[aldo_14]

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.

[Goober5000]

So the weight of thousands of years of religious history doesn't matter?

[aldo_14]

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?

[StratComm]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Eightball]

There are scientists and doctors out there who view fetuses as human beings.

"Science" usually isn't one ironclad single opinion.

[karajorma]

There are scientists and doctors out there who view fetuses as human beings.

Generally for religious reasons though.

[aldo_14]

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).

[Grug]

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.

[Goober5000]

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.

[Turambar]

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?

[Grug]

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?

[Ghostavo]

Cows are sacred beings with self awareness, no one may eat them or imprison them...

[aldo_14]

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.

[Goober5000]

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.

[aldo_14]

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?

[Goober5000]

(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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Grug]

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.