Slashdot Mirror
Pope Denounces Some Biotech as Affront to 'Human Dignity'
eldavojohn writes "Today in a speech the pope denounced human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and artificial insemination, citing them as a violation of 'human dignity.' That said, the pope did 'appreciate and encourage' research on stem cells from non-embryonic cells in the human body. The pope encouraged the Vatican to be a leading voice in the philosophy and discussion of bioethics. 'Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions,' Benedict said."
I would like to extend our most honest "Damnit!" to the rest of the geek world.. this is gonna cause some serious headaches for me at church.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
I wonder how he comes around to call cloning an 'affront to human dignity'. Exactly who's dignity is being affronted, the clones?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Please listen to what the Pope is saying!!! I'm Catholic and I strongly believe the Pope is right! He's always right! Humans shouldn't play God. Please listen to the Pope and just stop what you're doing!! :(
I gotta say: if this is the first, or second, or tenth issue that "is gonna cause some serious headaches for you at church", you aren't paying very close attention.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Far too many registered voters and politicians.
Ethics? We don't need no steenkin' ethics!
...while wearing such a ridiculous hat? Dignified indeed!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'm tired of religious nuts dictating morality and ethics.
What other people think of me is none of my business
Meanwhile, who's the one building a gigantic clone army and giving Darth Vader life-sustaining bionic enhancements?
Sorry, wrong fairytale!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The majority of the human race who are not atheist? The vocal atheists here on Slashdot should realize that everything is not them.
The current pope has a long career in systematic theology. A man who has spent so much time in the tradition of inquiry is not the type who sends people back to "dark ages".
... to let somebody suffer with Parkinson's Disease or Alzheimer's. Guys like His Holiness are why I left the church.
"Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
I have to admit, while the Church's stance on human cloning and embryonic stem cell research is not surprising (albeit as ridiculous as ever), but I wonder how did artificial insemination make its way to the hate list? I mean, isn't it just following God's degree to "be fruitful and multiply"? Sometimes I think the Church just compiles the list of the most important scientific fields that are likely to provide us with answers about the Universe, and flat-out denies them... for the sake of good old times.
But then I realized that by agreeing to artificial insemination, they agree to extra embryos being created, which would then be used for stem cell research (or they'd have to willingly destroy them). Wow, to go against reason AND God's decree, they must really hate embryonic stem cell a lot... or perhaps they just want to rake in some more donation from crazy people who want to blame ESC for the moral degeneration of our society.
Why is an embryonic stem cell "life"?
And a non-embryonic stem cell not "life"?
If we found the tech to create "embryonic" stem cells from non-embryonic stem cells would it then be OK to test on them?
This guy isn't even relevant to most Catholics. He's basically an interim caretaker, following an important leader who brought much change to an institution which is not ready for any more any time soon.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
This from a man who upholds the Inquisition's judgment upon Galileo, and was a member of the Hitler Jugend.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I for one think that the Catholic Church's relationship with science speaks for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Human_sexual_behavior_and_reproductive_matters/
I hereby excommunicate this very silly pope.
PS: Every man, woman, and child is a pope. Non serviam.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The man is also opposed to free access to condoms in AIDS-striken nations of Africa. Fine, preach all you want about abstinence and fidelity. But, many men will not listen (why should they, they are not even Christians) and visit prostitutes. Later they go home, have sex with their wives (and sometimes daughters) and have 5 infected children who will die before getting a chance to even consider their own spiritual believes.
Good job slaughtering 5 innocents to get to one sinner. I am tentatively considering myself to be a Christian, but this man should be indicted as a mass murderer comparable in scope to war criminals.
The main difference is that the Catholic church says that the soul is infused upon conception, while the muslims mainly believe that it is at birth the the soul arrives.
What do the candidates say about these subjects?
... do you know?
US citizens
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
We listen to engineers and scientists when they have demonstrated some expertise in their fields of expertise.
Considering how much scandal comes out of the religious leadership field, I'd say religious leaders are no more moral than ordinary people and have no better grasp of ethics than ordinary people.
Infuriate left and right
So the majority of people who don't have legs use wheelchairs?
I wonder how you reconcile this:
With this:
Whether you meant it or not, that's great satire, very Colbert-esque. May you be modded +5 Funny.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I guess someone got a little insecure and started ranting when china said they can stop the rain ...
Better to keep quiet and be thought inconsistent than open your mouth and prove it.
Infuriate left and right
Though people in religious traditions might disagree with the pope, they nonetheless would express some opinion about his pronouncements, as opposed to Slashdot atheists, who think he says nothing of import for or against their own metaphysical views (or lack thereof).
If you don't like the research, refuse the treatments when you are sick in the hospital. Why do some religious types feel they need to impart their beliefs on everyone else?
Don't agree with or like abortion - fine - don't have one. Don't like what you hear on the radio or see on TV - fine also, change the channel.
Just don't tell me what to do - I have a brain in my skull and I know how to use it independently.
-ted
Bart: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?
Ms.K: I'm sorry, that would be playing God.
Bart: God shmod! I want my monkey-man!
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/8F22.html
How about that, let's just stipulate that there is no god and be done with the pope already?
Whether god exists or not is irrelevant in any case, everything that we see in this universe can be explained without any divine forces, thus those forces are majorly irrelevant even if they existed. But just for the sake of simplicity let's declare that god is not a consideration where science is concerned.
You can't handle the truth.
The current pope also said Galileo got a fair trial. I'd say his long career is in believing nonsense, whether consistent or not, which would happily return to the dark ages of yee olde fashioned Big Brother in the pointed hat or brown robe.
Infuriate left and right
This appears to be the original text of the speech, in Italian:
Discorso ai partecipanti alla Sessione Plenaria della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede
The vocal atheists here on Slashdot should realize that everything is not them.
I'm well aware, it's a cause of sadness to see so much of the world revolving their lives around fairy tales.
The current pope has a long career in systematic theology. A man who has spent so much time in the tradition of inquiry is not the type who sends people back to "dark ages".
The Pope realizes that today science marches on with or without the blessings of the guy-in-the-funny-hat. His deluded rantings really don't matter in the rational world.
Trolling is a art,
Are talking about yourself?
The fact that his speech suggests that only evil-doers would have anything to do with genetics research that is not acceptable to an old man with special ties to an invisible friend, only makes him sound insane, intolerant, afraid, or all three.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Lets try a thought experiment: pretent that the Dalai Lama had spoken the Pope's words. Are those words more or less palatible based on who says them?
You don't even need to be religious to see that the commodization of human life, to say nothing of unfettered transhumanism, are not, on their face, good things. Call me a pesimist, but I'm more with Bill Joy than Ray Kurzweil.
A final thought: if there was the slightest chance that, by a snap of the fingers, I could remove all the harm to others attributed to the Roman Catholic Church, I'd do it - and I'm Catholic. Unfortunately, none of the evils attributed to Catholicism in particular or religion in general would disappear. So the cause must be elsewhere.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I wonder what the Pope's opinion is on strong artificial intelligence and transhumanism?
Some leader of a church said genetic research is wrong? This is non-news flamebate
And I know I just bit...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I have to hand it to the Catholic Church, dealing with dissenters has a 2000 year old tradition. It's not like management is pulling new rules out of their a**es or anything. I admire that, actually; they are pretty good at arguing their case, just browse the Vatican web site.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
TFA only mentioned artificial insemination tangentially, where the Pope opposes creating embryos, screening out the ones prone to disease and then choosing from the remainder. It doesn't talk about artificial insemination directly.
I can see how that would be an affront to human dignity -- it basically says that people with, say, Downs Syndrome, are less worthy of living than those without.
The counter-example is this: suppose that sexual orientation has a genetic component; if the right genes are present, a person is more likely to be gay. Would it be acceptable for parents to screen out for that?
If the embryo is just a lump of cells, then what does it matter? It would be about as bad as deciding to remove a rainbow bumper sticker from a used car you just bought.
from an organization that has billions in assets when there are families of 6 living on a dollar a day sort of doesn't work for me for some reason.
Who gives two shits what a kook who believes in invisible super-beings things[sic]?
The majority of the human race who are not atheist? The vocal atheists here on Slashdot should realize that everything is not them.
So the majority of religious people are Catholic? Hardly.
aren't they violating the be fruitful and multiply clause? I think the catholic church should focus on religion, every time the pope tries to tell the world and it's governments what they should do in their personal lives they just end up looking backwards and foolish.
but you must respect the hat!
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
... condemning millions of Latin Americans to live in squalor as a result of overpopulation, stemming directly from your vendetta against contraception? ... refusing to abort the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy*? ... condemning hundreds of millions of people simply because they are inherently attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite? ... insisting that people in persistive vegetative states be kept alive for decades, with great expenditure of effort, despite no possibility of recovery?
Yes, I'd say that Catholicism is an affront to human dignity.
Thank you for your recent guidance on my medical issues, in particular my infertility. I have been wondering how to proceed. Now I understand it is God's will for me not to have children.
I will be sure to convey your disapproval to my sister that she allowed doctors to perform a Cesarean Section on her during a difficult childbirth. This was, after all, nothing more than medical intervention to allow procreation and must therefore be against God's will, correct?
I look forward to your continued leadership on these issues. In particular I will find inspiration in the way you will accept God's will by not seeking medical solutions to your future health issues.
A Good Catholic
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
At first glnce I read the headline as "Dope Denounces Some Biotech as Affront to 'Human Dignity'". Chalk it up to endorphins, the weather change made my arthritis hurt like hell yesterday. Now THAT was an affront to my human dignity, I'll tell you!
The pope may not be a dope, but the idea that artificial insemination is an "affront to human dignity" is a dopey idea. Many Catholic ideas are pretty dopey IMO (of course, I'm sure many Catholics will think some of my beliefs are pretty dopey as well).
An example of what I'm talking about is the "seven deadly sins". Where in the Bible did they get the idea that laziness is a sin? And don't point me to the Old Testament, because the old testament says eating pork is a sin. And how about lust? When a young man lusts after a young woman and the lust grows to love and they marry, how is that a sin?
There are in fact ten deadly sins. Moses brought them down from the mountain.
I would agree with the pope about human cloning, but most definitely not embryonic stem cell research. Rather than an affront to human dignity, it may lead to cures for diseases that ARE affronts to human dignity. Just ask Al Scheimers. Oh wait, Al is pissing his pants and drooling. Human dignity, you say?
-mcgrew
OT but why is a comment subject allowed fewer characters than a summary subject? And why was "human dignity" in quotations?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
How are you "life" but not a tumor? Would you object if we used some "radiation treatment" on you?
Creative Demolition
You know what the real affront to human dignity is?
Organized religion.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The "dignity of man" referenced by the Catholic Pope, regardless of modern religion, is the basis of the enlightenment and of all modern secular humanist societies and of the concept of human rights. Once the concept of innate human dignity is gone, you end up with societies where human beings are nothing more than raw material for the State machine. As the concept fades you see inhumane state practices appear such as denying health care to the obese in the UK or mandatory abortions in China. The needs of people can be ignored when they become inconvenient or expensive to the state if there is no innate dignity of man.
I can't believe this guy is coming out now to tell us that we should stop "embryonic stem cell research" because it "shattered" human dignity. If you want to bring back some form of dignity how about letting those suffering a glimmer of hope based on sound science rather than false promise? Also I'd really like it if someone would send him the memo. We don't need to hurt embryos anymore so the pope's latest message comes too late proving how irrelevant the church is to this discussion.
Close, anyway. First thing I thought when I saw the headline "Pope denounces some biotech as affront to human dignity" was "Most religion is an affront to human dignity, Catholicism right at the head of the pack."
I don't feel that it is my place to tell them what to believe, but that doesn't make me think they're anything but a bunch of whacked-out loonies, driven by insecurity, fear and an inability to deal with the idea that some questions may not have answers, and others we may never know the answers to.
Religion is the crack-pipe of the masses. Makes some of them hyper, drives others to euphoria, costs them much time, treasure and effort, all the while debilitating their faculties of reason.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not Catholic, or an Atheist, but I think it's ironic that the atheists are bashing someone for saying what he believes in, while at the same time accusing him of bashing what they believe in. Let the man say what he wants, it's a free world!
It isn't the Roman Catholics you should fear. It is the other Christians who are running the country (meaning the US) right now.
I'm trying to stay on topic. Why bash Islam in a thread about the Pope's latest inane proclamation?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
>> let's just stipulate that there is no god and be done with the pope already?
Firstly let me make it clear that I personally do not follow any religion, so have no iterest in defending the christian church, however:
* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
* His point seems to be that this stuff is an affront to human dignity, which has nothing to do with religion. E.g. I for example have dignity yet am not a follower of any religion.
Actually without reading more than the headline, I think the pope's point is very well made. Personally I feel scientists in some cases are definately going too far. I also have seen more than enough evidence to prove that most companies will do anything to make money for now, regardless of the ethics or wider implication of their actions.
As a scientist and agnostic, the most sensible delineation I've heard was outlined by Carl Sagan (though I don't know if it was originally his idea or not). At about sixth months, the fetus actually begins to think. There is a point where neural activity undergoes a significant change.
It seems reasonable to me that what most makes us human is our minds, and thus once a fetus has a human mind, it should be considered human.
... they just won't admit that life begins at birth. There's a reason Christians celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. All other posturing is just ... posturing ... in defiance of thousands of years of tradition.
Infuriate left and right
It is odd, backwards thinking, and outright excessive for the vast majority of the posters who are stating the denouncement of artificial insemination is the only option for couples who can't have children.
In many countries across the globe, there are large legitimate orphanages with many orphans seeking new parents. I find it closed-minded the posters here choose not to recognize many of these orphanages are backed by religious organizations including the Catholic Church. It's not like the Church denounces abortion and artificial insemination... they actually "walk the talk" when funding the alternative.
In contrast to adoption, artificial insemination costs a lot of money and time. The procedure is not perfect, fails many times, and each time can cost in the tens of thousands of US dollars.
Ahhh ... ask Christians why they celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. They have no ready answer other than to change the subject and call you a potty mouth.
Infuriate left and right
Look, I don't even recognize the papacy; but the silly attacks on this Pope on Slashdot have got to stop. You aren't even using logic and reasoning in your arguments. You just made two disjointed statements. The fact that the Pope belives in God (obviously) does not imply that he thinks we should abandon Science and Technology. In fact he never attacked anything regarding science. He just made his and the Catholic Churches opinion about the moral-ethical debate surrounding certain research and procedures known. There is nothing wrong with that. Religious people are not the only people who see an ethical dilemna within certain research and procedures. Do you mean to imply that all research is acceptable including research on unwilling medical subjects?
I can't believe I am posting about this. I'm a Catholic, I'm a scientist, and my kids are the result of artificial insemination.
In my local Catholic community, these things are not discussed. Instead I hear mostly about practicing non-violent conflict resolution and a life time of charitable endeavors. That all works for me on the local level. Beyond that, the Catholic hierarchy can go pound sand. The pope and most of the clergy that rank high enough to wear silly hats tragically waste their energy on needlessly divisive issues. I'd rather they worked on poverty and resolving conflict without war.
This is what I love about slashdot. Every biotech article gets tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong", yet every article which mentions religious people saying the same, it's all "religion is all lies".
Newsflash: if there exist invisible super-beings, then there's no way to tell! If you get all holier-than-thou because you are so certain that unprovability is equal to nonexistance, you really need to read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Your faith that there do not exist invisible super-beings is just as irrational as the Pope's faith that there are.
Unfortunately, they're not. Compared to some religions (like the Wahhabi branch of Islam, for example), old-school Roman Catholicism sounds quite reasonable. I'll take Thomas Aquinas over some imam using the Quran to tell a man how big a stick he can use to beat his wife.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Get rid of the doctrine of original sin, and then we can talk.
... that is pretty bold. If you had any familiarity with the book they follow then you'd understand how silly that sounds.
Good luck, it's a concept laid out pretty clearly in the Bible.
You can disagree with catholicism, you can disagree with Christianity, but asking a group to disavow a belief just to make you feel "comfortable"
Well, he is.
Pope Benedict XVI will ultimately be considered more important that Pope John Paul II, I think. Look at the recent motu proprio, for instance, and similar things which are producing good ecumenical effects with respect to the Eastern Christian Churches.
Natural insemination is SUCH a dignified process.
-JWR
We really aren't all that far from simple cultures in a lab, if you look at it from a religious point of view. god is the scientist, we are the cultures, and the earth is one giant petri dish.
To quote Waking Life: "Where do all the new souls come from?"
Religious folk may say we are "playing god" by "growing" humans...but are we? We humans can make another human, but can we create a soul? If your answer to that question is no and you are a religious person, then where is the problem? We are simply creating flesh. The "miracle of life" is still sitting on god's shelf. If your answer to that question is yes, then what relevance does god have in our society at this point in our species' history?
Living With a Nerd
While I agree that Benedict isn't as cool as John Paul, He's just saying to look at the big picture. There's plenty of research that we can do without splicing up humans and whatnot. Just like in Jurassic Park.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
It is disheartening to see bigotry & hate speach alive & well on Slashdot. Here's another thought experiment. Try replacing the word "Catholic" with another group of your choice. Words and attitudes that are rightfully condemned in another context are suddenly permissible when speaking about Catholicism. What does THAT have to do with reason?
yep, shit like that is "your with us or your against us" doctrine. Either you agree with him or your not a "man of good will" and therefore you must be of bad will. Evil as it were.
When someone like Bush makes a such a statement people have no problem denouncing him for it, because its totally ridiculous. But when its the official spokesperson of god well, he must have a point.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Nerd Denounces Some 'Human Dignity' as Affront to Biotech.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
It's like it says in Proverbs 12:3 'Tis better to die from cancer than be cured and live a life without dignity'
I have nothing compelling to say
I was a little surprised to see artificial insemination in the list of technologies, though. My understanding is that the church's position on abortion and birth control stemmed from the sanctity of life. Artificial insemination would seem to be perfectly compatible with this idea, so I'd be interested to see what the argument against it was.
Having said that, being uncomfortable with some of the advances in biosciences not new, nor is it unique to Catholics. I think many people, and not just the religious types, would be uncomfortable with some of these issues. Actually, given the potential of some of these technologies, I'd be disturbed if people weren't at least a little uncomfortable. While I hardly think it rises to the level of an affront to human dignity, the issue is important enough that having the debate is worthwhile.
Actually, I had this very conversation with someone deeply religious a few years ago. Their view was that not only can we not create a soul, but that a clone would not have a soul. As such any cloned individual would merely be a pawn of Satan, a mass number of which would invariably rise up against us militarily if they were created in any significant number.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Should a church that profitted from the slave trade, collaborated with the nazis, hid the molestation of children, and is the main reason the US Constitution requires a seperation of church and state be condemning anything?
to declare a month old blob inside a woman as the equal of a human child in human dignity
thereby impoverishing the human dignity of the woman who is carrying the blob
after 3, 4 months, ok, fine. but before that, it simply is not a human being and has no need for the talk of human dignity in any way whatsoever. and to do so threatens the human dignity of the woman carrying the not-yet-human blob
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
Why bash Islam in a thread about the Pope's latest inane proclamation?
Well, you did bash Christianity in general on a thread about the Pope...
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
The parent is right.
Lots of people here talk about rights for those who are in Guantanamo Bay, which shows they have some insight on human dignity. Are they are choosing some sort of a-la-carte viewpoint on human dignity or are they using human dignity as a facade for anti-Americanism?
Nit: Augustine of Hippo didn't write any part of what most Christians consider to be the Bible.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Personally, I draw the line 18 years after birth. (Don't laugh, in Colonial America, fathers could kill their sons up the the 18th birthday)
Anyway, if you don't know where to draw the line, but you draw it anyway, you're pretty much guaranteed to draw it in the wrong place. We can arbitrarily set standards like when the heart starts to beat or when the spine is more that N cm, but to set a time standard assumes that we can even know when conception happened.
B.t.w. Find some parents who have lost a baby to miscarriage at any point in the process and see if they classify it as a "blob".
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
does not apply to a one month old blob in a human woman, whose human dignity in turn is imperiled by those who consider the blob inside her the equal of a full human child
no, it simply isn't
the cause human dignity is not served by applying the concept of human dignity to things that aren't human
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As an ex-Christian, I have every right to do so.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Actually, assuming you believe that human life begins at conception, nothing in this anouncement is even questionable. If you agree with that statement then obviously any research that can lead to the destruction of that life is wrong; it is basically murder of a fellow, and absolutely helpless, human being.
I for one however, don't agree with that statment. There is more to being human than having human DNA and the potential for growth. Humanity is about self awareness, intelligence, and conciousness. An embryo lacks these things simply because it hasn't yet developed the required circuitry for them.
For the record IaaC (I am a Catholic), but that doesn't mean I can't think for myself.
A man who has spent so much time in the tradition of inquiry is not the type who sends people back to "dark ages".
If by inquiry you mean his job as the grand inquisitor, I thought the inquisition was a defining trait of the dark ages?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
It is unfortunate that your conversation took place with someone who subscribed to the "all things not good are from the devil" type of thinking, it could have been a much more interesting conversation...
Living With a Nerd
What the hell does that actually mean?
Today in a speech the pope denounced human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and artificial insemination
On this issue, anyway. Most people who are against embryonic stem-cell research because it kills human life don't give a single thought to the unused embryos created by in vitro fertilization that have to be disposed of.
Rob
Then I'm sure you are familiar with Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12-14,18-21? All of which state humans are sinful from conception, and sin is passed on from one generation to the next? I'm sure you have.
as far as I'm concerned, adhering to Christianity means that you must ask God to forgive you for having been born human.
Not for being born human, but forgiveness from sin. There's a subtlety in there you are missing.
Dear Pope- Fuck you. You suck, and I hope you die from some horribly painful disease that could have been cured through stem cell research. I am glad you are a pope, though, because you are a virgin (loser...), and that means you will leave no genetic offspring when you die. Now, take off your stupid hat. It makes you look gay. Flamboyantly gay.
Sincerely,
A former catholic.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
There is no evidence that proves God doesn't not exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
That's why proving imaginary things don't exist isn't science.
Sorry, but the burden of proof in on those making the positive assertion.
Apart form that, you don't appear to understand that a stipulation is a stipulation - an agreement on a state of affairs. It doesn't require logical support, merely the assent of the involved parties.
Fuck off, asshole.
Dude, chill out. If I've offended any god or gods I'm sure they'll smite me in a ball of fire or give me a wart on my nose. You should be having pity on me for daring to piss off the invisible super-beings... LOL, too funny.
Trolling is a art,
doesn't mean there is no line
a guy who in povery and desperation forces himself against his better senses to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family isn't really a criminal
if that same man continues stealing, to the point that he enjoys it, and winds up killing a homeowner while in the process of robbing jewelry, that man is now certainly a criminal
the question is: exactly when did he become a criminal?
i don't know, you don't know
but he most certainly is a criminal now, and wasn't a criminal before
what we can't do is say "because we don't know exactly where to draw the line, we cannot call this man a criminal. because we don't know where to the draw the line, we cannot draw the line at all"
oh yes we can! and we should, out of moral necessity
so it is the same observation with blobs, fetuses, and babies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As an ex-Christian, I have every right to do so.
As a fellow ex-Christian, I didn't say you didn't. I was merely pointing out that bashing Christianity in general on a thread regarding the pope is just about as offtopic as bashing Islam on a thread regarding the Pope. The Pope may be a Christian, but you'll find about about a billion Christians on the planet that will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Pope does not speak for them.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
David and the Apostle Paul both spell it out pretty clearly.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Sepultura did it before (1993, with Biotech is Godzilla).
And I denounce all religion an affront to "human intelligence".
This guy isn't even relevant to most Catholics. He's basically an interim caretaker, following an important leader who brought much change to an institution which is not ready for any more any time soon.
:(
Sadly, it's because of how backwards he is relative to John Paul that he IS relevant to most of us
Ummm no.
/. But that doesn't mean we can't be civil.)
It's not Christians you should fear AT ALL. The overwhelming majority of them just want to live their lives in peace and quiet, and raise their families as they see fit, without a bunch of nanny-state lefties sticking their noses in. A small minority want to get in your face about their beliefs and/or try to make insignificant changes in public policy. At the most, that vanishingly small minority is slightly annoying, but certainly not a threat of any sort. (Keep in mind, these ARE the "Turn the other cheek" people. Not exactly dangerous types.)
It never ceases to amaze me that Liberals can have so much hate towards Christians, and yet go out of their way to excuse the most heinous behavior of Muslims. Not only doesn't it make any sense, it's not terribly logical or consistent either.
So let's all just back off from the Christian hate and the passive-aggressive Christian bashing.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, this is
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
was in a emotional or financial situation where bringing a baby to term would cause her undue stress, resulting in a child she did not love, and all the psychological f***ups that accompany that, i would prefer that my mother not continue her pregnancy past the 3 month old part, and she would have done nothing wrong by my judgment
because before 3 months, what i was inside my mother was not me, and was not alive in any human sense
there is hamburger on my plate. i will eat it, and it will become the stuff of my organs and bones, it will become human life. so i should look at the hamburger on my plate with the spiritual and legal reverence of a human life?
pfffffffft
same observation applies to the blob inside a woman before 3 months
it's POTENTIAL human life. NOT human life. in any spiritual, intellectual, logical, moral, or legal consideration you can devise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's why, in the original post, I specified that the Pope is the leader of one sect of a Christianity, a religion that considers humanity to be sinful by nature.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face if someone told me that. I used to have fun with those sorts of people by getting them to contradict themselves using logic, but it got old after I realized that no matter how blatantly stupid or contradictory their statements they'll never change them. For something along the same vein, check out the movie Inherit the Wind.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Why should the null hypothesis be "God exists"?! That's a terrible hypothesis.
Your point is easily refuted by simple subsitution.
"There is no evidence that proves an invisible pink/purple unicorn with 12 teeth is not sitting on my desk".
Should you accept that based on faith alone until someone proves me wrong?
THINK!
1. Anyone who dares tell of unknowable things is a self-deluded liar. Religion, as it purports to know things which humans can't, is a liar too.
2. Just because an idea is unprovable and undisprovable, doesn't mean the idea doesn't suck. Read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for an exploration of this concept. Not all ideas should be considered on equal footing.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
For goodness sake, he was a member of the Hitler Youth, like a lot of German kids were. I think the guy is an insufferable prick, a self-righteous peddler of made-up crapola, but let's take him to task for what he does, and because he, like tens of thousands of other German children, was in the Hitler Youth.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When that happens, they become a very real threat.
I'm not too sure how an organization that spent decades hiding pedophiles has any business lecturing anyone on human dignity. The only thing, apparently, more infinite than God is the human capacity for intense hypocrisy.
Your statement sounds nice and everything, but it's awfully flawed.
a) The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have. By your standards, the United States should disappear from the face of the earth since they has decades abusing human rights. Right? RIGHT?
b) Usually the priests who lecture people on human dignity are NOT the ones hiding pedophiles. If you disagree, I challenge you to mention anything evil John Paul II has done, because he lectured A LOT about human dignity.
c) All catholics *ARE* the Catholic Church. If you want to say something bad about priests and bishops, don't say "Catholic Church". Say "the Clergy".
d) By generalizing, you make all the good priests look worse than the bad ones. Because it's the bad ones who are pedophiles, and the good priests are the ones fighting for human rights. Oh but since they're all catholic anyway, they're all part of the same corrupt organization and all should be labelled as hypocrites. Perhaps we should label Martin Luther King Jr. as a hypocrite too, since he endorsed christianity (he was a Lutheran pastor, after all) and Christianity is full of hypocrites?
I'm amazed how bashing and name calling granted you insightful. You'd be a wonderful Fox News reporter.
Priest: Good morning everyone. A reading, from the letter of John, thou shalt not spill thy seed in a sock and place it at the bottom the hamper." The word of the Lord. Congregation: Praise be to God
Family Guy, Season 5, Boys Don't Cry
Iraq billions
It's not that we need to seek forgiveness for being human, it's that we don't automatically deserve to go to heaven. What, for instance, has an infant done to deserve heaven? Not much. But God is willing to give us the grace necessary.
Original sin means that, to quote Chesterton, "men were naturally backsliders; that human virtue tended of its own nature to rust or to rot." And this is obviously true, just look around you. To be good, you have to make an effort, otherwise any good person will eventually fall into sin.
Did he see that in his crystal ball?
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
And I'm a scientist - so let's test that. I'll hold a piano over his head suspended by a pulley and a rope. The Pope can say that he declares gravity to be heresy. I'll let go of the rope.
If he really does define reality, he should be in no danger. I have a theory on how the test would end, though.
The short of it is these people should not be dictating to scientists. Why?
Read up on what they did to Galileo, for daring to suggest the Earth is not the center of the universe - which they just got around to forgiving him for, which took them until 1992 to fucking get around to.
There is no way these people should have any input whatsoever in a scientific context.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Good morning and welcome to America. Sure, the Christian majority here (just like the Muslim majority in many countries) just wants to eat, work and love in peace. However, the Christian majority here (just like the Muslim majority in many countries) aligns itself in a very real way with a very different religious minority which is more interested in power, fear and hate than in peace and prosperity. This Christian (or Muslim) majority then comes a real problem for those who disagree with the bullshit the minority leaders feed them.
Religious movements also have the advantage that they are not constrained by rational truth, observable evidence, or anything but some old books and some loudmouthed, pious windbags.
(Please excuse me for ignoring several of your strawmen; I bet they burn real pretty-like)
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit. - stipulation does not need a merit, it is an assertion. I am proposing a zero base, a point of reference for dealing with anyone who may want to impose his/her religious authority over the matters of the secular (and science is secular regardless of the particular people who are involved in it.)
His point seems to be that this stuff is an affront to human dignity, which has nothing to do with religion. E.g. I for example have dignity yet am not a follower of any religion. - he is preaching from his religious authority and thus he is not as impartial as you may want to make us all believe.
You can't handle the truth.
So far as I can see, consciousness requires a brain of sufficient complexity. It's conceivable that something else (e.g. a 'soul') is also needed, but a brain is a minimal requirement. Before about a month, there's nothing even arguably a brain present. After a month, from what I understand, the various parts of the brain are at least present in preliminary stages, though they don't all actually hook up together for a couple months yet. I don't have to like abortion before the first month, but I don't see how there's any actual other person to take into account then, and it's the woman's choice then. After that, there's at least a decent chance that there might be another actual person there, and I'm a lot less comfortable with abortions after that point. (Of course, if the mother's life is in danger, it's her choice - you can't force someone to risk their life to save someone else.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
That tired canard is as ridiculous as it ever was. Not believing in something that has never been shown to exist requires zero faith. Laughing at someone who believes in something that has zero evidence to support its existence is not the same as claiming to have proof of non-existence. Gödel can't help you hear.
Oh, BTW, which slashdot story on in-vitro fertilization got the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag?
everything in moderation
Ancient people knew very well how long pregnancy lasted. They may not have been able to know the fuckday down to less than a week, but you know darn well that if a baby was born 8 months after the wedding, tongues wagged.
Infuriate left and right
Technically, you can prove something doesn't exist by proving that it is logically impossible for it to exist (and this is possible with the Judeo-Christian God - e.g. Theodicy Paradox). The point the GP was making was that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, it doesn't really say anything of substance - the same argument can be made either way, ad infinitum. So the GP could have said just as much by saying nothing at all.
... and yet the "total depravity" argument and the "the original sin is procreation" argument didn't appear in any documented form in mainstream early Christian thought until Augustine, and only those theological families which spring from Augustinianism follow those beliefs. Given nearly three centuries from a very conservative dating of the earliest parts of the New Testament and the Council of Nicea, the lack of manuscript evidence for both beliefs prior to Augustine is rather telling that he provided the first documented apology for such beliefs.
how to invest, a novice's guide
If any religious person loses their ability to reason from religion, they missed the point. God created reasonable men and a logical world - which is why we have science and math that makes sense. Explain to me how Catholicism is at eh "head of the pack" in affronting human dignity.
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Many passages speak of God forming the child in the womb (Job 31:15, Psalm 139:15, Isaiah 44:2, Isaiah 49:5 etc). So to a christian taking the text at face value the moment of conception (maybe when the zygote attaches to the uterus) is when God starts His work. Blob or not if unimpeded it will develop into a human under normal circumstances. IMHO the line is drawn by God and He will ultimately decide if what was done was right or wrong. Still in a free society Christians cannot forcefully impose their will on others. Jesus certainly never did. Sure Christians are free to encourage people to accept their ideas but that needs to be followed by a genuine sincerity not outright hypocrisy. But like someone else touched on a woman that loses their child still gets sad weather it was in the first, second, or third trimester. So I'm going to have to disagree with it being equal to a hamburger patty.
Artificial Insemination is an interesting one. Basically it is using externam equipment to produce a fertilized egg and then insert it into a woman who otherwize cannot succeed through normal means. It is a well-known practice and can even, for the squeamish, be performed for a married couple using only their eggs and sperm, no external players are needed.
/.ers might scoff at the pope and in many countries even ones with large Catholic populations like the U.S. his claims don't carry the weight of law. But in modern democratic Italy he can still arrainge for consenting married couples who want to raise healthy children of their own to be denied it because the process is "an affront".
Interestingly this procedure, well-accepted in most western societies is banned in Italy even for married couples using their own genetic material thanks to the Church. The argument goes something along the lines of: "If god wanted them to have kids he would let them do it normally."
It is interesting because most
The soul arrives when the man gets an erection. At which point any failure to impregnate a nearby woman is murder.
-- $SIGNATURE
where do we draw the line exactly? i don't know. beware anyone who does.
How can you declare where the line is, then claim not to know where the line is, then pass judgment on those who claim to know where the line is as being people who one should be wary of, then claim that we can still draw a line just as long as it's not one you disagree with? WTF is wrong with you? Were you aborted as a fetus or something?
Furthermore, why should the shape of something determine whether or not it is deserving protection of a human being? There are hugely obese people that are nothing more than blobs. Ah, but maybe you meant that the development level of certain organs -- heart, brain, whatever -- should be used as a measuring stick? If so, then what of people with disabilities in those areas? Are people with artificial hearts really "people"? What about retards?
(Damn, even *I* think this is a weird post. Am I on drugs or something?)
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
There is no evidence that proves ghosts don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that ghosts don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves midichlorians don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that the force doesn't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves invisible giant elephants don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that they don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves undetectable/invisible spherical beings don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that they don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves the Mormon golden plates didn't exist. Until that is found, Mormons are right.
There is no evidence that proves we're not part of the Matrix. Until that is found [your argument that the Matrix doesn't exist] [has no merit]
Same goes for anything.
Proving that some things don't exist is practically impossible.
We gather evidence. The evidence points to possible conclusions. Some more likely than others.
There is no proof of the tooth Fairy, we don't believe in it (her?).
There is no proof of Santa Clause, we don't believe in him.
There is no proof of many other creatures from many other cultures, we don't believe in them.
As kids you believed in them because there was evidence... you got presents. Then you got told the truth.
Same goes for God. Why do adults still believe in God?
You do not need to believe in God to have ethics.
As for ethics, I do agree that science has many gray areas. There are gray areas for any Society.
That's like saying that Flash is a useless language that makes animated ads. Don't let the fact that the majority of adherents/examples are retarded blind you to the concept that there is any validity to the theory. Having listened to both left and right wing talk radio, I found myself appalled whenever a point that I would agree with was uttered. It made me feel stupid for having some view in common with the loudmouth talking.
Many religious people are blindly accepting, but then again most atheists accept that world-view without a lot of reflection as well. The fact of the matter is that 90%+ of the people who believe anything are idiots. Religion, like politics and other soft subjects, tend to give the loudest voices to those with the best self-promotion skills as opposed to those with the best ideas. Hard subjects avoid this to some degree by having demonstrable standards, but not entirely.
Oh, and all questions have answers. It may be impossible to prove one is more correct, but discussing them can be interesting. Besides, with religion and philosophy, an answer just has to ring true enough to affect you.
The same can be said about:
- Real drugs
- Sports
- Media outlets
- Pop stars/celebrities
- Movies
- Video games
- [Fill in the blank]
Note, there are good examples of all the above. But there are also reasonable religious people and ideas that serve many of the same benefits of atheistic philosophy.Your ad here. Ask me how!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
No, seriously, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
I was made in a laboratory, and I turned out fine. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
John Paul II might have considered it, but Benedict is extremely conservative and is living up to the 'placeholder' assessment that most people had of him at the time of his election.
JPII was a very conservative pope. He was just conservative with a smile. Honestly, I'd actually appreciate conservatism in religion as something to live up to. We should feel squeemish on some level about creating living things willy nilly, simply so that we can experiment with them. It doesn't even really matter if a human fetus is human or not. It is a life, and we are taking it, and not only for the most noble of reasons.
Ultimately, the Pope is on the right side of this issue. A few generations down the road, we will look back on what we have done with animal testing and embryonic testing, and realize that we are in fact barbaric.
This is my sig.
Not being able to completely prove either side of an argument does not make both sides equally (un)likely.
"* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit." I propose my theory a giant ball of cream cheese is at the edge of the universe. Can you disprove that? No - well then until you can we should all assume the ball of cream cheese to be true.
Bow-ties are cool.
Yes, especially since the Church is a big fan of Jesus (wouldn't a "virgin birth" by necessity be the result of some sort of artificial insemination?)
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Why anyone celebrates a birthday is a pretty strange thing when you think about it. Why are we so caught up on having lived x number of revolutions around the sun? We use birthdays to judge things like when you can go to school, drive a car, drink alcohol, vote, etc., but the number of times a random mass of rock has gone around a random star seems to be a pretty silly indicator of a person's abilities. But we do have averages and know that the average person is capable of x at age y, so we run with it. For that reason we pick $RANDOM_STARTING_POINT and say you are age y when $RANDOM_AMOUNT_OF_TIME has passed y times since $RANDOM_STARTING_POINT. So what do we pick? Well, it seems that most everyone agrees on using one revolution around the sun to be $RANDOM_AMOUNT_OF_TIME, and it's really easy to pick the day you were born to be $RANDOM_STARTING_POINT since it's really easy to know (for the mother at least) what day someone was born. On the other hand, figuring out when someone was conceived is a much harder task, unless you only have sex once per menstrual cycle.
To paraphrase the above: Since we're going to pick a day to celebrate us turning one year older, it makes sense to pick a day that is easily known over one that is not so easily known. Especially considering that the day of birth was chosen long before much was known about conception.
I hope I haven't ruined your very well thought-out counter argument to foil all those Christian fiends that haunt you.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Oil tycoons, and the auto industry were not very happy when scientists started saying that their products were hurting the earth. Of course, they kept on doing it and encouraging every one else to. And they can continue to now. However, there are long term consequences for doing the wrong thing, even if you disagree that its wrong. Rush Limbaugh can get together a bunch of people and have an anti global warming party, and they can feel all nice a fuzzy that its culturally acceptable to disbelieve in global warming and laugh at Al Gore and the Nobel committee. It still doesn't mean they are correct, or that there won't be severe consequences for everyone if we don't do something about it.
The Pope is speaking on similar moral truths. If allow ourselves to start restricting further and further the definition of life, it will become easier for us to eliminate everyone else that falls outside those boundaries. Humans can't be trusted to decide who lives and who dies.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
You know, you are so full of yourself. First of all religion is not an "affront to human dignity." It could be argued that it is an affront to human reason, maybe, but that is another discussion. Some of what biotech could entail certainly could be an affront to our dignity. There's no need to bring in religion even. Frankly, I would probably kill to stop, say, a race of subhumans being manufactured as servants (a la Brave New World).
Secondly, most people claim to be religious. That's not to say they follow 100% of the doctrine of their choice, but it is untrue to say that most people have debilitated mental faculties (by definition).
I mean come one, give people a break. No one is 100% perfect. Everyone has their flaws. Almost everyone believes at least something that is false or that they can't prove. Don't dismiss religion simply because it is not scientifically provable that what certain people believe is true. Who gives a damn?
your moderation is a credit to you
the real problem with the abortion debate is not that there are people who want to kill babies ready to be born so they can go to the disco, nor that there are people ready to charge women with murder who take the day after pill. both of these positions are extreme lunatic fringe positions
in reality, your average prolifer is willing to accept abortion in the first month or two, and the average prochoicer is disgusted at the idea of killing a baby at 6 or 7 months
and the rabble rousing demagogues paint one side or the other as if they were the baby killing or mother crucifying extremists, and people kneejerk in emotional disgust at these stereotypes rather than agreeing to be moderate
when the reality is, most everyone can appreciate the nuance like you. they just can't work their way through the proganda and drama from either side of the debate. and not to paint this as a sad commentary on humanity, because it is a subject matter fraught with emotional pain and loaded landmines of symbolism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You'll be sorry when I and my army of me-clones takes control of the Vatican. We'll see who's laughing THEN!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
'Human dignity' not defined.
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
So you argue that no one should bash all Christians for the actions of a few, then in the next paragraph proceed to bash all liberals. I've never seen a liberal "go out of their way to excuse the most heinous behavior of Muslims", yet you seem to think all liberals are this way.
Your comment is the typical hypocrisy that promotes the "Christian hate" which you're complaining about.
Developers: We can use your help.
Don't worry about it. They'll fight biotech as hard as they can. Science will prevail eventually after being delayed 10years. Some life saving cures will come out undoubtedly. Then they'll be talking about how they are totally different from those dinosaurs against biotech and ask for their pill that they obviously deserve.
... dinosaurs? psychology, electricity.... Feel free to add more.
Then they will pick different bits of scripture to quote showing how God wanted biotech and things will move on.
Happens once every 50~100 years nobody seems to mind that the infallible word of god is so easily changed.
Note (various religions have opposed): Basically ALL astronomy, biology, brain/mind, basically ALL chemistry, evolution(still in the works), Creation of the earth, age of the universe, the sun will come up without the aid of human sacrifice,
Its fallacious to think that just because you disagree with somebody who says that humankind is inherently sinful that therefore any argument they make must be false. Just because you don't agree with the premise does not mean the conclusion is false. You haven't actually argued that all those things he said were an affront to human dignity weren't in fact affronts to human dignity. He could very well be absolutely correct, but you won't listen to him cause he has a different set of beliefs. He could AGREE with you and you still, according to your argument, would automatically disregard anything he says. Yea, you could say he's making a terrible argument, but you're not saying whether or not his conclusion is a good one.
but you can point at 2 months and say "not human life, with certainty" and you can point at 5 months and say "human life, with certainty"
does that answer your questions?
and as for your other question: a fully developed human being in all ways but one: without a functional brain, is not a human being
but nice try with the missing organs the fat people, but you fail it in terms viable analogy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah. Those folks in Dover, PA weren't trying to make any significant public policy changes. They were just trying to rewrite the science curriculum to include a religious precept.
At the most, that vanishingly small minority is slightly annoying, but certainly not a threat of any sort.
Tell that to Matthew Shepherd.
and raise their families as they see fit, without a bunch of nanny-state lefties sticking their noses in.
Yeah! You tell 'em! How dare John Ashcroft tell me what is and what is not pornography. If I want my kids to see that mostly-nude statue of Geroge Washington, I can damn well show it to them. I don't need some nanny-state lefty telling me what my kids can or cannot see.
It never ceases to amaze me that Liberals can have so much hate towards Christians,
It never ceases to amaze me that Christians can have so much hate towards those who aren't Christians.
and yet go out of their way to excuse the most heinous behavior of Muslims.
and yet go out of their way to excuse the most heinous behavior of our troops occupying Iraq or torturing prisoners in Guantanamo.
Not only doesn't it make any sense, it's not terribly logical or consistent either.
Not only doesn't it make any sense, it's not terribly logical or consistent either.
So let's all just back off from the Christian hate and the passive-aggressive Christian bashing.
So let's all just back off from the atheist/agnostic hate and the passive-aggressive atheist/agnostic bashing.
Are we clear?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
<irony>
I can't wait for the Pope's arguments to be distorted and mocked here. Because we all know that Holy Experimental Science is alpha and omega of all our questions and that, like every rational process, it is perfect and gives all answers. Sure, programming software is rational and therefore so perfectly suited to our needs that debugging is blasphemy...
</irony>
This post is displayed with recycled electrons
who speaks of god touching into a woman's womb and doing work needs to take a college freshman course in developmental biology. it's a serious of biological processes, not magic form the invisble skyman
the abrahamic/ christian point of view is simply unworthy of respect or authority, for being simpleminded and childish on the subject
at 5 months, i say you have a human life, unerringly determined
at 2 months, i say you have human life, unerringly determined
by the most sober tenets of scientific determination fo the formation of the human brain
meaning after 5 months, you can talk murder, and bfore 2 months, you can talk of nothing but unliving blob, hamburger patties if you will
and my authority is cold hard sober scientific fact
sorry this counters your old dusty books
but you're simply factually wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Threat? To whom? Talk about disconnected from reality. These are CHRISTIANS we are talking about. the "Turn the other Cheek" people. the "Treat others like you want to be treated" people. How the HELL are these people dangerous? What, because some of them choose to exercise their right to vote by voting for initiatives they like (like getting to choose the school you send your child to.) Ooo! How dangerous!
And they aren't Nanny Staters. Ok, some of them are, those ones mostly vote Democrat (in the US). But the majority aren't. The majority don't want the nanny state, because a Socialistic Big Government (AKA: Nanny State) interferes with their lives, by trying to tell them how to live, and how to raise their children.
Oh, and don't try and bring Jack Thompson into this. He's NOT a Christian, he's just an opportunistic loony trying to make a name for himself and a buck by stirring up trouble for video game companies. I don't know ANY Christians who take him seriously. I do know of some who once did, but when he showed himself as a fruitcake, they dropped him like a hot potato. Besides, how in the heck does a nobody like Jack Thompson get classified as DANGEROUS? Annoying, yes. Comical, absolutely. But DANGEROUS? No. Not buying it. That's just hyperbole.
Let's also keep in mind that Christians are citizens too. They have just as much right as anyone else to get together and vote as a bloc on issues that concern them, or to "Lobby the Government for Redress" Just like anyone else. Being loud doesn't make someone dangerous. Not that Christians are exactly "loud" anyway. The only thing most Congress-critters really hear is Money, and Christians aren't exactly known for obscene wealth. Unlike the Hollywood Leftists, or the George Soroses of the world.
There isn't anything wrong with disagreeing with them on the issues, but to characterize them as somehow DANGEROUS because of the way they believe smacks of religious bigotry.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
You're right that this is a statement to re-inforce the church teaching on human life, but the issue is not whether a cloned human is a person with a soul, etc.
The issue is that a human being is given life by God. The way God intended that is through the pro-creative cooperation with a man and a woman. This stuff is dicussed fairly thoroughly and much more precisely than I can phrase it in Pope John XXIII's encyclical Humanae Vitae. You can get a brief outline of the points by looking up relevant entries in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (although both documents are limited in their technological aspects).
Cloning steps outside this form and attempts to create a human through primarily artificial means. The Church considers that an affront to human dignity, and sees in it not only an attempt to work around God's natural order, but a real danger of abusing the person thus created (harvesting organs, deliberately engineering traits to be exploited, etc). Also, the pope addressed the creation of human embryos, which the church maintains are human life, in an artificial manner especially if the purpose is to kill them for research.
Of course, one specific dangers is the creation of either inferior or defective humans, or hybrids. That would raise the question of humanity, baptism, etc as you mentioned rather directly, but goes beyond what Pope Benedict was discussing here, but as a start consider that the church regards the disabled the same as anyone else spiritually.
And please, please, everyone note that he did not condemn, and in fact encouraged stem cell research, on the conditions that it does not abuse human life. Also, he did not say anything along the lines of the scientific community should obey the church's every whim, but rather that the scientific community should not forget its consience, and that the church must try to help guide that conscience through rational discussion.
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with using Adult stem cells.
Correct me if I am wrong, but using Adult stem cells seems to have the same ethical problems as embryonic ones. Adult stem cells are only useful if they are modified to become Totipotent [wikipedia.org]. Which means -- like an embryo -- they have the ability to turn into a human.
Don't using Adult stem cells have the same ethical implications as embryonic stem cells? If not, then what is the ethical argument against killing an embryo?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Also no evidence against the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's only one reason why people are willing to give *any* credence to the idea of a sentient, divine, supernatural creator that has human characteristics and that's because they were raised, scared, extorted or cajoled to believe so.
Yes, but I think you're missing the point; he's using his status as a religious leader as his credential for commenting on human dignity, which, IMHO, is horse shit. Some things that are affronts to human dignity include, but aren't limited to:
And, most relevant to this situation...
Where exactly does he derive his moral authority from? From an old book that's essentially the greatest hits of Hebrew scripture, four contradictory accounts of the life of a guy who spoke Aramaic but are mysteriously written in Greek, a couple letters and the rantings of a crazy guy trapped on an island? If people want to believe that, fine. If people want to refuse treatment based on these kinds of "morals," fine. But the rest of us, who are interested in helping people, shouldn't be forced to live in the dark ages. Don't forget that dissection for research purposes used to be considered blasphemy on largely the same grounds. Where would modern medicine be if we didn't actually have any idea of where things were located in the body and how they worked?
>>* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
How in the fuck do you find evidence of something not existing for something that doesn't exist? Unfalsifiable BS in my opinion.
How about this: The claims about Gods(TM) made by pretty much all religions, from the shape of the Earth to the origins of the universe, have been thoroughly trampled by scientific advances. Therefore the Gods(TM) themselves, unfalsifiable as they are, do NOT exist.
Sorry, I'm edgy this afternoon. No caffeine for 20 hours and counting.
"What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
who came out of a coma after 20 years, if i remember correcty, story last year i think
i would definitely say that someone who had their brain excised from their skull in a car accident, who is now otherwise fully alive biologically on a respirator, is worthy of disposal, as they are already dead in terms of brain activity
but your vegetative state question is loaded. it's the same as asking about a 3 or 4 month old fetus. 2 months, definitely not human life. 5 months, definitely human life. and in between you have a grey area
and with people in a persistent vegetative state you have your grey area. a doctor could point to a brain scan and say this person will never be alive in terms of brain activity ever again, and he could bet his medical carteer on it. is he right? what about the guy who woke up after 20 years from a coma?
guess what: welcome to the real world. no simple answers. it's a grey area. you could go either way. i would probably err on the side of caution, and keep the person alive in a vegetative state. but i certainly wouldn't be ready to howl with high holy moral judgment calls if the family said the person should be taken off a respirator
because if you have any intellectual or moral honesty about you, you know its a grey area, which means you can't judge with fire and brimstone. you simply don't know the answer
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
to 'Human Dignity'.
:-)
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Keep your noses out of ladies privates...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Now the statement follows a request from the Pope that Cardinal Groer give up his duties and is being taken as a sign that the investigation has found against him. Citation
I think 'ignore' might be a bit of literary flare, getting a full blown Papal Investigation going isn't exactly a small task. The Pope is somewhat busy, running the largest single group of people in the world. It probably took as long as it did to get started. And in two months they ask for the Cardinal's resignation. I wouldn't call that covering up.
These are CHRISTIANS we are talking about. the "Turn the other Cheek" people. the "Treat others like you want to be treated" people.
What country do you live in? I've travelled throughout many parts of the United States and never met a true "turn the other cheek" Christian. I also don't recall ever seeing one on television or reading about one in a newspaper. If they do exist in the US I believe (anecdotally) they're a minority.
The most religious Christians I've met were happy to tell everyone how they should be living their lives. The "turn the other cheek" people need to spread the word better if that's how Christians are really supposed to be.
Developers: We can use your help.
I think Rob Schneider movies are an affront to human dignity, but I don't see the Pope sounding off about that.
That may be the "official" reason, but the real reason is that he found an error in the Flawless Undisputed Work of God.
A quote:
In 1614 a Dominican priest filed charges at the Office of the Inquisition. Galileo was to respond by writing extraordinarily long letters which were circulated and became subject of debate. The most influential churchman of his age, Cardinal Bellamarine was to say of Galileo's theories: "a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also likely to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false".
His actual crime was noticing that The Book has A Problem.
If you'd like to see an even better example of this, check out Giordano Bruno. His crimes were:
What did he say? Basically the same thing as Galileo - that the "heavens" are simply other stars like our sun, the comets weren't messengers from God, etc. Read it here.
Oh yeah, they burned his ass at the stake for that.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Religious people aren't so concerned with the same things we might be, like when a fetus starts to think. For them, it's all about the concept of a soul. Catholics especially are worried about where this mushy cell cluster's soul will go if a priest hasn't yet had a chance to molest it.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by moving to where you can't find them.
A man who says that "yes, AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse" does not have a moral leg to stand on. As far as I'm concerned, to hell with the pope.
If we can do the same research without destroying embryos, I would support that. But how many people will die in the lag time before we get there? In the calculus of existence, how much is one embryo worth? Are they worth more or less once they get older and die from some disease that would be curable if we had experimented more with embryonic stem cells earlier?
-- Why, yes, I am a compulsive devil's advocate. Why do you ask?
I'm not arguing you turning away. My point is, how can you expect a religion to remove something rooted deep in its theology, just for your comfort? That is essentially what your first post said.
A soul is the form (i.e. formal cause -- see Aquinas) of a particular body. "Cloned souls" or "getting a part of a soul" are simply not meaningful ideas. A clone has its own soul by definition because it has its own body, and living cells which are no longer part of a body do not carry a "piece" of the soul with them, since the soul is fundamentally related to the body as a whole.
The Pope's position is based on three principles which are acknowledged as part of Catholic teaching:
1. Human beings exist as such from fertilization onward
2. No innocent human being should be killed
3. Human reproduction is properly confined to sex
In part, in this particular case, he is arguing that they should be respected in order to prevent the "commoditization" of human life.
DNA just wants to be free...
... The need for Baptism? Being "born again"? As Paul wrote, the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit"? Jesus literally calls coming to faith a "second birth" (John 3:3), that birth replacing the sinful birth ...
Popes in Discodianism
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The Pope is a position granted by adherents of the Catholic Church. You can try to minimize its importance all you want but your declaration is irrelevant and immature.
I certainly would not want his position, I am not as firm in my beliefs as he is. As such I am also not as trapped either. The Pope of modern days must first respect his fellow Catholics and that means staying the course with little deviation. He walks a fine line in that while he does have a great amount of knowledge; don't fool yourself in believing him ignorant, while that may offer you solace in your belief he is far from it. In fact I figure he is well educated in this issue and its that education which puts a great difficulty before him. The Church can no longer afford to ignorant of science but it does not have to sit idly by and allow science to run over man.
The mission of the Church for some time has been directed to preserving the dignity of man. Yes we can dig up history and throw that in his face and the followers of any religion. The important issue is how it goes forward. What used to amaze me no longer does, people will flock to a politician offering a chicken in their pot, knowing full well its a lie, yet begrudge a man for holding to his principles. We will celebrate a whoring celebrity, a deceitful politician, and the almighty dollar, yet laugh at someone who is offers his beliefs to us.
What does it say about us? What does it say about him? The Church will be here long after many of us. It is through declarations like this that give us insight into how its going forward. While all religions have their radicals the leader of any stable religion can no longer afford such. Still they cannot stand still. He has opened a large door and taken a big step but here many are chastising him for not taking more steps. Give them time. They are monolithic and essentially eternal. They cannot he held to the same clock we hold ourselves. We make a decision and it usually affects us solely, the Church makes a decision and it affects tens of millions. As such their steps must be much more carefully thought out and delivered. I think he has made a great opening. He has relieve many Catholics who are in this line of research of many choices of faith that burdens them. He has given them freedom that many felt they may not have had. While he still have put barriers up he has shown some flexibility which allows the Church and its followers to go forward.
Rome was not built in a day, don't expect the Church to change in one either.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Am I the ONLY person who read this as: "Pope Denounces Some Biotch as Affront to 'Human Dignity'"
Who the hell is he to tell me that my daughter is some sort of abomination just because we had to use IVF to conceive her? What kind or arrogant twit is the pope anyway? Keep your stinkin' religion to yourself and don't be telling the whole world what to do. There are enough real problems in the world to deal with ... we don't need more pontificating.
The Church only denounces it because they can't effectively persecute those who practice it. Poor babies. There is no human dignity when it comes to the Catholic Church, but what they mandate.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Such a comment just confirms what I've said before about Atheists.
Nice generalization. I'm an atheist, but just because I don't believe in that superstitious junk doesn't mean I give a damn whether you have an open mind (by my definition, or yours). I don't.
You need to cross at least 'rational truth' off of that list. The Catholic Church in the encyclical Fides et Ratio promulgated by Pope John Paul II calls for a profound unity between Faith and Reason. That which is known by Faith and that which is known by Reason should never be directly contrary to one another, because the same God is the author of both Revealed and Reasonable truths.
So, yes, despite popular opinion the Catholic church is bound to rational truth. Which isn't a problem, because God is truth.
This page was generated by a Flock of Attack Kittens for you.
In a recent announcement by the pope today he said "Those round wheels will be the death of us! You cant have people Going places!" He later amended "but those square wheels you are free to experiment with all you like". Thanks pope, and now back to the stone age.
The fact that people are still buying into the religion industry in 2008 is absurd. This is what we get for having crappy education and faith-based government in the U.S.--people who care about what some religious spokesperson says.
Who died and made him king?
Who cares what some over dressed pimp that pushes a bunch of old tired worn out ideas to the masses?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"no real brain activity but IN THE FUTURE he might"
the hamburger on my plate. i will eat it. it will become my organs and my bones. so the hamburger on my plate will become at some point in the future, genuine human life. therefore, it is worthy of the spiritual and moral reverence of human life
no
something that potentially will be human is not in any moral or intellectually valid argument to be treated the same as human life
your argument is flat out logically invalid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I hope I haven't ruined your very well thought-out counter argument to foil all those Christian fiends that haunt you.
Not even close. You'd have to actually counter any argument in the first place, then you'd have to apply it to my argument specifically, and then you'd have to find Christian fiends (not hard) who foil me (as if!) and find me applying your argument against them (!).
But keep on trying, it keeps you off the streets.
Infuriate left and right
Some science shatters human dignity ... the pope doesn't know the half of it. He was never a graduate student in the sciences.
I'd suggest that the vast majority of believers haven't honestly considered the possibility there is no god, or that they might've been raised to believe in the wrong one. Indeed, to deny the existence of the Abrahamic god is an unforgivable sin.
Indoctrination does not really lend itself to free choice; people are tremendously easy to manipulate. It's one of the oldest skills, and now one of the most perfected.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
potatoe head denounces some biatches as affront to human dignity!
The Church excommunicated folks. Secular powers "burned his ass at the stake for that." Big misconception that is thrown around quite frequently.
Things were different back then. The Church and the State were *not* separated at that point in history. They were intertwined. There were no wholly secular powers in Europe at that time, at least none that I am aware of. That's why the "separation of church and state" clause in the First Amendment in the United States Constitution was such a novel idea at the time.
You'll notice that every single one of the charges brought against Bruno was an offense against the Church. Not a singular charge is a secular crime.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
if there exist invisible super-beings, then there's no way to tell!
If you define them in a way that prevents telling, that is. There are more ways to detect an entity than mere vision, especially if that entity is supposedly very powerful. We could detect such an entity by its effect on the universe. However the official stance on God seems to be that he's not doing anything lately.
Lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence but it makes it highly likely that assuming existence is a waste of time. Especially when you're arguing there is something that makes no difference but it's absolutely central to your life and should be to everyone else's. You have no reason to even consider the existence of such an entity (nor do you have to consider the existence of invisible monsters under your bed).
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
You must be new here.
How about reading some of the responses to my posts. (Krog's post just a few up would be a good start. Moral Equivocation between two disparate and dissimilar groups is one form of stifling honest debate about the failings of one group. In this case, equivocating Christians with Muslims to discredit honest and factual criticism of Islam.)
Have you EVER been to DailyKOS? The hate and vitriol directed at Christians (and Jews) there is nothing short of HORRIFYING. To see the naked, burning HATE some people have for Christians with NO real reason is, frankly, vile and disgusting. And let's not get into the Antisemitism RAMPANT on that site. I feel dirty just mentioning it. Of course, Muslims there get a completely free ride, and are, in fact CELEBRATED, even when they are involved in horrific acts of terrorism.
So please don't feign ignorance, it's unbecoming.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
At the risk of starting a pointless discussion, the position of most atheists is that:
1) Burden of proof rests on the person making a claim
2) there isn't really any way to prove or disprove the existence of god, (depending on what you mean by 'prove', of course)
3) Given 1 and 2, anybody who believes in god is exhibiting faulty, or at least irrational, thinking.
Unfortunately, as the comment you quoted demonstrates, atheism tends to attract people who like to criticize other's beliefs in ways that are gratuitously inflammatory.
That said, it's not that 'atheists want everybody to agree with them', atheists simply see it as nonsensical or irrational to believe in invisible beings that nobody can see, without any sort of evidence.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Well, I denounce Joey Rat and the Catholic Church as an affront to human dignity.
Not all Christians celebrate birthdays.
Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right.
there are people who are vegetables and can't think. so you have no problem killing them? Just remember whatever definition you use has to still fit every human that is currently post-birth, so to speak.
... we didn't kill a human." with saying it may cause the death of the mother. thats a DIFFERENT argument. it has nothing to do of where you should draw the line of calling something human or not. logically, if we do not have a definition of what is actually human, we really can't draw the line and would be forced to assume the earliest possible point. hell, you could even draw this argument to before conception, but then you could throw the argument that we let sperm/eggs die all the time because we can't help it, its a natural part of reproduction, therefore its ok. so, i have no problem drawing the line at conception, because any earlier and you kind of have to always use in-vitro and we couldn't waste any sperm or eggs.
The GP was right. Beware of anyone who tries to draw a line. If you make it too late, $%^# we killed a human being. If we make it too early... oh well, we let a blob live... but we didn't kill a human. and don't say, "well what if the birth kills the mother?" while i personally agree that it should be ok to abort if there is a high-risk of death, its more because i think its more like self defense. since you may not find out it'll kill the mother until right before birth (in which case, the only argument AGAINST it being human is that its still in the womb and being fed by the mother), then you'd have to admit you'd be killing a human to save her. Whereas if you found out extremely early, then you can decide to kill a blob to save her. If timing is the only difference and we're not sure when it actually becomes a human, you can't really make the argument against "if we make it too early
There is documentation, that is some evidence. I won't claim it is necessarily impressive or should convince you or that you are irrational if you claim it was made by men and is historically inaccurate.
What I will say is that agnosticism is not irrational. It's the only rationally certain view (as atheism asserts the negative). However, many people believe things to be true without sufficent evidence. It doesn't make them irrational. Now, if they believed things to be true in the presence of contradictary evidence (the capital of England is England City), that would be irrational.
Godel helps because he removes the divine from the mundane. Which, if people just recognized, would shut up 99% of the crazies on both sides. Religious figures should talk about ethics. They study them. Scientists should talk about science. Evolution is a scientific issue. When it is moral to kill another person is an ethical one. Popes seem as valid a source as any other.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It's COMPLETELY different!
The fault was endemic to the system for decades, as priests and bishops came and went. It is not a fluke, it's an organization putting its own well being above that of the vulnerable children under its care. All large organization end up prioritizing their own survival over their stated goals, it's just a fact of life.
The church should take the lumber out of its own eye before pointing out the specks in biotech.
You can't take the sky from me...
No one said they had to be biological fathers.
the situation for the guy who is in a coma versus a month old ball of cells is completely different as too potential. figure it out
as for your cow. yes, it was brought into this world to be treated as a future hamburger, and is treated as such. but even if she planned on it, she can still expel it. i mean exactly what is your point? if the future-hamburger cow is instead turned into a holy hindu icon, this is wrong, because it is not what was planned? huh? what's your point?
before 3 months, the mother can, without any moral qualms, expel the bag of cells. she has not killed a human life. she has destroyed a biological ball that might one day be a human life. which is not the same as human life. it's simple not the same moral equivalent
do you understand that very simple straightforward observation or not?:
potential to be human life != actual human life
what is difficult about this concept to you exactly?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I was just over a year old.
I was a Sophomore in High School when I was confirmed, and it was in line with my desire at that point. Also, Baptism gives grace, and grace always enables the freedom of choice. How many people were baptized as babies and decided to leave?
I guess thats all I have to say.
Here's a picture of my own personal "affront to human dignity". You're an asshole.
http://gallery.doug.dimick.net/d/16816-2/Chloe+017_001.JPG
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
a leading voice in the philosophy and discussion of bioethics
I guess they need to be involved in ethics somehow. They sure haven't been up to the job where pedophilia is concerned. Well, I guess that depends the church's definition of UP and JOB is.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
He may or may not say something of import. The problem I have is that he proposes as a justification for what he says (which is what should be used to evaluate the `import') that it derives from his doctrine. Since his doctrine is essentially inconsistent, then the import of his saying can but properly be judged to be insignificant.
This pope really is a hippocrite. He probably ought to declare himself an affront to human dignity.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The issue wasn't just "some book" that said the earth was the center of the universe. Almost everybody was convinced that's what they were seeing when they looked up in the sky. It's pretty darn hard to take a glance and figure all that out for yourself. There's a reason it took all of humanity several thousand years to establish that fact. We're talking generations of really hardcore science nerds like Aristotle, Archymedes, and Da Vinci. Almost no one besides Galileo had seen what he had, and few even had the capacity to interpret that as a heliocentric system on their own, even if they did see it. It may seem simple to you or me, who have been taught it in increasingly thorough steps as long as we can remember, but you do disservice to their intellects by neglecting that point.
Galileo (who wasn't the first to suggest or even provide evidence of heliocentrism), happened to be the stubborn fool who got caught in the crosshairs of the debate over a dramatically shifting worldview. If you thought the bickering about whether Pluto is a planet was tiresome, just imagine trying to redefine the entire universe to a largely uneducated world. Heck, plenty of people were still claiming "turtles all the way down" into the 19th or 20th century.
The Church ended up involved largely as a matter of politics, which the Church was unfortunately overly involved in at the time. Galileo actually had a lot of support from the pope at the time until he (apparently accidentally) insulted Pope Urban in his book on the topic. At that point, their friendship ended and the vehemently geocentric half of society was able to sway the board of inquisitors in their favor. Over time the fallacy of geocentrism became increasingly obvious and quietly went away, although the protestants never tired of pointing out the Church's misstep. It only took 359 years for the apology to come out because most people simply saw it as a non-issue that scientific evidence had dealt with. John Paul II, however, wanted to address the lingering resentment. I might also mention that I just happened to read in the paper today that Australia's PM is issuing a formal apology for Australia's mistreatment of Aboriginees. In same tone as yours, do we really want this racist beauracracy clogging down the politics in Australia?
The Catholic Church's teaching on topics like artificial insemmination isn't some arbitrary whim. It's based on a very deeply founded theology of the creation and nature of human beings, and it's one that does not minimize the value of those who are sterile, for example. Obviously few non-Catholics genuinely understand the main points of the theology, but that does not change the reasoning behind it.
I am hardly able to see the Church as a solely medieval institution, as you put it, when it is in fact composed of hundreds of millions of modern day people, most of whom are quite capable of integrating history and the modern world in their lives. While we're at it, humanity is a pre-medieval institution. Where does that leave us?
I denounce his hat as an Affront to 'Human Dignity'.
Well, there is Thomas Aquinas and there's, say, the systematic support by the Church as an organization and by very many prominent memners of the Church, personally, to quite disgraceful dictatorships in Lati America, for example (recently in Argentina a priest who participated in torturing prisioners and coercing them both physically and psychologically during confession (!) was judged, and that imam you seem to have in mind is hardly any different to him) You need to get better informed, if you think Aquinas is anywhere near representative...
They want it back.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
You wouldn't say you could rightly kill someone sleeping, in a coma, suspended animation, etc., simply because they had temporarily ceased their conscious thought. You would bring into consideration their potential to resume conscious thinking. So I think it's far from clear that the line of humanity is drawn once consciousness initiates. The fact that it *will* initiate, provided you make no intentionally destructive interventions, seems suspiciously like other cases where we intuitively feel that it is wrong to end life. I'm not saying it is necessarily the same. I feel that it is, quite possibly, impossible to know. But, the thing is, you don't demolish a building until you're sure it's been evacuated, and you don't kill someone or something on a 50/50 hope that it isn't actually murder.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
"The issue is not the baby, but the method."
I don't think so. The method is what the church attacks, but it's only to have a tangible handle on the issue. The church's problem, I think, is that the closer science gets to understanding life and how to bring life about, the more it strips away divinity or metaphysics from life and birth. And *that* the church cannot allow - the shrinking of its domain.
Once the sun was a god, because we had no way of understanding what it was. Currently, conception still carries a lot of metaphysics about it. When that goes away, what will remain? The church will think of something, but they'll have to backpedal a lot, so they do what they can to avert it.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
I guess this could spell problems for my new product, "Pope In A Can".
Have gnu, will travel.
Most atheists I know are more "christian" in their behavior and values than any Christian I have ever met. Mostly because they've actually thought about WHY they do what they do, rather than have it handed down from some ancient book of myths.
Besides, you don't get to define "Christian". If you accept Jesus as your savior and lord, you are a Christian. Period, end of story. He's that "Christ" part of "Christian". Just because you don't WANT to be associated with Jack Thompson doesn't mean that you aren't. Saying otherwise is complete hypocrisy.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
He says some good common sense, "scientific progress should not be accepted uncritically" and that he "wanted [scientific progress] based on 'ethical-moral principles.'" No problem. Not even controversial. But then we get to the nitty-gritty:
"Meant." See that word? Convert the verb to active voice, and look at the subject.
Aside from that..
That's a fine thing to say, but based on the premise that embryos are people. If you can't find any support for the premise and reject it, then you're left with 'something' being treated as 'something' -- and technology that isn't conflicting with anyone's ethical principles.
This doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean he's unpersuasive. Asserting that an ethical principle has been violated, without explaining that it is an ethical principle, says nothing.
But he can't go beyond that, and show that an embryo is a person, because there isn't any information to support that. No one has communicated with an embryo, so we've been left with looking at their rather lumplike behavior, which different people subjectively interpret in different ways. Without information, that leaves..
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think Catholic Priests running around HIV infested Africa and South America preaching the evil of birth control and contraception is an affront to human dignity.
The way I see it, and this comes not from a religious viewpoint since I am not religious, but entirely a human rights one, is no one else has a right to impose on another person their wishes about their body, including deciding what kind of body that person will have. Every person should have a right to a body that is uniquely theres and no one elses and no one should have a right to force them into someone else's body. At least nature is random and has no agenda. People have agendas and I do not like the idea of people deciding what kind of body a person will have, their facial features, their eye color, etc. People have a right to eb unique and to have things which are uniquely their own and which no one else has control over and the most basic of this is their body. Perhaps people choose their own DNA before they are born, including their phsyical features and characteristics.
Human cloning has a very concerning and unpleasant 1984ish or Brave New World feel to it, a horrific utopian world where every aspect of peoples lives, right down to that which is most personal and sacred to a person, their body, is controlled by others. It is a frightening vision of conformity, uniformity where people are rather than seen as unique individuals instead as carbon copies. It really needs to be completely banned if we care about freedom, the right of each person to be individual, unique, to self determination, the right to a body that is uniquely theres and controlled and manipulated by no one else. We need to respect each person as a unique and diverse person entirely their own, rather than trying to impose ourselves on them and try to determine and control who they are. We need to respect diversity and individuality and eschew totalitarianism and conformism. So I concur with the pope on cloning, not on religious grounds, but on human rights ones.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I'm glad there are other people realizing this.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Incorrect. It's just that all the evidence is circumstantial. People have written that they have spoke to God (i.e. Moses) and other people believe that he is a reliable source. People wrote about how Jesus performed miracles, etc. Therefore it is not entirely like saying "The Flying Spaghetti Monster Appears" just because you can say it.
Although, sadly, saying that people should believe it because it's in a book only give Christianity as much credence as Scientology, just older...
* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, declaring the immobility of the sun to be "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical", and the mobility of the Earth "to be at least erroneous in faith";
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future[13]
There is a lot of effort in the religious circles to rewrite that part of their shameful history. I see you're a good sheep. You managed to take their order to shut up as a "celebration" of his theory. Takes a lot of effort to achieve that level of doublethink.
You can't take the sky from me...
In ancient times of the Israelites, if your brother died and left no children to his wife, you were supposed to have sex with her and impregnate her. It would not be considered your baby, but your dead brother's.
Today, if your brother died and he froze his semen, his wife could possibly be artificially inseminated. It would be his baby.
Which is more dignified?
you know :).
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
You caught me; I will cross "rational truth" off that list for the Catholic Church. One thing I really like about the Church is its (recent) harmony with science. It is miles ahead of most of American Christianity in this regard.
I agree with your last statement completely. God is truth. I would also invert it; truth is God. There is nothing but what is, and everything else ain't.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Sounds like a good headline to me.
I hereby predict on record that every generation will look at previous generation as barbaric and stupid because of the way they treat each other. At least that is what I hope will happen. So far we seem to be on the right track. In the last three generations of my american family non-landowners, women, and those of color were not in their same category of 'human dignity'.
With any luck, our children will think we are intolerant buffoons.
It'd be cool if it did exist though! Imagine the stories that'd be written!
Taggers are a tiny, unrepresentative minority. Compare like with like - how many comments like the pope's do you see in biotech discussions? And how are they moderated?
Newsflash: if there exist invisible super-beings, then there's no way to tell! If you get all holier-than-thou because you are so certain that unprovability is equal to nonexistance, you really need to read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Right back at you; maybe you should read the actual theorem yourself. Because currently you're just making yourself look like an idiot who read the name in a book somewhere.
I am trolling
Let us not forget Bertrand Russell's teapot.
[FUCK BETA]
The Pope is on another hypocritical rant. For a this sect of Christianity is the worst of the all. First it was the Inquisition which stopped the European open thinking. Second the paying of bribes and other evils that Martin Luther alluded to 95 Theses (Martin Luther was no saint either but that is all relative). Third is the current sex scandal with alter boys. There are many more but I don't have time.
I'm a Protestant Christian so I have my bias but have studied this from in college understand that people are the hypocrites that takes the religion way out of context. Similar to Osama Bin Laden with his "Fundamentalists" Islam which has no bearing with Islam or the Quran. I don't want to use the Pope in relation to Osama but if Pope goes over the deep end again like the Inquisition then there will be no difference.
Here are two links which take different take on the issue but arrive at a similar conclusion. The first link says that Galileo was only condemnded after attacking philosophy.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
The next link shows that it was professors at University that pushed for the Inquisition and that the Church initially supported him
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/08/16/galileo-redux/
Does that mean "I got an aching for head"???
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It's not like Protestantism has been a fountain of tranquility and human rights. Catholics were abused for long stretches of time in Protestant countries. It was Protestants in the American South that went out and formed the Southern Baptist Convention so they could have a church to justify slavery. It is Protestantism which is the foundation of a number of whacky Evangelical/Fundemntalist groups who want to turn the US into a theocracy.
You know what they say about those in glass houses throwing stones...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
....and see if the clone has a soul! :)
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Yes they were intertwined but only in so much as the state had a "recognized" religion.
More than that.
Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realise this, the ceremony is entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor).
Kings were put in place by the church. That's a little more than an endorsement.
Bruno was put to death for heresy - hardly a secular crime. He was arrested by the Venetian Inquisition - a church organization - in 1592. Then on the Roman Inquisition ordered his transfer, where he was transfered to Rome. He was held there seven years in the Tower of Nona, which is "a pontifical prison".
Then, "His trial was overseen by the inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. Instead he appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict."
Your point seems to be the next line, "Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, handed over to secular authorities on February 8 1600."
My point is that while the pope may not have personally brought the torch to the fire, the church most definitely ordered him put to death. They may not have done the actual physical deed - but they put him to death. Saying that the church didn't put him to death is disingenuous, like saying Al Capone never put anyone to death because he wasn't a trigger man.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
To me, open-mindedness means these things:
It does not mean this:
I have never heard an argument or seen evidence for a given religion which makes me think it's anything more than a massive delusion, at best.
This does not mean I'm unwilling to listen. I love discussing religion and philosophy. Just don't expect to convince me with something as pathetic as "The Pope said so, and he's always right!"
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
At first I wanted to just post "the _pope_ is an affront to human dignity", but then I used the post above to do some simple calculations. I just took the 359 years figure for the Galileo apology, and subtracted it from present -1. I've decided that I will consider all the pope's comments relevant and meaningful, including his views on human dignity affronting, for the date - 358 years. So, for all events in 1650, I will view through the perspective that test-tube babies and human cloning are an undignified endeavor for humans. Any test tube babies or human clones in the year 1650 are abominations and must be burnt! After that date, it will become dignified. Thank you for your input, Pope! 1651 looks to be a great year for biotechnology!
See, I could listen to your theological speculations on the issue, or I could listen to those of a professional theologian like the Pope. While theology doesn't accomplish much either way and neither of you are saying anything meaningful, at least the Pope is more convincing at pretending to be an authority on the matter.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I guarantee you an adult pig can outthink a six month old fetus. And we kill pigs all the time, without needing a good reason to. As a scientist and agnostic, wouldn't it make more sense to be able to kill them until they're about 3 years old? An especially bright 3 year old child can outwit an adult chimpanzee, after all. Don't let your tender human feelings for babies get in the way--clearly there's an evolutionary advantage to not wanting to kill our babies, so that intuition has no bearing. (I'm not trolling or being facetious, either--I honestly think infanticide might not be so bad, although I'm not certain or dogmatic about any of this.)
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
What if the AI has living components? What if you lost half of your body(including the brain, kidneys, endocrine organs, and such) and that technology could completely replace and simulate the lost half, would you have half a soul? Would you be half dead? And what happens when you replace more and more cells with technology? Would you have a soul if you had 1 real brain cell and the rest were simulated? Now let me complicate things further, what happens if you make an exact copy of yourself having the exact same neural wiring pattern and everything(through entirely ethical means of course)? Would the 2 of you have 1 soul or 2? What happens if two different people attach their brains together, again, do they have 1 soul or 2?
The zygote divides because God injected a second soul.
Sheesh.
Infuriate left and right
So Hitler and the Nazis did not kill Jews, nor did Stalin and his communists kill peasants, not did Mao and his communist system kill anybody. No, it was all those damned secularists!
Damn you Secularism! Damn you to Hell and back! Stop killing so many people!
Infuriate left and right
Who is man to tell God what He ought and ought not do?
I guess thats all I have to say.
What biological occurrence is it at the end of the first trimester that causes you to ascribe humanity to the fetus (already termed as such at 8 weeks) at that time?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
But I didn't see this in TFA:
'Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions,' Benedict said."
So where did this come from?
qz
If "killing" a single-celled organism is wrong, what about fruit flies? They have far more brain cells than a blastocyst. Wouldn't their suffering exceed that of an aborted fetus?
Then, when the Pope dodges all questions related to pursuit of happiness, and relief of real suffering, with his "human soul" escape clause, ask him about the cruelty of cramming a complete human soul into a structure with less consciousness than a fruit fly. Either first trimester abortions and stem cell research are just fine, or God is an abuser. There is no 'out' left to the Catholic Church on these questions. It is either for human life, liberty, and happiness and scientific research in pursuit of all three, or against all forms of human freedom. Unless, they're all just too damned stupid to take seriously, ever, on anything.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
Given that the pope is not an expert on either biology nor ethics, how about he simply shuts up about stuff he doesn't know about?
(he studied theology, with a focus on Fundamentalist Theology, if you really want to know what his "ethics" are. His first stint as a professor (at a catholic "university") was in the subjects of Theology and Dogmatics.)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
The next link shows that it was professors at University that pushed for the Inquisition and that the Church initially supported him
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/08/16/galileo-redux/ "Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances. "
Oh yeah, no agenda here, I'll just swallow what they have to say.
Those mean professors bullied the demure Inquisition into sentencing him to prison! Poor, powerless Inquisition, at the mercy of every university professor out there...
You can't take the sky from me...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You can try claiming many things about the Pope, but to say he's talking out of ignorance is probably not something that will hold up under scrutiny.
...and are any of these guys the pope? Plus, to be honest, no I don't think that astro-physicists are qualified to speak with authority on biological matters, any more than I am as a particle physicist. This is especially true for those who are Catholic priests given their complete lack of experience regarding having a family.
:-). In fact I'd love to visit the Vatican Observatory at some point and meet the astronomer-priests there. I have a great deal of admiration for them for showing that, in an increasingly hostile religion vs. science environment that not only are the two compatible but the science is important to religion for keeping it 'on track'.
I did not say he was ignorant: I said he did not understand science. The fact that he has suggested that Galileo's trial was fair says a lot about how much he understands science. In addition, for the case in question, he has zero experience of human reproduction and no science qualifications of which I am aware so I fail to see how the pope is really qualified to judge the scientific matters in question. I'm sure he has vast experience regarding theology but that is only half of the puzzle.
What about a guy who has Ph.Ds in both astro-physics and theology? Is he qualified to speak about this? Or the guy who thought of the Big Bang? An atomic physicist that inspired Faraday? Or the people who published some of these papers?
Some of the greatest minds have been part of the Church and have striven to find the truth--both morally and scientifically.
Indeed they have to the great benefit of all. I'm a christian myself although an anglican (but then nobody's perfect
If total depravity due to original sin were an issue in the New Testament, I would expect it to say something about infant baptism and not tie baptism to actions of knowledge such as repentence, faith, and confession. (You probably should have quoted the fifth chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans, as well.)
I really do recommend reading the anti-Nicene fathers on this issue. It's very interesting to compare them to the post-Nicene fathers especially on the issue of Mary and virginity. In particular, only post-Augustine does the question arise as to the circumstances of her conception.
how to invest, a novice's guide
As a Catholic - and a strong supporter of the Church - I tell you that you have the liberty to listen to or ignore whomever you wish. However, if you limit the people you listen to to just yourself, it won't take long before the only person who listens to you is just yourself. You're free to be your own master, but no master is a master without a slave, and your quest for self-mastery will only make you a slave to yourself.
I guess thats all I have to say.
I mean seriously, while the Catholic church has the biggest following of any religion I know of (and the includes baptists, which while not a religion as opposed to a fanatic cult) I haven't seen the Church provide any guidance to anyone as of late... especially since the passing of JPII. I tend to find that if nothing else, the Church seems to put more effort into being heard than listened to.
In the modern world where religion has less and less impact on the operation of governments, corporations and educational institutions. During a time when people regularly openly mock Christians in general as being brain dead (if you haven't noticed it, you're not listening). In an era where people are actually turned down for jobs because they wear a cross around their neck, the Churches will need to now, more than ever show they're evolving with the times. More and more, their followers are the sheep of society, not the leaders.
If the Church genuinely wants to make a difference, they need to, instead of playing the "Moral grounds card", since most people working on the projects do see themselves on higher moral grounds than the Church, provide research to show it's not a good idea. Hire independant (non-religion, possibly atheist) scientists to research the topic as well and present good reasoning that would specifically back up their arguments.
If we go back, long before the Catholic church to the days of exodus, Kosher was presented to a weak people dieing from tape worm, food poisening and other such issues an uneducated population travelling in the desert would be forced to survive. The morals behind Kosher had deeper meaning than "You should not cook thine cattle in the milk of its mother". The problem was that Egyptians classically would baste their meat in milk overnight to cause it to be much more tender. The moral was in reality that deadly tiny little bacteria would form in the meat when it's left on a rock in the desert overnight.
If the Church genuinely feels they have out best interest in mind, remember, we're not a bunch of uneducated brick makers with families travelling in a desert. Do the research to tell us what in fact is morally wrong. Show us the actual answer, we are reasonable and rational people. If you can show that a certain form of scientific progress will has a very highly likelyhood of having a morally negative impact on humankind, we will listen... at least we'll alter our research to avoid the complication.
I hereby declare all religions to be dumb superstitions and ban them from being believed and practiced by all self-respecting human beings.
After all, I have better knowledge and credibility in the areas of philosophy, psychology and history than Pope has in science.
Seriously, can we get rid of this mental virus already? We managed to destroy smallpox! The freaking smallpox! Yet minds of people remain infested with religions, even though just keeping people from contracting it until the late teenage years (when they switch from "learn from authority figures" to "apply your own critical thinking" mode) reliably cuts off its propagation to all future generations. Geez!
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
One can make a viable clone from a non-embryonic stem cell. Do clones have a soul ? Do they have a soul when they are a bunch of stem cells ? When they are a single stem-cell ? How can it be ok to use non-embryonic cell and not kosher to use embryonic ones ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
So in other words, what you are saying is that since you and your church are following the other route, that you need slavery since without slaves you can't be masters?
I think I prefer being my own master over being a slavemaster.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The Pope himself is an affront to human dignity, so he should feel right at home with biotech then.
It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.
Actually, the analogy is quite apt: initially, adults resist assimilation, while kids are just born into the collective. But once assimulated, the community of the collective, the closeness of other minds, is something they value greatly. And then the drones go out and assimilate more pepole into the collective.
The Borg is an excellent metaphor for organizations like the Catholic church. And that's not an accident: after all, the Star Trek writers are not stupid, and they are using Star Trek to show us things about our own society.
The problem with this is: How do you weigh past and future "thinking" ? Is anyone who isn't going to think in the next few months (due to coma, cryogenic preservation, whatever) not to be considered human, even if there's a good chance that he or she will be able to think at some point in the future ?
Also, the limit of viability (that is, the point at which a fetus has a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb if delivered prematurely) is currently at 25 weeks, which is juuust a little bit shorter than 6 months, and is probably going to become even lower in the future. Would that mean that a really premature baby would not be considered human, due to being short a few days of neural development ?
In fact if we inspect the properties of this Christian god, could probably come up with a rigid proof that either it doesn't exist, or that our minds cannot logically comprehend its existence.
But then even if such a proof existed people will keep believing anyways. Such is called Faith.
Don't quote me on this.
If the sin is passed down at the point of conception (and not caused or created BY the conception) then what if a married pair of catholics have sex (without any sinful thought or actions-AFAIK sex between a married couple is not a sin) just after confession (which AFAIK cleans ALL (confessed), even original, sin in catholic doctrine) then wouldn't the child thus conceived be free of sin?
Annoying to be called out as the credulous fool that you are, isn't it.
I take it you haven't read my journals, Mr. Coward. I know I'm a fool. I'm not very credulous, even though if there's a doubt to give someone the benefit of they get it.
Don't worry, you can't still cry on you invisible friend's shoulder.
First, there's no crying, there's only scolding you children. Where do you get this "invisible" nonsense? Arguing with you athiests about the existance of God is like arguing with a man blind from birth about the existance of the color red.
Meanwhile, us grownups who no longer need invisible friends will be over here having a grown-up conversation.
What grown up conversation? Taunts like I responded to are the domain of the fifth grader, son. Before you try to remove the speck from my eye, you might want to remove the log from your own.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
denounce the pope as an affront to Human morality .
As an atheist i find his pronuncements on the world irrelevant and out of touch.
He cant talk about morality untill he does something to prevent the rampant child
abuse in the catholic church instead of encouraging people to bury it as he advised
earlier on in his career. Thousands have suffered inhuman treatment because of that.
Don't get me started on his pronouncements against contraception in
Africa that have been the biggest catalyst to the explosion of AIDS cases.
Future generations will see that as the biggest genocide of our age.
Oh well there goes my karma but it needed to be said.
Toodle-pip
Amias
[site]
Nothing illustrates the fact that a comment is flamebait like a good hearty "fuck off, asshole". It worked, the comment I responded to was eventually modded flamebait, as it should have been originally.
If you disagree with my views or beliefs, you should respond intelligently, as you just did, rather than hurl insults like some seventh grade jock picking on a nerd for his taped glasses.
Of course, my own comment was modded "troll" but no big deal. My karma can take a downmodding. How's yours?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"Karma: Excellent"
Trolling is a art,
Glad to see that your unfortunate flamebait was a fluke.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The Catholic church really needs to get it's own house in
order before attempting to preach to the rest of us about
"human dignity". Accept responsibility for harboring
pedophiles and pushing those who were doing the harboring
and you might have some standing to talk about "human dignity".
The Papacy has been abdicating it's moral high ground since at least 1939.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Oh wait, there aren't any
You do realize the purpose of medical/scientific research is to eventually have treatments or medical processes that actually benefit patients and all humans in general, right? That is the long-term goal of all medical research. There are no therapies derived from embryonic stem cell research YET, but the field is in its infancy. Who knows what knowledge will be discovered in 20 years?
The point I was trying to illustrate is that if the Pope firmly believes that a clump of cells is a human life, then he, and all Catholics that believe that nonsense should refuse all treatments derived from knowledge acquired using embryonic stem cell experiments. It's called not being a hypocrite.
Adult stem cells may or may not work in specific medical studies or applications. That is an unknown at this point. It is possible that some therapies will only come from embryonic stem cells. Would you be willing to sacrifice your life, (or a family member's / loved one's life) by refusing treatments based on embryonic stem cell research for the opinions of the Catholic Church?
I know I wouldn't. Not for the Catholic Church, or any other.
-ted
Read my posting history, it's no fluke.
I think you're confusing speaking one's mind with flamebait, I really do feel that way.
Cheers.
Trolling is a art,
If your act of *natural* insemination qualifies as "dignified" you're probably doing something wrong.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Benedict XVI never was a member of NSDAP. He was a member of Hitlerjugend, but it was forced on every kid in the country; just like all the able-bodied men in Germany at the time were conscripted in the army. Similarly, there were a lot of people in the Soviet Union, who were formally members of the Communist party simply because it was required of them (e.g. you effectively had to be one to get high education).
Flamebait would've been me posting my opinion of the deity, which is very much in line with that of Dawkins and Hitchens.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
"I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different.
I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture,
a city where the artist would not fear the censor,
where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality,
Where the great would not be constrained by the small!"
-Andrew Ryan
I'm not talking about what you're saying, I'm talking about how you're saying it. For example, here are two ways of saying the same thing. In Springfield, for some reason blacks don't like using the sidewalk. Maybe they've had experiences with dogs, or racists, I don't know. But there would be two ways to discuss it.
Way 1: "I wish black people would use the sidewalk and look before they cross the street, I'm afraid I'll hit someone some day."
Way 2: God damned niggers better get the fuck out of my way beefore I run 'em over.
Both statements say exactly the same thing. One is flamebait (or in this town, bulletbait) and one is not.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Baptism of children is drawn from the Bible. A debate for a different forum. http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
So what does it take to qualify, does he have to be one of the tens of thousands of nazi troops, or the thousands of nazi officers? Precisely which Nazis are we allowed to count as Nazis?
Being a member of the Hitler youth, the oaths he swore, and the actions he took as a member of the Hitler youth squads ARE things he's done. People do not change, cowardly children grow into cowardly men... discipline and learning may temper the behavior they show but inside they are the same as they always were.
Perhaps that is why he grew to be an insufferable self-righteous prick peddling made up crapola to take advantage of millions of ignorant fools.
Oh, he did? Reasonable men like... Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin? Assholes who torture kittens? A logical world with... asteroid impacts? Children born with painful and irreparable defects? Mothers dying in giving birth to their children? The black plague? Yeah, I know if *I* were omnipotent and all-knowing, I'd design a world that resembles a well designed structure about as much as a pile of dung resembles a gourmet meal. Suuuure I would.
Explain? Sure. The 400-year Papal inquisition. The 600-year Spanish inquisition (really an inquisitional schism, but certainly a Catholic operation from beginning to end.) The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno. Witch burnings. Scourgings. I don't recall the Scientologists burning anyone lately, or the Mormons holding an inquisition complete with "special" tools used to "help you recall" things they want to hear. That's more George Bush's style. Hold your head under water, make you think you're going to drown, you know the drill. Hot pokers, the Iron Maiden, the rack, your basic set of tongs, a brazier full of hot coals. Yessir, those catholics really know how to host a party.
You want me to go on? I can, you know...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. They don't. They may return nonsensical claims, uninformed speculation or superstition when posed, but those things are not answers, any more than "flower" is an answer to "the temperature of the heliosphere is...?"
Yes, in order to completely mislead you. You're exactly right. That's why religion and philosophy often share the same bed. You know, the one you really ought to use the UV lamp on before you lie down.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why? Do you think the mind is an on-off proposition? Then how do you account for great musical talents who can't add? Great athletic talents that can't paint? Great thinkers who can't control their legs?
It is not unreasonable to look at a group of people who believe for the most part in some ridiculous precept, and declare them wrong either by pointing out countering facts, or to declare them preposterous by virtue (if I may misuse the word) of their uniform lack of facts. In the middle ages, the majority believed that closing windows and bleeding you was the best (cough) "medical" procedure for disease. They were uniformly wrong. Not stupid -- just wrong. Uninformed, or perhaps misinformed. Nonetheless, they were wrong, and the sooner they had been corrected, the better off they would have been. Not smarter, mind you, just better off, better informed. Today, sure, a majority of US citizens will stand up to be counted when the question is "are you religious", but again, this doesn't make them stupid -- it makes them just today's bunch of closed-window believers. If you look at my original post, I didn't say these people were stupid, I pointed *specifically* at the factors involved in making them loony in this area of reasoning. It doesn't mean they can't add, and it doesn't change their IQ. They're just wrong.
The idea that when the majority believes something, they are "ok" or the idea is correct is manifestly broken right out of the gate. I can cite you popular example after example: "All men are created equal." No. They aren't. Not actually, not conceptually, and this is a poor basis from which to proceed. The right sentiment is something along the lines of "all shall be afforded equal opportunity according to their ability to take advantage of it." Here's another: "Democracy is the most equitable system." No. It isn't. In fact, it really is pretty stupid. Democracy is the concept that any two idiots can outvote an expert, which is patently insane. Yet if you asked that question like we ask the religion question, you'll get an outpouring of backing for democracy. Even though you can watch it massively fail the citizens any day by examining the actions of congress or the political parties. No, the fact that most people are religious does not in any way validate religion. Sorry.
There. Care to defend your statement now?
You see, it it perfectly reasonable to dismiss things that are ridiculous. Religion is one of those things. It exists entirely free of proof at any level whatsoever, just like Santa, has 100% in common with any superstition you'd care to use as an example, except for how widespread it is and how much harm it has done. I have no trouble at all dismissing it. Because religion is just Santa, writ large.
Well, you know, I wouldn't, but these people keep getting in other people's way who would have nothing to do with them by choice. Stores closed on Sunday. Marriage only to one person of the opposite sex. Ridiculous ideas like creationism being forced on innocent children. Repression and criminalization of teenage sexuality. Flying aircraft into buildings. Cutting off young ladies' clitoris and other goodly parts. Bathing in filthy water. Taking the last pennies from gullible retirees by "virtue" of their made-up stories. Making me pay their share of property taxes. Burning people at the stake for imaginary crimes. Creating insane people by denying them sex, and subsequently creating child victims of these cracked folks. And then hiding these same people. Again, I could go on. But I really don't need to.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
First of all religion is not an "affront to human dignity.
And then there's today's religious news.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Planet US of A?
In Mexico I just stopped going to church and well, that was pretty much it. It is not uncommon in Mexican families that only one or two members follow the rites while all the others thoroughly ignore religion.
The Catholic Church did not put itself as the source of Christian authority. If you believe in all that stuff it was Jesus himself (i.e. God) and there is a traceable historic lineage from the current Pope back to Saint Peter. Other denominations may not like it but it is unquestionable from an historic point of view.
The fact is that protestant sects of Christianity after Luther separated from the Catholic Church, which is and will always be the direct representative of God on Earth. Please note that Jesus did not say that his representatives were going to be holly, wise or apt. At least Orthodox churches can claim that they smelled fish much earlier.
But frankly rational people should look at the above with a sigh of relief and wondering when we all will look at it as we do look now at many other superstitions that arose when we did not know any better.....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the Catholic Church and Protestant Christian sects have made no scientific effort to support their assertions about the humanity of a few cells after conception and upwards.
They just throw diatribe about moral judgments about a subject in which there is clearly no agreement about its morality or lack thereof, in which case they should not be the absolutist pricks that they are and leave it to the conscience of each individual while supporting the moral choices those individuals have to make.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Men of reason can only continue these discussions with mild amusement, and if they are ill predisposed, with hostile derision.
Religious people ask so many ifs and buts to muzzle rational thinking that the only appropriate reactions are no longer necessarily polite.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, atleast your sig is accurate. :)
Of course all research has some inherent risks to those involved as well as all of humanity. The question is whether those risks outweigh the benifits.
And, as the rest of my above comment already states, I support all stem cell research. I believe that to be human is based in the human mind, something that a clump of undeveloped cells cannot possibly have.
Finally, playing the devils advocate back to you. If the greater good is all that is really important to you, why aren't you volounteering for medical experiments. After all, your sacrifice could save the lives of countless others.