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

[GhostAnime]

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.

Yes. Parents can elect to donate unused embryos to others seeking fertility treatment, a practice sometimes called embryo adoption. But few parents choose to do so. For every embryo that is donated to others, more than 100 embryos are discarded. Currently, more than 400,000 embryos are frozen in fertility clinics, and most will eventually be discarded.

http://www.umich.edu/stemcell/faq/#section3

In short, yes, there are people who donate embryos "that could have grown", but the vast majority would otherwise be discarded.

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.

First, why would it be right there on that particular website only? There's only one website in the world that talks about stem cell research?

And I'm trying to interpret your page.. what is it supposed to tell me?

Scientists have been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) only since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Although hESCs are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

Even my own link says the same thing.

Some have criticized embryonic stem cell research by arguing that adult stem cells have delivered more treatments, but that observation is misleading. While adult stem cells have been studied for decades, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. There has not yet been time to develop new therapies using embryonic stem cells.

I'm not sure how this is a pro for you yet. Barely any research has been done enough.

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.

I thought we were debating about stem cell research. If you can find cures for an adult one, why wouldn't you be able to find even MORE with embryo ones?

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.

I posted evidence in my last link.

Thousands of embryos that cannot be used for fertility treatment are discarded as medical waste each year by IVF clinics. Embryos are discarded for a variety of reasons. Some do not develop normally, while others are found to carry genetic defects that cause serious disease. Some parents simply choose to discard leftover embryos when they are done with fertility treatment. With the parents’ consent, embryos slated for disposal can be used by researchers to derive embryonic stem cells.

Make a choice: discard embryos in a trash can or use them for the greater good?

The embryos used for stem cell research are about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

Hehe.

 

[.TraX.]

The big negative about basing culture and/or law off religion is that even people of the same religion and even the same subsection of that religion can't agree on a bunch of middle-ground social issues.

P.s. arguing that certain parts of the bible are "just metaphors" means you really shouldn't take anything (from the same book at the very least) in there literally.

 

[Immortalis]

I just saw this thread, and I really have to say something about it.
The big downside is that 90% of all wars are started because of religion. Don't deny it. Terrorists and religious, and blow themselves and others up because of it. I really hate religion, everything is done "in the name of god" and everything that happens is because "god wanted it to happen". I've seen some stuff on Discovery Channel, don't even remember it that much but I think it was after the Earthquake in Haiti. There was this guy and his wife and kids all died, and his sick grandmother too. He had nothing left, and wanna know what he said? "God wanted this to happen"... That is just bullsh1t, excuse the word I use but it's neccesary. I mean, why doesn't he think "god killed my wife, kids and grandmother, he's the biggest jerk ever" instead of "god wanted it to happen"? And second of all, god doesn't exist. It's been proven over and over. God didn't make humans, big bang thingy did. That pope recently accepted it, but now he comes with "god made the big bang", are you kidding me? A long long time ago, people couldn't explain certain things when they happened, so they imagined that there was some kinda god that did it all. That's how it started. And I also think that it's kinda ridiculous, that while for example here in Sweden, you can build those muslim houses (forgot what they're called), churches and all that kinda stuff, but it's against the law to build a church for those who want to honour the old "gods" like Thor and those? And it's forbidden to build satanic churches too? Aren't we all allowed to choose our own religion?
Anyways, just recently I read that Obama wanted to make a (again, sorry for not knowing what it's called in English) muslim house on Ground Zero. That's ridiculous, that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life. As if he wants to say "hey terrorists, blow up whatever you want and we'll build free muslim houses for you on that place!"

 

[ShinySandshrew]

In short, yes, there are people who donate embryos "that could have grown", but the vast majority would otherwise be discarded.

Let me quote your previous post.

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.

Now. If you weren't trying to say that dead embryos were used for embryonic stem cell research, what were you trying to say?

Even my own link says the same thing. I'm not sure how this is a pro for you yet. Barely any research has been done enough....I thought we were debating about stem cell research. If you can find cures for an adult one, why wouldn't you be able to find even MORE with embryo ones?

GhostAnime, in the post that you first responded to, I said that there aren't cures yet that are made from embryonic stem cells! Furthermore, each time you quoted me in your first response to me, I used the phrase embryonic stem cells. Also, in the post that you first responded to, there was only one time where I did not use the word embryonic in conjunction with the words stem cell. That time was when I was referring to stem cells in general.

So, GhostAnime, as we say around here, reading fail. And since reading is an important part of research and debate, research and debate fail.

Hehe.

Now this is something that I have to respond to. GhostAnime, you know that you would be all over TFP or me if we said anything like that to you. You would be offended and would call us arrogant. I'm not really offended by this but the reason I'm making an issue of your statement is because that is not good practice for debates. It is rude and even arrogant. I'm calling you out for doing something that you wouldn't accept from others (especially conservatives).

The big downside is that 90% of all wars are started because of religion. Don't deny it.

90%, eh? Prove it.

And second of all, god doesn't exist. It's been proven over and over. God didn't make humans, big bang thingy did.

In response, let me paraphrase a signature that user on this forum had. "Since science can only describe the observable, detectable universe, 'There is no God' is necessarily a statement of faith."

Anyways, just recently I read that Obama wanted to make a (again, sorry for not knowing what it's called in English) muslim house on Ground Zero. That's ridiculous, that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life. As if he wants to say "hey terrorists, blow up whatever you want and we'll build free muslim houses for you on that place!"

Unless there's been another instance that I haven't heard of, Obama was not the one directly responsible for the construction of the building you are talking about.

 

[Immortalis]

90%, eh? Prove it.

Sorry, I don't have any evidence, but you know it's true.
In return, prove that god exists.

Unless there's been another instance that I haven't heard of, Obama was not the one directly responsible for the construction of the building you are talking about.

Nope he wasn't, but he was the one that came up with the idea though, and that's just as bad as being directly responsible in my opinion.

 

[Tim the turtle]

In response, let me paraphrase a signature that user on this forum had. "Since science can only describe the observable, detectable universe, 'There is no God' is necessarily a statement of faith."

That's a whole other debate in and of itself, though personally I think it assumes a false dichotomy. Science and faith need not be the only two things that can verify the existence of something (indeed faith by definition cannot verify the existence of anything). Logic, philosophy and mathematics can all be used to test whether something can or cannot exist, with varying degrees of success. We obviously have not done so in the case of God yet, but I don't see any of those three things being a mere part of faith or science (although logic and mathematics obviously do have their roles to play in science).

 

[Grei]

And second of all, god doesn't exist. It's been proven over and over. God didn't make humans, big bang thingy did. That pope recently accepted it, but now he comes with "god made the big bang", are you kidding me? A long long time ago, people couldn't explain certain things when they happened, so they imagined that there was some kinda god that did it all. That's how it started.

God hasn't been proven to exist, but that doesn't mean he's been proven to not exist. It doesn't matter how God started or how he's revered now. The point is, things like God and what He has done is entirely up in the air, just the way faith is intended to be. It's called faith for a reason--because you have to believe in it. If it was proven either which way, it wouldn't really be faith.

(-Cue some nit-picky person to come in and tell me "Well, technically, faith is this...", which isn't the point anyway.)

Anyways, just recently I read that Obama wanted to make a (again, sorry for not knowing what it's called in English) muslim house on Ground Zero. That's ridiculous, that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life. As if he wants to say "hey terrorists, blow up whatever you want and we'll build free muslim houses for you on that place!"

You've got it all wrong. Islam is not an evil religion, nor is it a "terrorist religion." What happened on 9/11 was the act of Muslim extremists.

Note the word "extremists." They were not just any old Muslims that came and did this, they were extremists. People who is so heavily engrossed in their religion and so blinded by their faith that they only see other religions, other beliefs, other ways of life as wrong, simply because they do not align with their own religion, beliefs, and way of life.

An extremist cannot be used as a representative of a religion. It simply cannot.

The building of a Mosque did not need to be that big of a deal. I would say it would have been better to wait, but waiting would only make it worse (or at least, it wouldn't make it any better) because people will always think of Ground Zero with hatred towards the Muslims who committed the awful attacks. And the media does not help this. The common stereotype of Muslims in America is the suicide bomber who loves violence and wants nothing more than to kill themselves and take as many innocent people with them as possible, but this stereotype is not true. But because so many people follow this stereotype, the building of the Mosque became a huge deal when it really shouldn't have been.

Comparatively, think of if a Christian or Buddhist building were to be placed on Ground Zero. Nobody would think anything of it. However, because a few extremist Muslims created Ground Zero, that religion is now looked down upon as a religion for barbaric terrorists. While I think that building a Mosque on Ground Zero really isn't the best place to put it, you're only feeding the ignorance and stereotype when you freak out about it because really, it's just another building for just another religion that anyone can choose to believe in.

tl;dr don't be so ignorant and be fooled into thinking that Islam is an awful religion simply because the media tells us that it is so. It's just another religion and the building of a Mosque is in no way praising the extremists that misrepresent the Muslim religion.

 

[GhostAnime]

Now. If you weren't trying to say that dead embryos were used for embryonic stem cell research, what were you trying to say?

The majority of embryos used in stem cell research would otherwise end in a trash bin. That statement still stands.

I guess dead is a bit of a word error (but I see no difference between that and the trash).

GhostAnime, in the post that you first responded to, I said that there aren't cures yet that are made from embryonic stem cells! Furthermore, each time you quoted me in your first response to me, I used the phrase embryonic stem cells. Also, in the post that you first responded to, there was only one time where I did not use the word embryonic in conjunction with the words stem cell. That time was when I was referring to stem cells in general.

So, GhostAnime, as we say around here, reading fail. And since reading is an important part of research and debate, research and debate fail.

Okay, so if we're going to talk about the topic at hand, little research has been done on embryos. Again, what's your point? They CAN still produce cures.

Now this is something that I have to respond to. GhostAnime, you know that you would be all over TFP or me if we said anything like that to you. You would be offended and would call us arrogant. I'm not really offended by this but the reason I'm making an issue of your statement is because that is not good practice for debates. It is rude and even arrogant. I'm calling you out for doing something that you wouldn't accept from others (especially conservatives).

I just found the fact humorous. I mean, is it the quote that bothers you or the hehe?

 

[CSolarstorm]

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.

No, that's exactly the case...that is the comfort given to something that becomes law. This is a circular assumption of authority given that the party depending on the question being open are the people keeping the question open.

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.

If I threw twenty arrows at you, and only two of them hit, does that really mean that I 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.

Except, my goal was not to conclude that Christians are the people who primarily commit these acts. It was to conclude that there is violent opposition on the part of those religious to political matters they oppose, like homosexuality and abortion, and I provided evidence of that. There is also an athiest opposition to homosexuality and abortion, but the original point was to compare religious violence against athiesm to athiestic violence against religion so that is sort of a non sequitor on my point.

Not saying that you don't have a good point, it just doesn't relate to what I was saying, so I don't think I could have "missed".

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?

Um, no. There, that much is solved. Not going to continue an argument based on an assumption. When there is a line drawn, it has been drawn.

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.)

Abortion is not necessarily the gateway drug to another holocaust. Especially since we already have the former in consideration and we can't go through anything without invoking Godwin's Law.

You would really dramatically declare (with ellipsis) "...you missed." just because I didn't satisfy you on the points I made, and then accuse someone else of being arrogant and rude for laughing? Were you really offended, or just eager to demonstrate that I wasn't the only one who could act offended? You shouldn't imitate or reciprocate what you didn't approve of in the first place or things just get more complicated

Nope he wasn't, but he was the one that came up with the idea though, and that's just as bad as being directly responsible in my opinion.

Obama did not "come up with the idea". The Cordoba Initiative did, and they started developing it long before it became a national issue and Obama made any sort of comment on it.

 

[Immortalis]

tl;dr don't be so ignorant and be fooled into thinking that Islam is an awful religion simply because the media tells us that it is so. It's just another religion and the building of a Mosque is in no way praising the extremists that misrepresent the Muslim religion.

Alright, I won't answer to all your lines because I simply can't be bothered at the moment and I'm tired, but the last part just sounded so stupid. The Islam IS an awful religion, at least in my eyes. And I don't give a damn about what the media says, the media never tells us the WHOLE story behind everything, only the things that might be interesting to know. And the media always just tells bad things. Murder here, suicide there, robbery there, torture here, bla bla bla... Anyways, back to topic. Yes, it is just a building that represents another religion, but don't build it on freaking Ground Zero. Seriously, use you're common sense? Wether it were extremists that attacked the Twin Towers or normal muslims I don't care, it were muslims nonetheless. Maybe it's just me because I grew up in a neighbourhood full of muslims that couldn't behave or learn the language, maybe it's because my school was 90% muslim and that at least once a week I got beaten up by a "gang" of those punks just because I wasn't muslim or looked like a normal kid, but I can tell you that I strongly dislike any muslim before I've even met them (and while we're at it any christian too) and there's nothing racist about it. That's right, and don't tell me I'm racist just because I dislike them, I dislike christians too and apparently that's perfectly okay in everyone's eyes just because most christians are white, not black. But that's another discussion so nevermind.

Comparatively, think of if a Christian or Buddhist building were to be placed on Ground Zero. Nobody would think anything of it. However, because a few extremist Muslims created Ground Zero, that religion is now looked down upon as a religion for barbaric terrorists.

Gee, I wonder why.. Maybe because it actually is a religion for terrorists?

I do have one question for the Atheists, which is not meant to belittle you in any way. I just have always wondered this. Why, if there was even the slightest chance that you could be eternally happy forever, would you not take that chance?

Yes, I would take the chance, but not if it meant I would have to believe in something that doesn't exist (Yeah yeah yeah, I know, "there's no prove for that" bla bla bla, I don't care alright..) or let my life be ruled by some ancient book, I would refuse. BUT happiness is just a... Point of view I suppose. I'm as happy as I can be right now outside of school, I got everything I want and everything I can wish for and I worked my *** of to be where I am. Happiness isn't like something you get for free, you gotta do something for it, you can't sit and wait for luck and happiness, you have to work for it and have to do stuff for it.


And I find it quite funny that most of the people that post here almost only talk about christianity, while this thread is actually about all religions (buddhism, islam, christianity etc etc..).

 

[erebus]

I do have one question for the Atheists, which is not meant to belittle you in any way. I just have always wondered this. Why, if there was even the slightest chance that you could be eternally happy forever, would you not take that chance?

This is just one of the many issues that come up when you ask yourself the question; 'which road is the right one?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

 

[GhostAnime]

Because pascal's wager is a joke. What would eternal happiness be like, anyway? Does it even exist? How can anyone be eternally happy, considering our minds?

They would have to be changed by force for us to be eternally happy.

Not saying that's the reason I disbelieve, but rather believing in God just for the sake of happiness isn't really high on his "Heaven List" in the first place.

And I find it quite funny that most of the people that post here almost only talk about christianity, while this thread is actually about all religions (buddhism, islam, christianity etc etc..).

The western world is dominated and influenced by Christianity. If there's a muslim debate forum, then Islam would be the topic of discussion.

It just goes to show you that religion is more based off of our own culture than it ever will be of anything supernatural.

 

[Grei]

The Islam IS an awful religion, at least in my eyes. Maybe it's just me because I grew up in a neighbourhood full of muslims that couldn't behave or learn the language, maybe it's because my school was 90% muslim and that at least once a week I got beaten up by a "gang" of those punks just because I wasn't muslim or looked like a normal kid, but I can tell you that I strongly dislike any muslim before I've even met them (and while we're at it any christian too) and there's nothing racist about it. That's right, and don't tell me I'm racist just because I dislike them, I dislike christians too and apparently that's perfectly okay in everyone's eyes just because most christians are white, not black. But that's another discussion so nevermind.

I'll say this now: Your own personal bias =/= an actual fact. Islam may be an awful religion to you, and thankfully you added on the "at least in my eyes" part, because quite frankly that isn't a more misguided sentence. I can compare it to my own school. My school is probably at least half-Mexican now. For whatever reason, immigrants from Mexico (illegal or not illegal, doesn't matter) are commonly coming to my own city (even though I live close to Lake Michigan, on the opposite... side... of the country... ) and so now my school is heavily comprised of Mexicans. From this, I've seen a lot of Mexicans being rude, thoughtless, mean, and threatening to my own well-being. But I am conscious of the fact that these Mexicans do not represent the entire Mexican culture and nationality.

It's similar to the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the oil," only with negative connotations (and with "oil" being replaced with a broader term, like "attention"). The ones who make the most noise, the biggest stir, the largest controversy, are the ones who get the most attention. In this case, the Muslims in your neighborhood caused big problems and so they got the most attention. Similarly, those Muslim extremists that attacked on 9/11 caused the biggest stir and so the media gave them the most attention.

But does this mean we all should just be mindless and think, "Well, they're getting the most attention and so we should judge their entire group based on them"? No. Not in the slightest, and if this is what everyone is resorting to, our society is facing an intellectual crisis.

Gee, I wonder why.. Maybe because it actually is a religion for terrorists?

:|

OK, what? I really hope you aren't trying to sound this stupid. This, right here, is a prime example of the ignorance of society. This is sick.

No. Islam is not a religion for terrorists simply because some terrorists within the Muslim religion caught the attention of the entire freaking world. A terrorist is anyone "who causes terror." This is not limited to a single religion or sect, it's universal. There will be terrorists in every group--Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Blacks, Whites, Gays, Straights, you name it.

I really hope you realize just how ignorant you are by saying such claims. I'd suggest actually looking into the Muslim religion before saying "Islam is a terrorist religion." You're only helping the intellectual decay of our society when you continue to dabble in stupidity.

 

[Immortalis]

I'll say this now: Your own personal bias =/= an actual fact. Islam may be an awful religion to you, and thankfully you added on the "at least in my eyes" part, because quite frankly that isn't a more misguided sentence. I can compare it to my own school. My school is probably at least half-Mexican now. For whatever reason, immigrants from Mexico (illegal or not illegal, doesn't matter) are commonly coming to my own city (even though I live close to Lake Michigan, on the opposite... side... of the country... ) and so now my school is heavily comprised of Mexicans. From this, I've seen a lot of Mexicans being rude, thoughtless, mean, and threatening to my own well-being. But I am conscious of the fact that these Mexicans do not represent the entire Mexican culture and nationality.

Ah, now we're almost on the same level.
No, indeed they don't, but they do represent the majority. And if they come to our country, they should learn the language, learn the culture, accept everything that "normal" people do. I take it for granted you understand that.

It's similar to the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the oil," only with negative connotations (and with "oil" being replaced with a broader term, like "attention"). The ones who make the most noise, the biggest stir, the largest controversy, are the ones who get the most attention. In this case, the Muslims in your neighborhood caused big problems and so they got the most attention. Similarly, those Muslim extremists that attacked on 9/11 caused the biggest stir and so the media gave them the most attention.

I don't give a damn about the media, or what kind of muslims attack the Twin Towers, or that the ones that cause the most trouble get the most attention. They come to OUR country, and then they also think they can act around like idiots, not even trying to learn the language? 3 years ago, me and my family moved to Sweden, just because Holland was full of muslims and because of the trouble I've had so far, and a week after we got here, I started learning Swedish, alright. I studied Swedish day and night for 4 months, and after 4 months I could understand what everyone said, I could talk with people without problems or anything like that. I learned the language out of respect for the people that originally live here, to show I'm not just like all the others who don't take time to learn the language, the culture and stuff like that.

:|

OK, what? I really hope you aren't trying to sound this stupid. This, right here, is a prime example of the ignorance of society. This is sick.

No. Islam is not a religion for terrorists simply because some terrorists within the Muslim religion caught the attention of the entire freaking world. A terrorist is anyone "who causes terror." This is not limited to a single religion or sect, it's universal. There will be terrorists in every group--Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Blacks, Whites, Gays, Straights, you name it.

I really hope you realize just how ignorant you are by saying such claims. I'd suggest actually looking into the Muslim religion before saying "Islam is a terrorist religion." You're only helping the intellectual decay of our society when you continue to dabble in stupidity.

Society? Okay please man, stop with all that society and media crap, I don't care about either one of them. And I have looked into the muslim religion, and there is my problem. I had to study that freaking religion for 3 freaking months before because we had a test about it. A test about the islam, in Holland. A huge test. And even though I hate almost all religions, I've gotta say that I rather learn about christianity then about the islam. It makes more sense to learn about christianity in a christian country then to learn about the islam. I know more about the islam then about the christianity, which is fine, because you've gotta know the most important things about something you hate.

Burning churches is the coolest thing to do in Norway, or at least it was the coolest thing to do, where the Black Metal scene was created, and it's a shame we didn't move to Norway instead, I would love to see a church burning.

 

[GhostAnime]

Immortalis I have to unfortunately agree with Grei. Your opinion is truly a product of the media and possibly society. Even if you say it isn't, that doesn't mean it isn't.

The majority of muslims are not terrorists at all. There are in fact Christian terrorists (they may not even terrorize the same way.. hint hint).

Understand that your opinion for the most part is extreme and misguided. It is honestly no different than stereotyping races.

 

[Immortalis]

Immortalis I have to unfortunately agree with Grei. Your opinion is truly a product of the media and possibly society. Even if you say it isn't, that doesn't mean it isn't.

The majority of muslims are not terrorists at all. There are in fact Christian terrorists (they may not even terrorize the same way.. hint hint).

Understand that your opinion for the most part is extreme and misguided. It is honestly no different than stereotyping races.

That's okay though. And I know it actually kinda is, but I don't mean it in that way. I just say what I think, and if the media says the same thing then it's just bad luck for me I guess xD

I know they aren't, but the majority of the muslim immigrants don't want to learn the language, but that is another discussion and I'm going off topic so let's just leave it. Ah, yeah, christian terrorists are stupid too. Every terrorist is stupid. But yeah, they rape children and deny it (I'm not sure if you were hinting at that, because we clearly think in completely different ways so I'm kinda unsure) and that's just as bad, if not worse.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I'm sorry you don't like the religion and got bullied by Muslims, Immortalis. You're entitled to your opinion. It is entirely possible that Muslims on the U.S. are commonly nicer than where you live. I live down the street from a mosque myself and I knew several Muslims in school who are perfectly friendly.

I don't think your opinion is a product of the media. It sounds like the media said things that added to your opinion. For instance, Obama has virtually nothing to do with the Ground Zero Mosque, and Islam isn't a "religion for terrorism"; it is probably more accurate to say that terrorists come out of it. It is a nationality that has been plagued with infighting and war because the U.S. and Russia, along with other powers, have been fighting over its territories, making Islamic countries turbulent, and therefore its people come from undeveloped or shattered places, making their families and individuals shattered themselves. It is more a political problem...it may show as a religious problem, but the politics are behind it.

The word terrorism was first applied in France during the French Revolution; it was used by the President in relation to riots in L.A. in the U.S in the 90's. It is used as a English term for anyone who causes terror. Right now in the U.S., we seem to be most concerned about liberal-conservative relations after an athiest flew a plane into the IRS, someone caused a scene in the Discovery Channel building, and an Arizona Congresswoman who voted for health reform was shot. None of these terrorists were Muslim.

The Pentagon, which was also hit on September 11th, has had a mosque in it for ten years without any issue, (and still nobody thinks that it's a problem) because there are people who work in the Pentagon for U.S. security who are Muslim. And we even have the U.S. president on record saying after 9/11 "Islam is peace". So it's not really the religion that's to blame there, it's the environment and the political background.

 

[Grei]

Immortalis I have to unfortunately agree with Grei.

What do you mean unfortunately? ._.

Ah, now we're almost on the same level.
No, indeed they don't, but they do represent the majority. And if they come to our country, they should learn the language, learn the culture, accept everything that "normal" people do. I take it for granted you understand that.

I agree to some extent, although I don't believe they even represent the majority. I do feel they should be integrating with the current culture and not treating those here before them poorly. I don't allow myself to assume that all Mexicans are like that simply because the ones I notice the most are assholes, though. That isn't right and it isn't fair to those who are Mexican and nice, caring, thoughtful, respectful, etc. The same applies to Muslims.

I don't give a damn about the media, or what kind of muslims attack the Twin Towers, or that the ones that cause the most trouble get the most attention. They come to OUR country, and then they also think they can act around like idiots, not even trying to learn the language? 3 years ago, me and my family moved to Sweden, just because Holland was full of muslims and because of the trouble I've had so far, and a week after we got here, I started learning Swedish, alright. I studied Swedish day and night for 4 months, and after 4 months I could understand what everyone said, I could talk with people without problems or anything like that. I learned the language out of respect for the people that originally live here, to show I'm not just like all the others who don't take time to learn the language, the culture and stuff like that.

You should care about what kinds attacked the Twin Towers, though, considering they don't represent every Muslim in existence.
And I realize it must be frustrating to do everything an "immigrant should do" when others don't show you the same courtesy. Unfortunately, this is the nature of things--everyone is different and not everyone will have the same amount of courtesy as you. Again, this doesn't justify stereotyping.

 

[AzukanAsimbu]

Immortalis, ive been picked on by Mexican kids for a long time, but do i hate the Mexican people? no. If you ACTUALLY studied Islam, you would know its about peace. Sorry if Obama thinks a mosque on Ground Zero is bad, but its time to move on, its been 10 years almost, and we gotta move on. I mean WE bomb Iraq all the time, and as far as ive seen, THEY dont freak out for ten years. Remember there are 2 kinds of Islamic powers in the Middle East. Sunni and Shi'ite. Sunni is the peaceful ones, and Shi'ites are the more violent ones. not all Muslims are "evil" and "terrorists" and you show pure ignorance if you sterotype them that way

 

[Profesco]

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?

SS, I know you said that you were finished replying to this thread, so I'm not going to write up an opposition, but I can help this general idea by making a small clarification.

Human-ness can't be increased or decreased, because it is a matter of genetics. A human is a human from the moment sperm and egg combine to the moment it is burned/decayed beyond recognition. "Human" is something fully and completely defined (within reason), and also largely irrelevant to the discussion.

However, personhood can increase and decrease throughout a being's existence. A human, for example, could lose some quality of personhood if they undergo a horrible accident that renders them completely insensate and a mental vegetable. Likewise, a person who was in a vegetative state and miraculously was cured of same could be said to have an increased quality of personhood. It is personhood that has relevancy in ethical decisions