somehow make everyone else (everyone!) convinced that your belief is the one right turbo-belief of über-god, there are going to be contradictory beliefs that also "are not just opinions", and their reasonings for their beliefs to be right are just as valid as yours, so here's how it is. We have to use either all of the beliefs as basis when doing legislation, or none of them. As using all of them is clearly impossible for reasons I stated earlier, we must use none. Regardless of how true you or any other might see his or her personal belief to be.
Until, for some reason, one of these belief systems becomes a commonly approved belief that is considered to be true*, which effectively and by definition means that one of the belief systems ceases to be a belief and becomes a fact. After that it's of course not a religion...
And I haven't yet heard, how do the (hypothetic) souls of embryos suffer from the research work more than just being tossed into garbage...?
Part of it comes from respecting the dead (proper burial or disposition rather than mutilation) but part of it is meant to reduce demand for abortion in the first place.
I'd actually consider doing research on embryos much more respecting than throwing them plainly onto garbage as a by-product of fertility clinics. Also this line would lead to the old debate about whether an embryo should be regarded as a person or not; you think yes, I think no, points given and disregarded on both sides. ;)
Reducing abortions is a good thing in general - what with abortion being a traumatizing event to mother and all - but I really don't see that being anyhow related to embryonic stem cell research. AFAIK the embryos are not actually aborted; instead they are by-product of fertility clinics. They are inseminated outside a body, grown into blastocyst-size, then I believe one is arbitrarily chosen to continue its development, other test pieces hold no value to the project at hands. They would get into junk. Instead, some of them are used on research. What in this research is so horrid when compared to being tossed away?
And if dying embryos are so horrible thing, why do you not oppose to fertility clinics? Or do you?
*definition of truth, should it be of interest to anyone :D
-
if my chem teacher says that when i run current through water, i can get hydrogen and oxygen, i could just take his word for it. or, i could perform the experiment myself.
if some priest tells me that god exists and that jesus died for our sins, what can i do? all i have is his word and a book.
thats my problem with religion
-
ok, goob, this rape stupidity...
if rape was an evolutionary advantage, then why aren't there far more rapests? you see this is the great thing about a theory, it makes predictions, and the big one in evolution is if "trate A" is evolutionarily benifical, then the prevelence of "trait A" will most likely increase. humans have as one of there most important survival mechanisms a socal structure, this along with our intelligence is the reason why there are 6 billion of us, any trait wich damages either of these two facets of our behavior will quickly be bred out, you can be the nicest retard or the smartest rapest, you'll likely end up with the same number of childeren, namely 0, well actualy if the retard is able to till soil or something he'll probly get a few kids actualy, but the rapest, he's dead no more sex for you after that, he's dead, why, well Goob, if someone raped your wife or your mother or your sister or a female frend, what would you do to them? conversely, if your son or father or brother or male frend was found to have commited a rape, what would you do?
I can tell you that in both cases he had better hope the cops find him before me and my linch mob do, because he has no one helping him no more frends no more help in gathering food, and the husband, father, children, and all the frends of every girl he rapes wanting to rip his balls off and choke him with them, and rape is, interestingly, one of the biggest exeptions people are willing to make for abortions. so as you can see, there is a rather dramatic selection preasure against rape, hence there being a rather dramatic lack of rapests, due to the fact that rape is a bad reproductive habit.
if you still doubt, I want you to consiter the following scenario:
you have two villages. the two have two seperate cultures and for the moment , lets just assume they have no contact with each other, but they have roughly the exact same environment. the culture of one village has no penalty for rape in fact it has protections ensureing rapests will have no ill consequience, in the other village you die. now rapests do exsist in the anti-rape village, however they are only able to copulate at most two times before they are found out. women are only fertile for about 1/4th of the time so he just killed himself for a (at best) 50% chance that he will get ONE offspring, meanwhile all the other men get 8 or so, the evolutionary preasure in this vilage is roughly 1600% against rape, it has been established that .1% selection preasure doomed the neanderthals, it is clear that a rape in this village is doomed.
lets go to the other one for a while in this village, your scenario for reproduction does, to a degree, apply. rapests would indeed have a larger number of childeren than non rapests so there would be a selection preasure for people, who do not wish to get involved in interpersonal relationships, there would be no fathers raiseing childeren, no fathers at all actualy, no one would bother, nor wish to engage in parenting, because after many years of this only people with selfish narcasistic tendancies would still be preasent. childeren would therfore be totaly dependant upon only one parrent who must both raise, protect and feed them while at the same time do the things that make such things posable, and while tilling the feilds and hunting for game, the mother must have three or more childeren crying and in constant need of attention following along with her or being straped to her (because she will be constantly pregnant untill she dies or reaches menapause).
...hell do I realy need to keep going, don't you see yet how rape would just totaly destroy the human race quite quickly? it is not simply a beleife that rape is bad, it is a verifiablely bad trait. and it is not just a beleife that it is wrong, it is something that you would not wish upon your worst enemy, it's simply a very not nice thing to do to someone, if you rape someone they won't like it, and if someone does something bad to someone you like you seek vengance as if it happened to you.
I think you have now been thuroughly proven wrong, this argument is quite close to an adhomonen, you make a statement like science suports rape, it's such a blatant attempt to just atack science that it's disgusting. it's like if I called you a child molester to discredit you, and tried to prove it by some guilt by assosiation with catholic preists. seriously, you are just plain ****ing wrong, incorect, logicaly contradictory, end this.
-
EDIT: GAH! Bloody q's not working!
I haven't ignored it. I'm saying that that doesn't apply in every scenario. Let me back up and try to lay out my argument in its entirety:
Take cholera transmission. In populations where the only supply of water is a large contaminated reservoir, cholera is extremely virulent. Epidemics are common, and infection symptoms are extremely serious. On the other hand, in populations where there are many sources of water, not all of which are contaminated, cholera spreads much more slowly and produces fewer symptoms.
Essentially, the fecundity of cholera depends on its environment. In situations where it's easy for cholera to spread, it runs rampant. Hosts have no choice but to be infected, so the cholera is free to do as much damage as it can. In contrast, in situations where cholera has only a small beachhead from which to infect the population, it's forced to minimize the damage so it can spread from person to person as well as from the contaminated water supply. If it attacks its host too quickly, it kills it off and can't spread. Only after all the water supplies have been contaminated is it free to wreak havoc.
So I'm assuming, based on this example, that there's a similar equilibrium of fecundity in humans. Admittedly it's an extrapolation, but I think it holds. In populations with easy and plentiful access to food, humans are likely to reproduce rapidly, with rape being a likely significant contributor. In populations where food is scarce, or where conditions are harsh, it then becomes advantageous to develop societal checks and balances.
My point in all this is to establish that morals are not necessarily connected to group dynamics. If rape is wrong, it should be just as wrong for the population with plentiful resources as for the population with scarce resources.
You're interpreting group dynamics as competitive or resource-based. That's not correct. Why did you think I kept mentioning sexual selection? That does not rule out what we'd call abberant behaviour - nor should it - but it does explain majority 'moral' behaviour and strictures within an evolutionary context.
Again, rape is an extremely ineffective reproductive mechanism. I've said, repeatedly, that it is very hard to judge ovulation, let alone the risk and energy expenditure factors. Also, in evolutionary terms it would lead to females being substantially smaller than they are, due to rapists targeting of easy, weak individuals. It would also remove the need for many visible fitness indicators and our reactions to them (for example, breasts have been suggested as good fitness indicators as they indicate age), as mate choice is no longer a factor.
EDIt; I'd note, that reproductive rates seem to be distinctly higher in 3rd world countries than 1st world; most countries in, say, the EU are struggling to maintain their populations let alone grow, in spite of very high standards of living.
No; rationality is morally neutral. It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.
Then why are you trying to justify such a ludicrous premise with it?
If you took an average man and an average woman and had them fight, on their own without any tools or weapons, the man would win (BOCTAAE). This has been empirically demonstrated so many times it is now taken for granted. I don't think that's sexism. Sexism is undeserved prejudice without regard to fact.
And how injured would the man be? How much energy would they expend? Where is your basis for the 'average' woman? There's about a 10% difference in base size (NB: skeletal dimorphism isn't, though, a good indicator of actual dimorphism) between males and females. But early evolutionary times, when our base instincts would be formed, would entail females being extremely physically active as the main food gatherers and having to be capable of fending off predators.
Aside;
http://www.serpentfd.org/section2hominidevolution.html
Briefly, we are proposing that for two million years, up to approximately 100,000 to 40,000 years ago, hominid evolution was driven by the criteria females used to select males for their procreation partners (Tanner, 1981) included males who were increasingly cooperative, social, and less aggressive (Young 1971). Males with these characteristics were more inclined to succeed in a promiscuous social environment (Morgan, 1877;Margulis & Sagan, 1991) and more likely to be responsive to the needs of women with infants and children helpless for long periods. These characteristics were evidenced by males with less testosterone (T) than the more aggressive males. And if, as we surmise, there is an inverse relationship between sperm production and testosterone production, then females selecting males low in T will be choosing males with larger testicles which produce more sperm making them a likely success in a promiscuous social structure.
By choosing males with low T, females are prolonging the developmental and maturation rates of their male progeny. In humans the relative levels of testosterone (and probably estrogen) in males and females is the primary hormonal intermediary between the eight environmental cues and relative rates of maturation. By prolonging growth, whether explained by heterochronic concepts of neoteny (Montagu, 1955, 1989; Gould, 1977) (prolonging child features into adulthood) or by hypermorphosis (Shea, 1989; McKinney and McNamara, 1990) (prolonging all developmental stages), one of the net results is increased brain and cranium size (Riska & Archley, 1985). Prolonging growth rates is achieved in humans by lowering T. Accelerating growth, in effect condensing developmental stages, is achieved by raising T.
(for example)
Moreso, it strikes me that if rape was so beneficial in that context (reproduction or some imagined genetic advantage), it would be a societally-dominant crime that we all had urges to do. Clearly, it seems, if rape was a genetic characteristic evolution has reduced its prevelance, not increased it.
As for the ovulation argument, I don't have an answer to that (and according to Wikipedia it's disputed), but if a woman is fertile 1/3rd of the time, and a male mates with three likely candidates, he probably stands a good chance of impregnating one of them.
According to Geoffery Miller, who I'd consider just a mite more reliable than Wikipedia, human females hide their ovulation more than other primates do. And your chance calculations are wrong here; you're seemingly assuming that if you pick any 3 women and rape them at the same time (day), then it means one is likely be ovulating. Not to mention that not all reproductive sex (i.e. at ovulation time) leads to pregnancy.
http://www.stnews.org/Research-1145.htm
Some scientific theorists speculate that the evolutionary explanation for human monogamy lies in the secrecy of human female ovulation. Unlike females of many other species, human females show little or no sign of their fertility. Female Barbary macaques, for instance, display their puffy red backsides when ovulating. Other nonhuman females emit strong odors that indicate that they want to copulate.
Moreso, the disputed part refers to whether females know they are ovulating, not whether males can directly spot it. The display nature of human behaviour with respect to sex is likely to further complicate any attempt to determine fertility signals via subconscious cues such as dress; this is coming very close to 'blaming the victim' here.
EDIT; moreso, female knowledge of ovulation would actually increase the comparative efficiency of consensual reproduction, which can be timed to coincide with ovulationary periods, against random rape.
Well, I have a lot of respect for you too, and I'm definitely not (consciously) trying to twist any of the things you said. As for "ignoring" arguments - I read everything you wrote, and if I don't respond to something it means either 1) I don't have a response to it but I don't think it affects the point I'm trying to make; or 2) I believed something I wrote in response to one point was an effective counter to other points as well.
Well, i think you need to find and read a book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0099288249/sr=8-2/qid=1146643454/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4023011-1869640?%5Fencoding=UTF8), then. :)
That covers exactly the points I've been trying to make.
Well, part of my worldview is that humans, having been separated from God, would literally make hell on Earth if it weren't for God "plugging the holes in the dam", so to speak. So that's going to show through in my posts. I realize that this is tangential to my main point and quite likely counterproductive when talking to non-Christians, and so I try not to bring it up.
I'm just trying to establish a few key things here. 1) God is still actively intervening in the world, and my experiences with that are the basis for trusting him on the next few points; 2) God is the source of morality, and his morality trumps any emergent group dynamics which are morally neutral and depend on circumstance; 3) God values, and is interested in prolonging the life of, every human being, from conception to natural death.
From my perspective, God is invisible for 1), and unecessary for 2), and highly debatable (what defines 'natural death'?) for 3), and it's the middle one which annoys me because it essentially says aetheism is immoral and humans are incapable of good through free will. My entire belief structure, as it has evolved, has always been centred around the concept that we determine how good we are, not anything else. Following Christianity, Islam, etc does not equal good or evil, peoples' actions do - whether it be Mother Theresa or the Inquisition.
EDIT; it strikes me, actually, that we're almost regarding rape here as some inherent part of human nature that somehow had to be overcome; i.e. behaviour that was stripped. However, there's no reason why it couldn't have simply never occured as a large-scale behaviour, especially considering the benefits of consensual reproduction using sexual selection in a group / species scales. It's inherently dangerous, I think, to just assume rape is some default behaviour rather than a rare aberration.
-
You're welcome to come visit and see for yourself. I doubt many people would long continue doubting Christianity if they experienced it firsthand.
Really?
What if I said I have seen a few things in my time myself that I found questionable?
Mostly though, through friends I'd consider fairly intelligent and trustworthy, have heard some seemingly unbelievable tales as well.
My point is, you can't just assume that 1) your the only one in the world that sees and experiences things, and 2) that your way / friends way of viewing things are the most logical and most correct outcomes.
I've seen, but mostly heard many things that seem to reach beyond a scientific explaination. Very few of which I might add, have anything to do with Christianity. My point is, yours is not the only supposed supernatural experiences that are claimed to be directly related to religeon X.
Infact where you say:
I would say that they are either blind (prevented from seeing by spiritual forces) or have some overriding concern or protest that prevents them from accepting it.
I would say the same back at you. (minus the part prevented seeing by spiritual forces, - infact was that incinuating the devil was stopping me from seeing it -assume he exists even? o.O ) That you have a very one sighted view, and that you are infact the blind one without exposure to other religeons, ideals, and lives. You've simply accepted the one you've grown up with, assumedly told all your life that your belief was the right one, and that any other interpretation of the world is most likely wrong, and possibly influenced by the devil.
I personally believe that no single religeon is wholly correct or accurate.
God gave us science, yes. But God also gave us instructions on how to live our lives, and that results in boundaries that science cannot cross.
Who's God though?
Yours, mine, Joe's, Bob's?
Then if so, prove it. You can't. Nor can I, Joe or Bob. That's the point.
Common sense to me says that research on stem cells that could possibly be a cure to many ailments on humanity, minor and serious, is enough to accept this research happening in my mind. The same way in that I can accept lab rats being tested on for various other reasons also. Stem cells are no more important, in the sense that they are "alive", than lab rats, less so even as they don't even have a brain to comprehend themselves and their environment.
-
This rape discussion is missing one major argument. The rapist and the victim do not live in isolation. The victim is likely to have a mate who is not going to want to raise another mans child. The best evolution strategy for him is to therefore pick up a big rock and smash in the skull of anyone who is a known rapist.
There goes your evolutionary advantage right there. If you die upon your first attempt to procreate you're not likely to have much success passing on your genes.
-
This rape discussion is missing one major argument. The rapist and the victim do not live in isolation. The victim is likely to have a mate who is not going to want to raise another mans child. The best evolution strategy for him is to therefore pick up a big rock and smash in the skull of anyone who is a known rapist.
There goes your evolutionary advantage right there. If you die upon your first attempt to procreate you're not likely to have much success passing on your genes.
Hence Bobbobau's point. ;)
Hence what I thought was common sense... =/
-
Must have missed that post somehow :)
-
Think I said that in different terms myself, as well :)
-
Anyone for a sip of the blood of our enemies?
(erh, figure of speech)
-
Anyone for a sip of the blood of our enemies?
Actually, I'm listening to the lamentations of their womenfolk at the moment.
-
"Give me your hand, and I'll give you my hope" ?
Semi-non-relevance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tran_Hung_Dao
-
This is a very poor analogy. It makes no sense. You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see. On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.
Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted. As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability. What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.
So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses. However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response. :p So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point. :)
Yeah, I bet you feel your own religion is something special. I also bet that so do everyone else that has such strong belief. Quite a bit of people can say that their beliefs are more than opinions and have been proven to be true, by either logic or experience or both. The trouble is that logic can be flawed and experiences about these things tend to be quite difficult to verify. Also, it is suspicious to me how many religions tend to have their own proving pieces of evidence and logics stating that the have the right God and right way to serve him.
...
Everybody has opinions, and everybody feels strongly about them to some degree. But doesn't everybody feel strongly about facts too? How would you respond if Big Brother came along and tried to convince you that 2 + 2 = 5? Given that facts and opinions provoke similar responses in their defense, it can be hard to tell them apart.
But the difference exists. Suppose that you and your friend stayed up late one night playing video games, and the next morning you read that he was arrested on suspicion of a murder committed at that exact same time. You know he couldn't possibly have committed that murder, since you were with him. Even if all the evidence seemed to point to his guilt, wouldn't you vigorously defend your friend?
It's the same with me. I was there when God did something, so I have firsthand experience. And admittedly, up until then part (not all) of Christianity was theoretical, or at least disconnected, from what I saw in my day-to-day experience. But God stepping in with a miraculous healing was the keystone that completed the arch.
the one right turbo-belief of über-god
:lol: Titled. :)
if some priest tells me that god exists and that jesus died for our sins, what can i do? all i have is his word and a book.
A valid question. I guess the only thing you can do is ask God to prove it to you. I know it sounds lame, but it's ultimately what has to happen.
No; rationality is morally neutral. It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.
Then why are you trying to justify such a ludicrous premise with it?
What with what - rape with rationality? If it's ludicrous, that only proves that it can be used incorrectly as well as correctly. ;)
Well, i think you need to find and read a book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0099288249/sr=8-2/qid=1146643454/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4023011-1869640?%5Fencoding=UTF8), then. :)
Interesting. Perhaps we could each recommend a book to each other? :) (And no, I don't mean the Bible - not yet, anyway. ;))
It's inherently dangerous, I think, to just assume rape is some default behaviour rather than a rare aberration.
Maybe so. And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity. :)
What if I said I have seen a few things in my time myself that I found questionable?
Mostly though, through friends I'd consider fairly intelligent and trustworthy, have heard some seemingly unbelievable tales as well.
My point is, you can't just assume that 1) your the only one in the world that sees and experiences things, and 2) that your way / friends way of viewing things are the most logical and most correct outcomes.
Oh, I wouldn't necessarily disbelieve you. I've seen plenty of strange things as well - the miraculous healing was more akin to a linchpin or keystone than a trump card.
But I would say (and again, I guess I can't help but say it given my perspective) that God was responsible for those unexplainable things, even if they didn't happen in a God-related context.
I would say the same back at you. (minus the part prevented seeing by spiritual forces, - infact was that incinuating the devil was stopping me from seeing it -assume he exists even? o.O ) That you have a very one sighted view, and that you are infact the blind one without exposure to other religeons, ideals, and lives. You've simply accepted the one you've grown up with, assumedly told all your life that your belief was the right one, and that any other interpretation of the world is most likely wrong, and possibly influenced by the devil.
You're assuming that I'm just parrotting what I've been told. Not true - as I've said, I've reached this point through experience. And again, certain beliefs, like the occurrance of present-day miracles, I've only arrived at based on what I've seen in the past year or two.
Part of the problem, which unfortunately can't be helped here, is that you're reading my posts here and now and you didn't have a chance to interview me five years ago. :)
And I don't automatically assume that any belief which doesn't fit within my rigid framework is wrong. In fact, we're supposed to accept correction humbly and with an open mind. I've been won over to an opposing viewpoint many times before, in religion and elsewhere. But this particular thing is a core principle.
-
Well, what can I say to that. Blanket statements such as "God is responsible for every miracle, even the ones claimed by others." one cannot argue against. So many other religeons claim the same thing. Ultimately, its this form of extremism that causes so many of the worlds problems.
The core principal is your particular viewpoint. Many other christians also fight for the right of this research, what say you to that? I guess they are all being influenced by the devil.
Look, I'm not trying to offend, but I see this kind of hard core belief as a basis for many other problems in the world. I see it as arrogant, and inflexible in its fundamental principles. Near every religeon in the world is based on fundamental tenants that basically constitute intolerance and a general distrust of humanity. It's a breeding ground for corruption, exploitation and extremism towards others of different beliefs.
I can respect my beliefs, I can respect your beliefs. Hell, I'll even fight for your right to believe in whatever you like. But here you are using your belief as a basis for why stem cells should not be researched on, the research of which could benefit so many. All it comes down to is that you believe it is a person, I do not. I base my decision on scientific evidence, you base yours on the belief of the existance of a soul, a God, and that the Bible is true. Something that is yet to be proven. Something that rely's on your religeon being right. That I see as wrong on the most basic of levels when we are supposed to be living in a world established on the basis of freedom. You are only trying to impede other's rights, based on the assumption that your beliefs are correct. See the catch?
It's getting to the point where discussion is nearing futility, when you can't even accept that your belief isn't accepted by everyone, and can't see why a law should not be based on this belief of yours.
-
What with what - rape with rationality? If it's ludicrous, that only proves that it can be used incorrectly as well as correctly.
Not when you're using a false premise as basis.
Interesting. Perhaps we could each recommend a book to each other? (And no, I don't mean the Bible - not yet, anyway. )
I've read the bible*. Generally speaking I prefer my fiction to be crime & science fiction novels, though.
* (why do you think I'm an aetheist?)
Maybe so. And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity.
Explain?
-
I was christian, I went to a catholic highschool, it was nice, nice people, and I had to read a whole lot of the Bible, but I must have missed the part were God dicatated to Moses that life begins somewere before the blastisis stage at conception, I do remember a few references to the relationship between life and breathing, but that's about it. your side of the argument is based on belief, but this belief is not based on anything, not even scripture, it's mostly political, and the fact you don't see that is particularly frustrating.
-
This is a very poor analogy. It makes no sense. You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see. On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.
Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted. As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability. What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.
So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses. However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response. :p So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point. :)
I think it's rather daring of you to randomly talk about things that you don't have much background of. What's worse is that you didn't even bother to look up a reference or two to support your claim. Keep in mind that assumption is not the way to make you win a debate :doubt:
-
This is a very poor analogy. It makes no sense. You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see. On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.
Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted. As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability. What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.
So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses. However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response. :p So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point. :)
Cholera (a bacterial infection) spreads as the result of fecal contaminated water rather than any direct transmission from human-human. There's a reduced, if any, survival advantage on a species-level to surviving within the human environment compared to surviving within fecal matter. Remember natural selection is based on environmental pressures.
-
Look, I'm not trying to offend, but I see this kind of hard core belief as a basis for many other problems in the world. I see it as arrogant, and inflexible in its fundamental principles. Near every religeon in the world is based on fundamental tenants that basically constitute intolerance and a general distrust of humanity. It's a breeding ground for corruption, exploitation and extremism towards others of different beliefs.
Standing up for what you believe in is intolerance, eh? So tolerance, then, would be not standing up for any particular thing, swaying in the wind from one belief to another.
As for a general distrust of humanity, that's a valuable thing IMHO. It makes you stop and take a second look at things, and it encourages cautiousness. Blindly trusting in anything is inevitably going to lead to disappointment - either because things didn't turn out the way you thought, or because someone took advantage of that blind trust to stab you in the back.
Take a look at the debate over national ID cards. Which is better: a general distrust of the government and its motives, or a feel-good dismissal of concerns on the grounds that government always has our best interests at heart?
You are only trying to impede other's rights, based on the assumption that your beliefs are correct. See the catch?
And I would counter that by saying that you're coming to a mistaken conclusion because you don't see the whole picture. You are impinging on the fetus's rights because you can't accept that it's a living person.
I've read the bible*. Generally speaking I prefer my fiction to be crime & science fiction novels, though.
* (why do you think I'm an aetheist?)
Ha ha.
I was going to recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310211271/sr=8-1/qid=1146787782/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4633333-1172110?%5Fencoding=UTF8), which was recommended to me by the aforementioned Scott and which I'm currently reading. It's a good read.
Maybe so. And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity.
Explain?
In other words, there are certain cases where humans reproduce prolifically, and certain cases where they don't. I assumed that rape would play a significant part in the former case, whether or not it was the major contributor.
I was christian, I went to a catholic highschool, it was nice, nice people, and I had to read a whole lot of the Bible, but I must have missed the part were God dicatated to Moses that life begins somewere before the blastisis stage at conception, I do remember a few references to the relationship between life and breathing, but that's about it. your side of the argument is based on belief, but this belief is not based on anything, not even scripture, it's mostly political, and the fact you don't see that is particularly frustrating.
Well there's that Psalm where David mentions being in sin from the time of conception; and there's the passage where John the Baptist leaps for joy in the womb; and Jesus being described as conceived by and in the Spirit.
And this isn't political - in fact, I've gotten more and more disgusted with politics over the past two years. It's based on both Scripture and experience. The fact that you don't see that is frustrating for me. :)
I think it's rather daring of you to randomly talk about things that you don't have much background of. What's worse is that you didn't even bother to look up a reference or two to support your claim. Keep in mind that assumption is not the way to make you win a debate :doubt:
Right. :rolleyes: First of all, the cholera thing was something I read in a scientific magazine - I think it was Discover, but I'm not sure - about a year ago. I forgot most of the details, but the core points were that in otherwise identical communities, one community suffered a severe outbreak of cholera and one suffered a mild one. The difference was due to their water supply, and the explanation given was the one I related above.
-
well if you are alive from the moment you are conceived acording to the bible, then why is causeing a woman to miscary not treated as murder in the Bible?
-
If you're referring to that "if a man strikes a woman..." passage, "giving birth prematurely" isn't the same as miscarriage, from what I've heard. But I've also heard that that's a fairly recent interpretation, so I dunno. However, that passage aside, there are plenty of other places in the Bible that support life beginning at conception.
And I've found what may be the article I was thinking about before:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-02/rd/breakbelly/
The article I read was longer than this, so this may be just a summary or a different article altogether. But it shows how cholera would adjust its behavior according to its environment: if there is an abundance of available hosts, the cholera bacterium stays in its virulent form, whereas if hosts are few and far between, it reverts to its less infectious form. I would presume it does this to preserve the host's life long enough for the disease to be passed on.
-
well, this is what the king James version says:
Exodus 21:
"22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
note verse 23, were it talks about giveing life for life, right after it says that the guy should be fined, as if the unborn were property.
-
Look, I'm not trying to offend, but I see this kind of hard core belief as a basis for many other problems in the world. I see it as arrogant, and inflexible in its fundamental principles. Near every religeon in the world is based on fundamental tenants that basically constitute intolerance and a general distrust of humanity. It's a breeding ground for corruption, exploitation and extremism towards others of different beliefs.
Standing up for what you believe in is intolerance, eh? So tolerance, then, would be not standing up for any particular thing, swaying in the wind from one belief to another.
As for a general distrust of humanity, that's a valuable thing IMHO. It makes you stop and take a second look at things, and it encourages cautiousness. Blindly trusting in anything is inevitably going to lead to disappointment - either because things didn't turn out the way you thought, or because someone took advantage of that blind trust to stab you in the back.
Take a look at the debate over national ID cards. Which is better: a general distrust of the government and its motives, or a feel-good dismissal of concerns on the grounds that government always has our best interests at heart?
Look, don't purposely misinterpret what I'm trying to say. Standing up for your beliefs is one thing, I'd stand up for freedom, for civil rights etc, but I would not stand up for stopping scientifically harmless, beneficial research. Ultimately it comes down to you forcing us to accept that souls exist, and that stem cells possess such a thing, to which I say: No thankyou, kind sir. I stand up for my right not to have to believe that.
You are only trying to impede other's rights, based on the assumption that your beliefs are correct. See the catch?
And I would counter that by saying that you're coming to a mistaken conclusion because you don't see the whole picture. You are impinging on the fetus's rights because you can't accept that it's a living person.
Your retort completely relying on me having to accept your faith in being correct, or that a soul exists in a tiny undeveloped cell.
Again, see the catch?
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept this as any kind of basis to prevent research in this area. It is pretentious of you to demand that I submit to your faith being correct, and that stem cells have any sort of resemblence of the existance of a soul. Something I would never see myself accepting, lest christ be reborn and come to my living room and have a chat with me, or I meet the great maker when I die and he clarify's things for me.
-
Ookay... :wtf:
Regardless of our interpretations of what the Bible says about things that were completely incomprehensable those days (like embryotic stem cell research), id doesn't change the fact that if we start using the bible as a basis of our legislation, we have to accept anyone using anything they believe in as the source of their legislation. Like the Quaran. Or anything written down long enough a time ago.
Again, even if you are 100% are about what you believe in, doesn't make your belief a fact. The value of the text in the Bible (any transcription) is completely equal to, say, Veda-scribes of Hindus', or the Quaran, or the book of G'Quan for that part. All may describe real events, but the events were interpreted by people who could possibly have no knowledge of how earthquakes could happen, thus they were miracles and that's it. Same for diseases, seas opening (that really can happen duo interference of low-frequency waves) and stuff like that.
So, it's quite pointless in this conversation to go nitpicking about what the Bible says. I think we should more be concerned about intention of using any religion as basis for legislation.
Okay, that fills my need for rant today. :p
Now to make this message something else than meta-discussion, my view of the origins of morality go along aldo's view. First there was the hunter-gatherers, and convenient things of course were soon noticed. Like, it was noticed that having children with relatives too close would decrease the health of the population. They didn't know the reason for this as we know it now, but they did notice it and it became immoral to have an affair with too close a relative. Same goes for killing, stealing and all the other things like that. Killing members of the society wasn't feasible because it weakened the population, not to mention that these first people had practically al the emotional abilities we do, so they must have quickly noticed that killing made the relatives and close ones of the victim very pissed, which often reluted in more violence, further weakening the society. Thus I believe they quite early developed some system of rules. And this is long before a concept of monotheism (meaning a single personal god) sprouted up behind some moist stone.
Of course you can argue that God is the source of morality the same way he would be the source of anything, If he really made up the universe, but I still see morality more of a by-product of other things defining our personality. I think morality derives from intelligence and emotional abilities, particularly ability to empathy, and is not some kind of a profound characteristic of humanity. If God would have given all the people one set of moral (on style of "apt-get install moral-pack-1.2.2"), wouldn't it be same throughout the world? But it isn't, so if you still think God is the source of moral, he must divinely give the right set of morals to those who serve him. But wait, I've noticed that even amongst christians there are great differences in moral and ethic principles! How is this possible?
It's possible so that the athic thinking is a by-product of intelligence and emotional abilities of human beings, and cultural traditions from thousands of years ago are still vibrant in many places, mixing with ethics, thus forming a set of moral principles.
Also you should be wary of mixing morality with ethics. Ethics is what a person feels to be right or wrong, morality is more like an attribute defining society, being a mixture of the ethics of all the people in it, added with traditions deriving ethics that ages ago dead people had. Religious traditions also add to morality, but they have no effect in ethics IMO.
-
Standing up for what you believe in is intolerance, eh? So tolerance, then, would be not standing up for any particular thing, swaying in the wind from one belief to another.
As for a general distrust of humanity, that's a valuable thing IMHO. It makes you stop and take a second look at things, and it encourages cautiousness. Blindly trusting in anything is inevitably going to lead to disappointment - either because things didn't turn out the way you thought, or because someone took advantage of that blind trust to stab you in the back.
Take a look at the debate over national ID cards. Which is better: a general distrust of the government and its motives, or a feel-good dismissal of concerns on the grounds that government always has our best interests at heart?
Politicians are an entirely different breed from science. In particular, they have different vested interests. Moreso, we can weight advantage-disadvantage in the same manner as ID cards and come up with 'Stem cell research = good'. What Grug is citing as intolerance is that you know you are standing up based on personal belief - opinion - and that taking that stance automatically removes any tolerance (acceptance) of the alternate belief (ignoring the scientific arguement, too). Would you be happy if Shariah law was instated in the US?
And I would counter that by saying that you're coming to a mistaken conclusion because you don't see the whole picture. You are impinging on the fetus's rights because you can't accept that it's a living person.
And the counter is that you are impinging the rights of humanity for the best medical treatment and life by refusing to accept that the foetus is not a person.
The use of 'accept,'I note, involves the assumption you are correct.....the basic belief that Grug must be wrong.
Ha ha.
I was going to recommend this book, which was recommended to me by the aforementioned Scott and which I'm currently reading. It's a good read.
Why ha? I think it's fiction, and dull fiction at that. sorry if that annoys you, but I felt like making the point that it's not a very special book in my eyes, just a mythology.
anyways, I'm not sure there's anything I'd want to read less than a propaganda piece; if it's anything less than a proper neutral scientific book, not a 'here's some stuff we can liberally interpret as God' (first pages of the sample on Amazon - disease are demons), it's useless to me. i'm not interested in being pushed other peoples opinions or philosophies.
In other words, there are certain cases where humans reproduce prolifically, and certain cases where they don't. I assumed that rape would play a significant part in the former case, whether or not it was the major contributor.
So you assumed that rape increases with population booms? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back that up? Because it strikes me that all crimes would increase with population, but to cite rape as a contributor to sudden reproductive spikes you'd need to attribute as a casual factor, and then identify why it became that causal factor.
And I've found what may be the article I was thinking about before:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-02/rd/breakbelly/
The article I read was longer than this, so this may be just a summary or a different article altogether. But it shows how cholera would adjust its behavior according to its environment: if there is an abundance of available hosts, the cholera bacterium stays in its virulent form, whereas if hosts are few and far between, it reverts to its less infectious form. I would presume it does this to preserve the host's life long enough for the disease to be passed on.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/06_02/cholera_trip.shtml
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/efficient_germ_cholera.html
This is not conscious adaptation; let's make that clear. Cholera does not decide 'oh, I'm in a gut, better switch these 'ere genes on and off'.
It's going to be an evolutionary response; cholera bacteria mutations that can selectively (instinctively, to paraphrase) activate defense mechanisms in the gut without losing their natural environment (contaminated water) adaptations are obviously going to prosper. what you seme to be implying by using this as an example (if used correctly) is that in a population growth situation humans would automatically switch to rape because it's more efficient (even thought it isn't) than normal courtship. But that alone ignores that this is triggered (in cholera) by a severe environmental change requiring this activation - i.e. selecting it (offhand IIRc it's protein based) - in order to survive. Rape is, in contrast, in no way whatsoever a survival mechanism.
Basically, it does not do 'this to preserve the host's life long enough for the disease to be passed on'; it does it because the other strains of cholera that don't or didn't were outcompeted by those that did.