Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

[chuboy]

Questionable quotes - you mean to say interpreting them as violent is questionable?

 

[Ghostie]

*sigh*
I'm going to be completely honest here.
Alright, I shouldn't have gone on the internet and used the first source I came to. I know that it's a bad idea, but since I'm not writing a research paper, I just used the first source that popped up, and I barely skimmed it before posting.
That was a mistake on my part. (Using a biased source, ugh) And if I had noticed that evolution was even being brought up, I wouldn't have used it, because I know it's not what was being discussed. Again, it was my own stupid mistake.

When I was in high school, I was told in Physical Science class that we don't know exactly what gravity is, only the laws that govern it. And that it may have something to do with centripetal force. I can't help it if I trusted my teacher. But that's what was said. They must be wrong.

I was never good in science; I'm better at other subjects. But I can still learn, and when I do, I WILL come back with a better argument, and even better sources.

From now on, I'll only make a point when I know for sure I have a good argument. I KNOW there is one, that much I CAN say.

 

[Jb]

I though gravity was the force that keeps objects moving toward the center of an object, "Gravity" is really just a host name, we're already experencing it, so it doesn't really need to be explaned the way I see it,

 

[evolutionrex]

we don't know what gravity is literally, we know what it does and where it's at and how it works, but no one knows what it's made up. we know that matter is made of atoms, but we don't know what gravity is made of. But most modern day physicist believe in Gravitons, which is like proton or electron but much smaller. but that's pretty much off topic.

 

[Ghostie]

Oh, so I was right? That's a relief. Thank you so much!

And sorry for going off topic, I just thought I needed to say those things.

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

Those who take scripture too literally

And therein lies the problem - the Bible includes both laws condoning slavery and stoning and the 'treat others and you would have them treat you,' rule. It is up to individual persons which parts to choose to take literally and which parts to discard and neither person can be 'wrong' or 'immoral' since both come directly from 'God.'

In modern times, Islam provides a greater threat, partly due to questionable quotes from the Quran that advocate violence

Again, the Bible is full of violence, sex, vengeance, and punishment. Just because it is fashionable in the modern age to ignore all that for the 'Jesus loves you,' message doesn't mean it gets off scott free. Historically Islam is the much more progressive religion, and it's only in the last fifty or sixty years that there's been a concerning swing toward fundamentalism as old verses that were ignored became popular again. The same thing could well happen to Christianity or Judaism in the future.

"Gravity" is really just a host name, we're already experiencing it, so it doesn't really need to be explained the way I see it,

The reason why science would want to explain gravity is because it's one of four laws of interaction of the universe, it is what binds matter and brings it together throughout the universe. Just because we experience it doesn't mean we understand it and understanding it more helps us to understand the universe as a whole.

 

[IMPERIAL DRAGON]

Surely that’s much of the problem, that an individual can prescribe to a belief derived from scripture but claim no personal responsibility for the possible immorality of the view, purely because it comes from god and not the individual?

I’m not excusing Christianity’s past atrocities, just meant that in the current political climate, radical religious behaviour has shifted slightly. Christianity does have a dubious history penned with bloody acts, but I meant to highlight that a majority of Christian commotion is now politically motivated, while fundamentalism in the Middle East is increasing in ever more destructive forms. This applies to what chuboy asked too, but both situations apply to the Quran, some quotes are taken out of context, while others, if taken literally, are quite shocking. Same applies to all religious scripture; I just think Islam stands apart right now due to escalating racial and religious tension mounting in Britain because of recent incidents, which many in this country expect will result in some form of holy war.

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

Surely that’s much of the problem, that an individual can prescribe to a belief derived from scripture but claim no personal responsibility for the possible immorality of the view, purely because it comes from god and not the individual?

Yes, that is the exact problem and why basing culture off of religion is detrimental as not only is there no consensus of which parts to take literally and which part God/the writers were 'joking' about.

I just think Islam stands apart right now due to escalating racial and religious tension mounting in Britain because of recent incidents, which many in this country expect will result in some form of holy war.

You are right, I think I was taking some of what you said slightly out of context. While I am no expert on the current situation in Britain, it seems that world-wide the modern swing toward fundamental Islamic principles has caused too many communities to become unstable and I expect that there will be a swing back to more moderate beliefs sometime in the near future. I do hope that widespread violence could be avoided in that regard (maybe even if the Islamic Church as a whole were to swing back of its own accord). That is to say, it seems that much of the extreme and violent fundamentalism was practiced by a noisy minority, and that the Western media's conflation of that group with all Muslim groups (coupled with the constant international politicking in the region) has, over time, caused resentment and anger even among the more moderate believers to the point where we are now.

 

[Profesco]

Modern day Christians are quite impotent as a whole when you think about it, and I mean no disrespect with this comment, but they’ve been reduced to religiously motivated whiners. The crusades are over, no one’s being burnt at the stake anymore, in today’s society, the concerned Christian invades politics with protest and complaints, which, while annoying, is pretty harmless providing their meddling in certain issues is restricted. In modern times, Islam provides a greater threat, partly due to questionable quotes from the Quran that advocate violence, but mainly due to the expanding support of fundamentalism.

No complaints with your post, Imperial Dragon, but I'd like to stress the real political power of modern day Christians. They are certainly not as dangerous as radical Islamists by any means, but they are not harmless or impotent.

I can't say much for Britain, but in the US, it is largely thanks to modern Christians that we are violently divided* on abortion, stem cell research, marriage, sexuality... and those are just the issues in the media every single day. There was a poll, I believe, that showed that a majority of the US population wants a President with strong religious beliefs. Christian politicians and voters are able to hold us back from all kinds of equal rights laws and scientific progress, even kinds that would save millions of lives and cure chronic diseases and disfigurations.

Many people in America live lives right now that are of decidedly worse quality than they should or could be because of the stranglehold the "vocal minority" of Christianity** has on our political machine and our culture.



Edits:

* Extremists of the Christian faith, not Christians as a whole, form the vehement opposition to these natural and necessary rights and life-saving and life-improving medical advances that give American culture its characteristic wide divide between secular liberals and religious conservatives.

** Likewise, it is only the most extreme of Christians that give the religion its bad name in secular opinion, forming what is termed the "vocal minority." While I don't claim that Christianity, or religiosity itself, is a minority voice in our politics, I do stand by my claim that the "vocal minority" of extreme Christians yet exerts a completely disproportionate power over the lives of American citizens.

 

[CSolarstorm]

It is a stinging irony that the same religion that fuels my writing and gets me through the day is also donating large amounts of money to mock homosexuals idly by running campaigns like Proposition 8, and run a counter-counter-counter campaign to keep it alive after the umpteenth judge voted it down and faced the hundredth lawsuit. This is money that could be used to feed the hungry, or hand out blankets to the homeless, or do truly "blessed" things. Most churches do not, in my opinion, do not reflect the blessed is the meek mentality in which they preach, or no church would ever be adorned with a single iconic decoration that they didn't need to. As it is, I do not myself, like churches that worship icons. Rituals actively repulse me, and I sort of wonder whether or not ancient OCD had anything to do with the creation of religion.

But like I said, despite these qualms, it just stings me, because I do in fact identify myself as a Christian (Mormon), even while doublethinking that Christianity is probably a descendant of sun worship. And that God predetermines sexuality and thus blesses and works through bisexuals and homosexuals and doesn't damn them on the criteria of their orientation. I only call something as a sin when I see it hurt someone but I never let the fact that the church that gave me this belief doesn't agree with how I use it get me down. Am I just stubborn? What makes me cling to that and reconcile my religion with my moral conscience?

I have to disagree with you on one thing, Profesco. I am conscious of a high concentration of Catholics in California. Most of my friends are into some brand of Christianity or another. I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Christians in general a "vocal minority" even if the term is relevant to our discussion. You said that a majority of the US population wants a President with strong religious beliefs. That contradicts your conclusion.

I think we are just living in a morally perplexing reality, because, there's a lot of religion to go around, and not enough people using their common sense to make it work for them and not the other way around. And to think it's blasphemy to retool the Bible to "your own purposes" even if the purposes are to stop the ironic pains in your heart because it condemns your parents.

Like Stalin said, ideas are more dangerous than guns. But I am not for gun control. Sadly, religions are ideas, and they are dangerous, and they are, to a point, holding us back. What kind of people would we be though if we tried to violate the wants of a majority of the U.S., though? When democracy and objective morality fight, does anyone win? With the passing of Prop 8, and the passing of all the anti-gay laws in California before that, we saw democracy in action because plausible demographics came and voted for these laws, but then judges voted them down. Now there's all this animosity over "violation of democracy." Is it fair? Isn't following the majority's opinion a basic tenant of respect and thus, when you take it away, it sows animosity and validates the typical view of a condescending, morally self-righteous liberal?

But on the other hand, I see plenty of conservatives who blindly shield themselves with democracy and say "we ought to be able to vote on __ " with no acknowledgement that either somebody already did, and won, or that a republic doesn't let the people vote on everything, whenever they want.

I think it's just all very confusing and I'm not sure I trust this idea of "vocal minority" entirely. It is very possible that much of the U.S. is not behaving the way we, (talking to progressive-minded people) might ideally want them to behave, and that to progress we have a moral dilemma in front of us.

 

[IMPERIAL DRAGON]

It doesn’t surprise me the recent religious tension has not been reported in the American media, considering the British media conducted a pretty blatant ‘damage limitation’ campaign to limit its exposure. Basically, In November there was an incident, incredibly inflammatory and important yet it didn’t receive the appropriate coverage. Here in Britain, November 11th is Armistice Day (I believe America recognises it as Veterans Day?), when on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we observe a two minute silence to commemorate our war dead. In our culture it is quite a significant social event, many people wear red poppies to show support and the British public generally has a very healthy relationship for those who serve in the armed forces, past and present, so the whole country comes to a standstill for the two minutes to show this respect together. Yet in 2010 the two minute silence was broken by Muslim protestors who were ranting and screaming, burning flags and large poppy models, holding banners saying ‘British soldiers burn in hell’, ‘Islam will dominate’ and ‘Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell’. Were they arrested, charged for inciting racial hatred and disrupting the peace, or deported? Nope, in fact they received a police escort to prevent the right wing EDL (English Defence League) from beating the living hell out of them. Even more worrying, this received almost no media coverage, reduced to a tiny paragraph in most newspapers, a page in some newspapers and not even reported on the evening news. Yet, we had various reports on that pastor threatening to burn the Quran, two weeks of ‘snow chaos’ and announcements about which celebrity is pregnant, but the powers that be didn’t think it was relevant to inform us about this extremist activity? The fundamentalists were condemned by politicians and Muslim organisations who do not want to be affiliated with extremists, yet nothing has actually been done. Britain is a tolerant nation, but when I refer to the threat of Islam, this is a perfect example of the dangerous nature of religion. The genuine concerns of the British public is being overlooked, and when the media itself appears to be intentionally omitting information from us, how can an individual make an informed opinion about the state of this country? All the footage from the protest was removed from youtube within three or four hours, but within half a day, facebook groups calling for action against these extremists had reached over a million members, yet this story was not even recognised by mainstream media, which is an absolute travesty. Whether the media intended to prevent a public uproar, it is not the place of media to restrict some information while capitalising on others. If what I’ve written here was widely known, I bet much of the British public would have been galvanised against these fundamentalists, and rightfully so.

And to Profesco, I totally agree with your post. Luckily British politics are not quite as infused with religion as in America, and the issues you mentioned are the exact subjects I believe should be kept free from Christian interference, I just meant that when Christians meddle in politics today, they go about it in a totally different fashion to Islam, which I believe poses a more physical and immediate menace to the western world in the form of the extremist minority. Imagine the difference between Christians waging war with the pen to impose laws and regulations, while the extremists want to rid the west of its people, and then impose their own decrees through bloody means. It’s no wonder tensions are running high.

 

[Tim the turtle]

As it is, I do not myself, like churches that worship icons.

The irony is that the most worshipped idol of Christianity is the very thing that forbids such idolatrous worship. The Bible is obviously the work of fallible men, and yet is often held up as absolute and infallible truth and given a pedestal that it categorically does not deserve.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

I can't say much for Britain, but in the US, it is largely thanks to modern Christians that we are violently divided on abortion, stem cell research, marriage, sexuality.

I find your statement about being divided to be humorous. I am not disputing the fact that people are divided about the issues you mentioned. What you seem to be missing is that it takes two parties to be divided. Without people who are unreligious, there would be no controversy. Same as if there were no religious people. Furthermore, what percentage of either side is violent? Do you mean vehemently opposed? Because the word "violent" tends to conjure up images of force. Do you have data on how many people from each side are violent? If not, it would be best to avoid using such a term.

From your perspective, Christians are holding back scientific progress. But from the perspective of Christians, those that carry out embryonic stem cell research are unnecessarily destroying human life. Now. The decision comes down to this: at what point should an embryo be considered human? If an embryo is a human, then research where the embryo is terminated is murder. If an emrbyo is not human, then embryonic stem cell research is a great thing. The problem arises from the fact that people can't seem to nail down what counts as human. My pastor made a humorous comment about the topic of what should be considered human after hearing about a conference that was held to discuss what characteristics make something human. He said, "We are the only species on this planet that thinks we need conferences to find out what we are! Dogs don't have conferences to determine what dogginess is."

Since the issue is still unsettled, I think the American philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied to embryos. Think about this: if embryos are humans, would you want to be responsible for allowing the murder of thousands of humans? Now, I know that the same question could be applied to those that oppose embryonic stem cell research. But I think that it would be far worse to have obtained valuable cures through murder than to have saved the lives of embryos and foregone pursuing that avenue of research.

One thing I would like to piont out is that the US National Institue of Health's page on stem cells does not list any certain treatments that have been gained form research on embryonic stem cells. It only lists possible treatments/cures. The wikipedia page on the same topic shows this also.

Many people in America live lives right now that are of decidedly worse quality than they should or could be because of the stranglehold the "vocal minority" of Christianity has on our political machine and our culture.

I must also disagree with your comment about the "vocal minority." According to a Gallup poll, 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Furthermore, most of that 78% is comprised of Protestant denominations and Catholic. According to this article, the opinion of some of the largest groups of Christians is that embryonic stem cell research where the embryo is terminated is wrong. Now I do know that not every person in a denomination agrees with the view of the denomination that they belong to. I understand. But how many disagree? That remains to be seen.

Considering what I just elaborated, it isn't really fair to Christianity a "vocal minority", Profesco.

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

the American philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty"

Stop right there.

Let's rephrase that philosophy in more general terms; you cannot make a positive claim about something/someone and be taken seriously until you have sufficient positive evidence that the claim is true ('guilty'). It is up to the person/persons making the positive claim to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason a jury does not vote innocent or guilty; they vote 'guilty' (the burden of proof has been satisfied) and 'not guilty' (the burden of proof is not satisfied, the person may be innocent or guilty, but that will require more evidence). You do not need to be satisfied that the person is innocent to vote not guilty, you may be satisfied that they are, but you needn't be.

Any and every god man has ever thought existed, from Allah to Zeus, is yet to have sufficient positive evidence put forth for their existence. Therefore, most atheists vote 'not guilty' in regards to all gods, as opposed to religious people who vote that way in all but one special case. Some do go further and argue there are no gods, which is a positive claim that does require evidence/reasoned logic.

Therefore, until any one god has sufficient evidence to be considered to be real without faith, governments of multi-faith nations (regardless of who's in the majority) should not be basing large-scale policy decisions that would affect the health and well-being of people we know are alive now on any particular faith.

 

[Profesco]

I have to disagree with you on one thing, Profesco. I am conscious of a high concentration of Catholics in California. Most of my friends are into some brand of Christianity or another. I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Christians in general a "vocal minority" even if the term is relevant to our discussion. You said that a majority of the US population wants a President with strong religious beliefs. That contradicts your conclusion.

Ah, I'm sorry, SunnyC. I composed a post in this thread earlier, including a quote of someone who had said that the Christians in the media were the "vocal minority" and that not all Christians were that unpalatable, or that destructive for society's progress. In this post, I had written that even though the most extreme Christians were the minority of them all, they still had a major influence in American life. Looking back now, I can't find my post - I'll have to assume the forum lag ate it. =/

In any case, I apologize for the confusion. I did not mean to label Christians in their entirety as a vocal minority, merely the extremist section of the religion as a whole, just as with Islam. That's why I used quotation marks - I was supposed to be continuing from my earlier post.

Again, I'm sorry for the mishap. =X

And to Profesco, I totally agree with your post. Luckily British politics are not quite as infused with religion as in America, and the issues you mentioned are the exact subjects I believe should be kept free from Christian interference, I just meant that when Christians meddle in politics today, they go about it in a totally different fashion to Islam, which I believe poses a more physical and immediate menace to the western world in the form of the extremist minority. Imagine the difference between Christians waging war with the pen to impose laws and regulations, while the extremists want to rid the west of its people, and then impose their own decrees through bloody means. It’s no wonder tensions are running high.

Quite so, Imperial Dragon. No disagreements here.

I find your statement about being divided to be humorous. I am not disputing the fact that people are divided about the issues you mentioned. What you seem to be missing is that it takes two parties to be divided. Without people who are unreligious, there would be no controversy. Same as if there were no religious people. Furthermore, what percentage of either side is violent? Do you mean vehemently opposed? Because the word "violent" tends to conjure up images of force. Do you have data on how many people from each side are violent? If not, it would be best to avoid using such a term.

You're absolutely correct, Shiny Sandshrew. I was very lazy in writing that post, and it was my mistake to hastily choose words that had the unfortunate effect of adding a one-sided implication to what was meant to be a moderate statement of the condition. I very much agree with you that "vehemently opposed" is a wholly better phrase.

I must also disagree with your comment about the "vocal minority." According to a Gallup poll, 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Furthermore, most of that 78% is comprised of Protestant denominations and Catholic.

Considering what I just elaborated, it isn't really fair to Christianity a "vocal minority", Profesco.

See my response to SunnyC above. I'm sorry for the confusion I created. You both are right that Christians are not a minority in any sense of the word. I used quotation marks to signify the extremist selection, assuming it would have been a clear meaning if read as a continuation of my earlier post... which doesn't exist. >_>;

But I'll edit my previous post to fix up these mistakes, so we'll be clear again. =)

Therefore, until any one god has sufficient evidence to be considered to be real without faith, governments of multi-faith nations (regardless of who's in the majority) should not be basing large-scale policy decisions that would affect the health and well-being of people we know are alive now on any particular faith.

Gosh, I wish I'd written that.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I find your statement about being divided to be humorous. I am not disputing the fact that people are divided about the issues you mentioned. What you seem to be missing is that it takes two parties to be divided. Without people who are unreligious, there would be no controversy. Same as if there were no religious people.

Granted, it takes two to tango. Both conflicting forces are equally responsible for the conflict. Profesco's statement was not inaccurate though, as techincally, Christians are responsible for the conflict, even if he omitted the other half.

Furthermore, what percentage of either side is violent? Do you mean vehemently opposed? Because the word "violent" tends to conjure up images of force. Do you have data on how many people from each side are violent? If not, it would be best to avoid using such a term.

Let's not avoid saying the truth just because it's going to offend someone, alright?

First, let's recall how the vocal minority relates to this discussion. Ibsweet92 brought the term into this thread. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as the old adage goes, and the vocal minority is the part of either group, athiest or religious, that begs for the most attention to be recognized.

Tragically, religious people will see the vocal minority of athiests call them bible-thumping racist bigots. Because those are the people that speak the loudest. And tragically, athiests will see the vocal minority of Christians holding large signs with hellfire condemning them hell if they don't immediately consign themselves to their religious denomination. In this day and age, because of the media, because of our ways of mass communication, conflicts don't start as much between people, as they do between people, and their reactions to how other people are portrayed.

Violence starts when peaceful involvement does not help, or satisfy someone's mission. The nature of religion means getting involved in social matters to do the work of God, which is after all, the one and only truth. When that can't be done peacefully, even people who are religious, as evidence shows us, turn to violence.

Contemporary Religious Violence Against Athiesm​

That is called religious zealotry. In the context that Profesco is talking about, it comes in the form of gay bashing, which you may remember was the driving force behind the Cyber Bullying thread earlier this year when a gay man was filmed having sex and it was streamed live over the internet - evidence that yes, it does happen, and abortion clinic shoot-outs and bombings.

Contemporary Athiest Violence Against Religion​

I couldn't find anything on Yahoo, would you care to provide examples of modern day continuing phenomenons of athiests organizing and setting fire or shooting...churches, maybe, or literally bashing up Christians because of their religion?

Meanness Towards Christians / Meanness Toward Athiests​

The best I found was a definition of Athiest Extremism, that details ways in which athiests are mean to religious people, or make a variety of cognitive errors in talking to them.

Overgeneralization - Drawing grand conclusions based on isolated examples (e.g., "Because one Christian does something bad, all Christians are bad.").

Dichotomous Thinking - Framing the world in terms of absolutes without acknowledging meaningful gradations (e.g., "Atheists are smart; believers are stupid.").

Disqualifying the Positive - Rejecting positive experiences as somehow not counting in order to preserve one's negative view of some group (e.g., "Christians may give a lot to charity but only to promote their agenda of brainwashing.").

And forgive me, but I can provide exampls of Christians using all three of these cognitive errors as well.

Overgeneralization - Drawing grand conclusions based on isolated examples (e.g., "Because one Athiest does something bad, all Athiests are bad.").

Dichotomous Thinking - Framing the world in terms of absolutes without acknowledging meaningful gradations (e.g., "Christians are moral; athiests are amoral because they don't believe in anything.").

Disqualifying the Positive - Rejecting positive experiences as somehow not counting in order to preserve one's negative view of some group (e.g., "Athiests may have made significant advances in science, but only so that they can start populations reduction.").

That last one may actually be right. XD

From your perspective, Christians are holding back scientific progress. But from the perspective of Christians, those that carry out embryonic stem cell research are unnecessarily destroying human life. Now. The decision comes down to this: at what point should an embryo be considered human?

The decision does not stop there. It also comes down to whether or not there are degrees of humanity. See, you seemed to take a singular "it's human, that's it" stance and that already assumed too much. It will not perturb pro-choicers, because while a fetus as defined under what can and should be legally aborted is human, those who observe degrees of humanity will point out that the mother is a more complex being, an example of a conssumate human, farther along in her development and thus has the right of authority over her fetus, which is by comparison not as complete. It goes into women's reproductive rights as well.

Since the issue is still unsettled, I think the American philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied to embryos.

You only take for granted that the issue is unsettled, because your side is the one that is unsettled by it - and you are the one making the issue unsettled here. A rather circular assumption of authority on your part.

Think about this: if embryos are humans, would you want to be responsible for allowing the murder of thousands of humans?

This is almost...non sequitor. First of all, if is conditional, and it is impulsive to make a decision on an "if" without satisfaction of the burden of proof.

Second, we are allowing for the murder of thousands of humans with our tax dollars. In war. Oh, but with the exception of innocent civilians (a lot of them...) these are guilty parties so it okay.

Then we are allowing for the murder of comatose patients.

This is just assuming that we are responsible for wherever our tax dollars are going, because we largely incapable of affecting that. If you don't assume that, then "we" would not even be responsible for abortions, it would just be the mother, and the doctor who are the responsible parties, exactly how liberals intend it to be.

I must also disagree with your comment about the "vocal minority." According to a Gallup poll, 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Furthermore, most of that 78% is comprised of Protestant denominations and Catholic. According to this article, the opinion of some of the largest groups of Christians is that embryonic stem cell research where the embryo is terminated is wrong. Now I do know that not every person in a denomination agrees with the view of the denomination that they belong to. I understand. But how many disagree? That remains to be seen.

Considering what I just elaborated, it isn't really fair to Christianity a "vocal minority", Profesco.

I should make it clear I agree.

 

[Profesco]

SunnyC, I hope you catch my post right up there, and I hope I properly explained myself and my mistake. I'm apologizing again, because my remarks previously were indeed inaccurate - and I feel they may even have been disrespectful - without the context provided by my lag-devoured earlier post. It's not usually in my repertoire to be blatantly disrespectful (or inaccurate ), so I feel very abashed by that mishap. =<

Also, ShinySandshrew, I don't mean to ignore the portion of your post that deals with abortion and fetus status, it's just that such a discussion is a whole debate separate from this one, and I don't want to get into it here.

 

[CSolarstorm]

SunnyC, I hope you catch my post right up there, and I hope I properly explained myself and my mistake. I'm apologizing again, because my remarks previously were indeed inaccurate - and I feel they may even have been disrespectful - without the context provided by my lag-devoured earlier post. It's not usually in my repertoire to be blatantly disrespectful (or inaccurate ), so I feel very abashed by that mishap. =<

Also, ShinySandshrew, I don't mean to ignore the portion of your post that deals with abortion and fetus status, it's just that such a discussion is a whole debate separate from this one, and I don't want to get into it here.

Aw they weren't that disrespectful, not to me at least. I can see the mistake is understandable. I was too busy perfecting the format of my last post to catch up on yours. =(

I agree that we should keep out the abortion arguments and homosexuality arguments for the other thread, but it is hard not to get into them here because they are usually dragged in somehow.

 

[GhostAnime]

I'm baaackkk...

From your perspective, Christians are holding back scientific progress. But from the perspective of Christians, those that carry out embryonic stem cell research are unnecessarily destroying human life. Now. The decision comes down to this: at what point should an embryo be considered human?

Don't even think about it. Stem cell research is essentially do you care more about already living humans vs some dead embryo that's going to rot in the trash can. The debate is half fact and half fiction. It's not done on LIVE embryos for crying out loud.

One thing I would like to piont out is that the US National Institue of Health's page on stem cells does not list any certain treatments that have been gained form research on embryonic stem cells. It only lists possible treatments/cures. The wikipedia page on the same topic shows this also.

So simply because it doesn't talk about what we've done with it, means they don't exist? That's not evidence of anything. You just went to a general information page. All it takes is more research which you clearly did not do.

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/14/bio-3233/

Here is the most recent breakthrough.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-10-diseases-they-may--or-may-not--cure.html

Here are some of the potentials you MAY be talking about.

Regardless, stem cell research can obviously be helpful and harms no living person. You ARE holding science back when you willfully say that you don't want to find more cures for the sake for something that would just be tossed away in a trash bin otherwise.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

What he said....

Ok. Few things here: I know that "guilty" and "not guilty" are the terms used by a jury. What I am talking about is this.

As you said, the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. But what you're forgetting is the fact that at one point the people making the assertion that abortion was ok were the people on whom the burden of proof rested. And according to the Presumption of Innocence (rule/premise/whatever), the people who are asserting something must convince the jury/judge beyond a reasonable doubt. And what did the judges in Roe V. Wade say? "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Folks, I think that's called reasonable doubt. You seem to be making this a case of "It's legal now, so you're the one who has to provide the evidence" when that is not the case.



Before I begin my response to you SunnyC, I think it would be best for me to state that the word I should have used was, "proportion," not percent. Proportion is what I'm wondering about, not percent.

That is called religious zealotry. In the context that Profesco is talking about, it comes in the form of gay bashing, which you may remember was the driving force behind the Cyber Bullying thread earlier this year when a gay man was filmed having sex and it was streamed live over the internet - evidence that yes, it does happen, and abortion clinic shoot-outs and bombings.

Do you know what I found when I searched that article on gay bashing for the words "religion", "God", "Christian", and "Jesus"? One use of the word, "godless" and two references to Christianity in the "Further Reading" section. No reference to God, no references to Christians being responsible for gay bashing, and no references at all about Jesus. So, on that article, SunnyC...you missed.

I do acknowledge that the article on anti-abortion violence mentions people who are religious and even Christian. But that does not tell me what the percent or even the proportion of the people who committed those crimes are Christian or religious. On that page there are 25 incidents (if you count the ones that are two categories of crimes that happened in the same incident) from the US and Canada. Do you want to know the official total for anti-abortion violence in the US and Canada since 1977? 7066 incidents. Over 33 years. That comes out to approx. 214 incidents. Per year. In two large countries.(This is counting all the things that this website lists as violence and bomb threats and hoax devices.)
Now take the 25 incidents that the article listed. If we assume that all the incidents mentioned were committed for religious purposes (which is not true because the article shows at least one that was not committed for religious reasons), that comes out 11.79% of the average number of violent anti-abortion instances. Just going on that evidence is not enough to conclude that Christians are the people who primarily commit these acts. More information would be necessary before that could be shown to be the case.

So once again, SunnyC...you missed.

The decision does not stop there. It also comes down to whether or not there are degrees of humanity. See, you seemed to take a singular "it's human, that's it" stance and that already assumed too much. It will not perturb pro-choicers, because while a fetus as defined under what can and should be legally aborted is human, those who observe degrees of humanity will point out that the mother is a more complex being, an example of a conssumate human, farther along in her development and thus has the right of authority over her fetus, which is by comparison not as complete. It goes into women's reproductive rights as well.

I will not comment on this much because, as Profesco said, that is a different topic. But permit me to say this much. Since you indicate that is possible for an entity's degree of human-ness to increase during the entity's life, wouldn't it stand to reason that an entity's human-ness can decrease as well? Be careful, SunnyC because that argument stands on a slippery slope. Those ideas could be very dangerous in the hands of a government. (And before anyone tries to accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy, the fact that using degrees of human-ness to determine rights has already been established as a true slippery slope.)

You only take for granted that the issue is unsettled, because your side is the one that is unsettled by it - and you are the one making the issue unsettled here. A rather circular assumption of authority on your part.

See my response to Sabonea_Masukippa. That sums up why the matter should at least be considered unsettled.

This is almost...non sequitor. First of all, if is conditional, and it is impulsive to make a decision on an "if" without satisfaction of the burden of proof.

Second, we are allowing for the murder of thousands of humans with our tax dollars. In war. Oh, but with the exception of innocent civilians (a lot of them...) these are guilty parties so it okay.

Then we are allowing for the murder of comatose patients.

This is just assuming that we are responsible for wherever our tax dollars are going, because we largely incapable of affecting that. If you don't assume that, then "we" would not even be responsible for abortions, it would just be the mother, and the doctor who are the responsible parties, exactly how liberals intend it to be.

I should have worded my statement better. But the one thing you are forgetting is that we the people can vote on laws that are passesd, we can sign petitions, we can contact our senators and representatives and let our voices be heard. The general populace is not without means of recourse when the government does something that its citizens don't like.

Also, ShinySandshrew, I don't mean to ignore the portion of your post that deals with abortion and fetus status, it's just that such a discussion is a whole debate separate from this one, and I don't want to get into it here.

Bless you. That makes my work that much easier!

Don't even think about it. Stem cell research is essentially do you care more about already living humans vs some dead embryo that's going to rot in the trash can. The debate is half fact and half fiction. It's not done on LIVE embryos for crying out loud.

Really now? According to this source, embryos that are viable are donated for use in embryonic stem cell research. Also, I found this page about what the Connecticut Fertility Associates does with unused embryos. It does not mention anything about the embryos having to be inviable before they can be donated to embryonic stem cell research.

So simply because it doesn't talk about what we've done with it, means they don't exist? That's not evidence of anything. You just went to a general information page. All it takes is more research which you clearly did not do.

Don't you think that if there were any instances of cures that were discovered through embryonic stem cells that they would say it right there, for everyone to hear? Furthermore, this page of the website goes against your claim about the cures.

I admit that I did not do a lot of research when I made that post, but you might want to be careful how you make accusations, GhostAnime. Why? You'll see in a minute...

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/14/bio-3233/ Here is the most recent breakthrough.

The second paragraph of that article was all I needed to read. "In 2008, German doctors reported they had used a selective adult stem cell transplant to treat a leukemia patient. The treatment had a side effect — that the transplant also removed his HIV infection." [Emphasis added]

GA, in the same post where you told me that I didn't do enough research, you used an article as a piece of evidence that by no means proved your claim. I did a search for the word "embryo" and found nothing! At the very least, you are guilty of the exact thing you accused me of! GhostAnime, and I say this with confidence, you needed to do more research.

Regardless, stem cell research can obviously be helpful and harms no living person. You ARE holding science back when you willfully say that you don't want to find more cures for the sake for something that would just be tossed away in a trash bin otherwise.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the use of adult stem cells. As long as they are legally obtained, I have no problems with them. But to make the generalization that you made without specifying what kind of stem cells you are talking about unfairly colors the debate. Now, to make my view clear, I find no problem with embryonic stem cell research that is carried out on embryos that were not killed for the purpose of the research. I have not yet seen evidence that the majority of embryos that are used for embryonic stem cell research are dead before they are donated to science.


I am done with discussing the above topics in this thread.