Slashdot Mirror
American Scientists Working On Creating Chimeras: Half-Human, Half-Animal Embryos (ibtimes.com.au)
Researchers at the University of California, Davis are working on creating half-human, half-animal hybrid embryos dubbed chimeras to better understand diseases and its progression. But not everybody is thrilled about it. IBTimes reports: One of the aims of the experiment using chimeras is to create farm animals with human organs. The body parts could then be harvested and transplanted into very sick people. However, a number of bioethicists and scientists frown on the creation of interspecies embryos which they believe crosses the line. New York Medical College Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy Stuart Newman calls the use of chimeras as entering unsettling ground which damages "our sense of humanity." They are not alone in voicing their opinion against the idea. Huffington Post adds: The project is so controversial that the National Institutes of Health has refused to fund it. The researchers are relying on private donors. Critics of these experiments say they are too risky because there is no way of knowing where the human stem cells will go. Will they just become a pancreas? Or could they become a brain? And if they become a brain, will the pigs who house them have human consciousness?
A pig with human consciousness? They've already succeeded! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Donald Trump.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night.
I guess PuppyMonkeyBaby was ahead of its time.
I'm absolutely against it for organ harvesting!
On the other hand, I'm totally for it because that means we'll finally get catgirls, foxgirls, bunnygirls, etc!
Half-snake, half-weasel!
Not a bit human!
If the problem is ethics, surely the solution would be to obtain military funding for this. A source of genetically engineered animal-human hybrids, combining the best features of both, would be invaluable to a modern military that needs new ways to fight a radically different type of enemy to that it was set up to do. The military could have at its disposal superhumans with animal senses, and at the same time push forward medical technology to benefit everyone.
What could possibly go wrong?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Of course the Portland Trail Blazers rely on human flesh to maintain their human appearance... LOL
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
IT'S COMING RIGHT AT US!!!
Al Gore tried to warn us about ManBearPig, but no one would listen to him.
ManBearPig
We made hybrid embryos decades ago. We're making new ones; for decades, we've been all weird about human embryos and have been restricted to a set of old embryonic lines and hybrids we made back then.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You had to go an bring dualism into the discussion. Aren't all of you rushing things?
163.562 people died in 2014 due to wounds inflicted by other humans in armed conflicts around the world. 1.5 million children died in 2008 of vaccine-preventable disease and an estimated 3.5 million due to malnutrition. Considering the vast death and carnage that happens around the clock every single day, the idea that mixing genes in a test-tube is somehow dehumanizing to "our sense of humanity" is completely ludicrous
He couldn't get nearly this amount of press, and he's been customizing genes for a while now.
Screw half human half animal, i want half cat half dog. Loyalty of a dog yet only shits on other people's lawns!
Bush opposed it for religious reasons which was a criminal thing to do since that is unconstitutional.
Are you really trying to form an equivalency between genetic construction of a Chimera, and research on harvested fetal stem cells?
And really with the political shit? left-wing?
I'm a lefty (I think... hard to say these days), and I'm all for GMO chow, nuclear power, catdogs, bunnygirls, and not wasting the stem cells from terminated pregnancies. I don't feel like it's... political at all for me. Just logical.
You need to get over yourself and your politics. Try to look at issues by their merit instead of whatever your coach tells you your team is all about.
Sh*t... Al Gore was right!
The first hybrid human clone was created in November 1998, by Advanced Cell Technology. It was created using SCNT - a nucleus was taken from a man's leg cell and inserted into a cow's egg from which the nucleus had been removed, and the hybrid cell was cultured, and developed into an embryo. The embryo was destroyed after 12 days.[4]
What do I need to do if I just don't give a shit?
I'm an atheist. I acknowledge no wider metaphysical context containing science (though this is in no way in conflict with atheism...)
Human to me is some definition of a collection of genes widely agreed upon to be the constituents of the extant human genome. Would a pig with a human brain be human? Na. But it probably needs some kind of rights since it's going to be a self-aware animal with a relatively high level of intelligence (But I'd also argue all [within reason] animals need *some* kind of rights)
Not that what they're doing is anywhere close to this question even needing be answered. They're not going to put a human brain in a pig. The genetics required for it are far far far more complex than we currently understand.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
We'll create this "human organ farm" deep underground and convince all the organisms that they're the world's last hope for survival. We'll explain that a nuclear war made the vast majority of the world too contaminated for life, but a lone island presents hope for survival. We'll convince them that we'll use a lottery to "randomly select" who to send to this "island". All the while, we'll keep them ignorant and secluded, distracting them with organizational tasks like mixing particular organic molecules together to help feed growing organism embryos, and entertaining them with VR live-action versions of X-Box video games. Then, as long as we keep them secluded in this "distraction-dystopia", we don't need to worry about their consciousness, right?
welcome our new Man-Bear-Pig overlords!
What do I need to do if I just don't give a shit?
In that case, you only need to do what you already expect to do. Get naturally deselected. We'll take it from there.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Actually my first concern would be about diseases. Does having animals with human-like organs inside them make it easier for diseases which affect that animal to mutate into a version which will infect humans? Since we are talking pigs the example that comes to mind immediately is something like swine flu.
WTF is so special about human consciousness?
What would a human be like with pig consciousness?
Are we just making shit up now because we are so in-the-dark about the actual science involved?
Probably not going to happen.
The current American fitness equation doesn't really include anything for long-term individually variable genetic morality. I do quite fine...
I'm certainly glad you've got it from here, though. I can feel my progeny's chances for a better life increasing with every word you type.
Well, step one is the question of whether you feel there's a practical usefulness to having some way to differentiate yourself from any other animal--that is, that you have any justifiable reason to think you should have "rights" beyond the animal you recently ate between hamburger buns.
Would that be useful to you? I'll hold you to your answer.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Watch season two of Dark Angel to see how it turns out.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
I see. So, your progeny are you. Scientifically speaking.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Are you really trying to form an equivalency between genetic construction of a Chimera, and research on harvested fetal stem cells?
I'm not trying to form a moral equivalence between the two.
And really with the political shit? left-wing?
Opposition to Bush's fetal stem cell ban certainly didn't come from the Right.
(I think... hard to say these days)
That's true.
Try to look at issues by their merit
That's such a (pun intended) God awful slipperly slope. After all, lots of Russians thought there were ten metric ass-loads of merit in the idea of raping hundreds of thousands German woman and girls. Japanese thought their actions in Nanking were highly meritorious, too. Fritz Haber thought it was highly meritorious to develop chemical weapons for use by the Fatherland in the Great War.
Shall I go on, or do you get the point?
instead of whatever your coach tells you your team is all about.
No man is an (intellectual) island, entire of itself.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"Are we not men?"
We are Devo!
#DeleteChrome
If they had really wanted funding then they probably shouldn't be calling them "chimeras".
What was "unholy abominations of human dignity" taken?
The GOP presidential candidate called, he wants his false equivalencies back!
And to answer your question, its in the summary:
New York Medical College Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy Stuart Newman calls the use of chimeras as entering unsettling ground which damages "our sense of humanity."
I don't know what an evolutionary biologist can be, if not left wing.
Note: You started this partisan bickering....
In that case, you only need to do what you already expect to do. Get naturally deselected. We'll take it from there.
Won't happen, at least not in the US and UK. We have so many laws to prevent Natural Selection from happening that it simply won't. At least not with humans.
Which means we're stuck with the stupidest of the stupid mucking up the already mucked-up gene pool.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I really want him to provide a definition of what a "sense of humanity" is, and apply it equally to a pool of well known individuals (Dalai Lama, Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, Nelson Mandela) and try to avoid miring that definition in some sort of wishy-washy, mythical or biblical masturbation.
However, a number of bioethicists and scientists frown on the creation of interspecies embryos which they believe crosses the line.
Oh, well that's easy to settle, if there's a line. And not just a line, but the line.
Honestly, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Regard the line, people!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That is your question to answer.
You are the one that brought up the issue of getting a functional definition, suggesting a material-reductionist definition would not suffice as opposed to one that also contains metaphysical elements.
I would like you to provide such a definition that would actually aid the discussion any better than a material-reductionist one would. Without such a definition there does not seem to be point in bringing up the matter in the first place.
It's interesting that everyone but the person donating the organs gets something. The only reason there aren't enough organs is because of price controls. Allow people to sell organ futures and we would have plenty of organs for everyone that needs them.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Which "Atheist" do you mean? /.
There are plenty here on
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This doesn't make the pigs "half-human, half animal" any more than Escherichia coli cells modified to produce human insulin protein are "half-human, half-bacteria" (or a human with a prosthetic leg is "half-human, half-machine").
Ridiculous sensationalism. Bah.
Personally, I'd argue "humanity" is a state of mind rather than a bundle of body-parts, but that's a whole separate issue.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Stop it.. and start working on what all of us in the USA want...
Make the CatDog.
yes one end cat, one end dog... Give it to us!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm not trying to form a moral equivalence between the two.
Then why are you bemoaning the lack of left-wing "outrage" on the matter? If I could point you to some left-wing outrage on the chimera research funding moratorium, would you feel better? Here you go:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/11/researchers-urge-lifting-of-nih-funding-restrictions-on-chimeric.html
Perhaps the lefties are holding their outrage until they see if the NIH will resume funding in this area...it is after all a moratorium while the NIH "considers a possible policy revision in this area."
You wouldn't want any outrage until an actual policy has been made, would you? Where's the fun in that?
Of course, I might also ask why you have a need for some sort of counterbalancing outrage from "the left" to begin with. Perhaps you should just relax and stop getting worked up over things that haven't even been decided yet.
You assume that religion is required for those thoughts. Very disappointing.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
. . . we didn't even call it murder until something like what, five/six/seven thousand years ago? Before that whole writing/language/agriculture thing, that was just the way it was. Nothing amoral, unethical or illegal about it.
All it will take is one person saved by just such an organ grown in an animal, and the idiot pundits and politicians will be swept aside like, what was that thing from the American writers class? Like a spider's legs in a roaring fire!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The GOP presidential candidate called, he wants his false equivalencies back!
You saying it's a false equivalency doesn't actually make it a false equivalency.
New York Medical College Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy Stuart Newman calls the use of chimeras as entering unsettling ground which damages "our sense of humanity."
Using baby parts because the mother decided "she didn't want to" damages "our sense of humanity", too.
Note: You started this partisan bickering....
What's your point?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You just know those dratted felines will want their own litter boxes.
You wouldn't want any outrage until an actual policy has been made, would you? Where's the fun in that?
Ask any partisan on any side of the fence. Fear is a great donation motivator.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I think you don't know shit about what you are blathering about. There's nothing metaphysical about what a human is - it is a definition that's decided by the collective. That definition have changed often too, Africans were considered sub-humans (and still are in some places), Jews too (still are in some places). In war situations the enemy is always painted as sub-humans, this because for a human soldier it is easier to kill "the enemy" rather than another human.
When pigs, dolphins and elephants can be a part of the human society then they can make their voices heard and be considered part of humanity. Before that happens what you are blathering about is a subset of philosophy - not science.
The sensations that come from our organs (other than the brain) profoundly influence our consciousness. Our mood, our thoughts, everything.
What if our consciousness is not just centered in the brain but spread throughout the whole body?
Do organs have their own consciousness that is a direct constituent of the highest-level consciousness of thought? Are there thoughts that you have that are a direct reflection of the sensation of a specific organ other than the ears, eyes, nose, and tongue?
People are trained like dogs to eschew these kinds of questions, for precisely the reason that they interfere with commerce. But they must be answered eventually or humanity's greed will catch up with it: we will develop arts too powerful and create something we don't understand that consumes us. Possible candidates so far are the media, nuclear energy, and artificial intelligence. What next?
The simple truth is this: some people are taking advantage of the relative standstill in the last ~2000 years of human moral development and education to do something horribly wrong, in every sense of the word, that they do not understand the implications of.
Indeed, this is the story of modern civilization in general.
There are a lot of people that worry about killing animals, that includes many scientists. A lot of thought is spent on deciding IF an animal study is needed, HOW the study should be done to minimize suffering etc.
For billions of years on earth, every life form has endured discomfort and unpleasantness. Some evolved in a new, more efficient form, others were left behind. The process continues today and includes humans. Individuals of every species can expect difficulties and the strongest will carry on the genes. Humans have anointed some species protected- meat & dairy animals, domestic pets; and others condemned- experimental animals, disease carriers. Human individuals continue to suffer unpleasantness in many forms and none are surprised at that. Generally life goes on as always.
Now we are to be shocked and upset because of some new experiment using human/animal DNA? How is this different from our centuries of experiments on animals and humans? Many of us wouldn't be here but for the knowledge gained from the suffering of others. Should we now say "OK, I'm here and I'm healthy so the experiments can stop because I don't care about future generations."
Presumably the scientists who want to do this are more rational than the general public. They expect that human beings will benefit from the work. They know there will be suffering, setbacks, mistakes etc but they expect it to be worthwhile. It's the natural order of life to suffer, but these scientists will limit the suffering to a few animals in the hope that many humans will have less suffering.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Okay. A human is a biological entity that has a soul.
Reality will make the "point" manifestly clear when it eliminates you, which you can refer to as "natural selection" if you prefer to remain committed to your material-reductionist stance.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Edward Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine in 1796, from cows.
This was quite controversial at the time, because it involved injecting bits of cow into humans and... what could go wrong? Caricatures of the time show cows "breaking out" of people after the cow vaccine was given.
In religious terms, how ethical is it to inject humans with pieces derived from the lower animals? Didn't Jenner's vaccine meddle with God's great plan and pollute the integrity of the human form?
Pure ethics can be based on suffering, so there shouldn't be any problem. Later on we'll develop methods for growing organs without the animal host to reduce suffering even further.
It gets murky when you think ethics is derived from some religious dogma with irrational basis and no interior logic. Once you believe there's something special about the human form/genome/purpose, you start to have ethical pangs for no good reason.
Give it a couple of years, it'll become mainstream. Like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis, eventually everyone will see the usefulness and ethics more clearly.
Pigman Seinfeld clip
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I want to die.
It's the simplest solution to the whole ETI conundrum, if you cant find them, make them. And in other news the lion man has fleas.
...as long as I get a rakunk as well.
Frankly, I'm anti-nationalism and I don't really feel that I need to be superior to animals. I am quite sure that my humanity is something that enables me to do many things and thankfully keeps me at the top of the food chain. I honestly have no ethical issues with what they're attempting to accomplish beyond this...
1) How many animals would they need to raise, maintain, etc... to build a "warehouse" of organs to ensure that when they are needed a "match" can be found? Wouldn't this require insanely massive populations of animals for even relatively simple to match organs? Then there's supply and demand... I could easily imagine needing a million+ having to be breed and fed, etc...
2) What about sterility and mating them? If you have a million+ farm animals, do you snip-snip them all the males? How do you keep them from breeding so you can maintain an accurate database of organ characteristics?
3) How long would it take to raise a farm animal to an age where the organ would be beneficial? Would a one year old pig have a heart that would match a 40 year old adult human? Would it have to be 5 or 10 years old? If so, then how many more animals would we need to farm to have a supply?
4) Tissue printing instead? Aren't we doing pretty good things so far with research to print organs? Isn't this more likely to yield the desired results?
You know what damages people's sense of humanity even more? Dying miserably even though modern medical technology could make you well, because some prick called Stuart Newman takes the position that a pig is more important than a human or thinks that a human kidney somehow gives a pig a soul.
I just want to point out the usually hypocrisy your kind is known for. Your username is Empiric, yet no empirical evidence exists for a god, a soul, or even the stupid term metaphysics. I can immediately discount your opinion.
Ok, lets assume I accept you definition. How exactly does the "having a soul" part allow for providing unique insights in this discussion that otherwise could not be had. ?
Unless you have a way to actually detect a soul of course, then I stand corrected.
A bit of research shows this story to a load of knackers. Latest news at the university website has no mention of this nor does a search of the names and the university return any (credible) hits.
Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Design for Use, not Construction!
I don't subscribe to the idea of a soul in the religious/philosophical mumbo-jumbo sense that you seem to be talking about. There is nothing about consciousness or cognition that requires some kind of otherworldly or "divine" soul.
The morality wizards are at it again. " Our sense of humanity" is so abstract that it can not be damaged. I doubt that there is much agreement at all on what our sense of humanity is. What moral wizards actually do is get attention, power, and positions for themselves. Yes, a pig could acquire a sense of self. But that pig need not know fear or know about death at all. Put the pig to sleep covertly and harvest what is needed from the pig. That pig could have a very happy life. Meanwhile you just might save millions of human lives with the parts and processes derived from these chimeras. So what kind of balance scale does one need to weigh a human life against "our sense of humanity"? Well "our sense of humanity"has zero weight on a balance beam. Hopefully even one human being has real weight.
Oh, empirical evidence absolutely exists for the existence of a God and a soul.
Here's a peer-reviewed, quantified, eye-witness (empirical) study, for one.
And "metaphysics" is a core branch of philosophy acknowledged and used the entirely of the last 2500 years, by religious and secular sources. There is no question that metaphysics exists, even if one's metaphysics is "only material things exist".
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Is growing human organs even a new thing? There certainly is already cross species blending of genetics.
The objection to this seems like it comes from a time when people didn't know we were just another of the animals lucky enough to have thumbs, the physical requirements for auditory speech, and a brain capable of utilizing those things. Animals, even those of lesser intelligence than humans (which is not all, some are believed to even have superior intelligence) are known to have consciousness. Only a human could have "human" consciousness but there is nothing special about it, that's just a label. Human intelligence is still just animal intelligence.
I for one would welcome giving dolphins arms and hands with thumbs in addition to their flippers. How about thumbs for other primates? Everyone jumps on this as way to grow organs for humans and the like. What about giving our cousins a helping hand?
You have given no evidence it does not require it, and there is a great deal of reason to think it does. For starters, I'd look at the history of attempts to develop "strong AI". For something longer-standing, the "mind-body problem" (easy summary) has remained unresolved for the last 500 years, which presents you with quite an array of questions that must be resolved to even think your claim is logically possible.
In other words, the current evidence is against you. Show otherwise, if you can.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Strange when I get responses suggesting I am wrong, then explain specifically why I am right.
You say rights are not scientific concepts. So, if you limit yourself to a material (scientific) worldview as representing what exists, you do not have them.
So, you have a "concept". There are a million subjective "concepts" on the subject, varying from yours, equally backed, and contradicting yours, on the subject. I want to know if you have basis to saying your concept is real, within the limits of what you acknowledge is real. If you get that far, bonus points for showing your concept is specifically the right one among the alternative conceptions, by reference to physical reality alone.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So, you're going with the blatantly false and absurd assertion that people are their children, rather than admit you personally interpret natural selection in a fuzzy-headed "somehow my children surviving would mean I survive" mystical way, with zero scientific rationale, and merely soft personal feelings of dread at your inevitable elimination? Nothing survives but information, ever. I imagine this is particularly unpleasant if you acknowledge only scientific materialism. But let's stick to science, and reality.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The ethical problem with chimeras is similar to the one with abortion. How do we define a 'person?' We have the same DNA as a lot of other life forms. As it is, we can use a pig heart as a temporary replacement for a human heart. Do we define a person based on one's ability to reproduce? A person and a sheep can't reproduce with one another, or we'd have seen plenty of chimeras already, based on the rumors I've heard about farmers in various parts of the world. However, plenty of people are unable to reproduce with certain members of the opposite sex, or at all. Does that disqualify them from being a person? The more we discover about our natural world, and the more we learn to tinker with its many mechanisms, the more we blur the line between us and everything else.
Many people claim that we are moral actors, and therefore are held to higher standards than animals. Men shouldn't kill a rival male, take his mate, and slaughter his children, but some animals do that. Men should also refrain from forcing copulation on a woman, but some animals do that. If we mix human DNA with other animals, at what point do we start expecting lions to be moral actors? At what point do we stop expecting humans to be moral actors? I don't have any answers. Clearly there are benefits to be had here, just as their are benefits to researching embryonic stem cells. At the same time, we need to consider the wider impacts this will have on our society, culture, and sense of self.
For one, it provides a reason that we should even have any discussion about the scientific work being done, rather than skipping all the effort and expense and simply ripping your still-beating heart out of your chest if somebody richer than you wants to buy it for himself.
Unless you have a basis to say you are categorically distinct in some way from a chimera or animals in general, you presently have no valid objection to that by reference to science alone.
I suggest getting one.
As for the rest, yes, you can detect the soul, with personal effort. "Detectable" is not limited to "detectable with scientific instruments". That is your position, not mine, and you have the consequences of that stance--I do not.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Find it ridiculous. Be wrong.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
People behaving like animals turn people into animals
By your reasoning, you find merit in pulling stuff out of your ass and putting it on Slashdot. It's possible to do something and not consider it an actual good thing to do. I haven't read claims that it was good to rape all those Germans, just that it was understandable. I don't think you're going to find very many references to Japanese claiming that the Rape of Nanking was actually a good thing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I haven't read claims that it was good to rape all those Germans, just that it was understandable. I don't think you're going to find very many references to Japanese claiming that the Rape of Nanking was actually a good thing.
Of course not now, after the fact. I was referring to the actual soldiers doing the deed.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I believe many animals are conscious in that they are aware of themselves and aware of others. Think not only of themselves and their well being, but also of those they love. I find it all kind of pious to think that they are not aware, in the same sense that we created the gods to be in our own image. Sometimes I think this is an excuse for the horrible things we do to animals, but don't want to think about. If consciousness is a defining human characteristic, then what about those who are born with much lower intelligence or awareness? Are they less human? Because some animals are smarter then them. If they create an animal with more intelligence, it does not make it human. The idea that we should fear intelligent animals is ridiculous, because they already exist. What we should fear is an animal with better limbs, because if they could use a gun... many of them would and probably are justified to do so.
I am only half joking here. But humans are so stuck up. When really, we are nothing more than chimps with dolphin brains.
You seem to think that people (atheists) would be disturbed at the idea of death just being some kind of end with no meaning. Personally I think disolving into the ground for the matter of which I consist to be consumed by plants and other animals quite beautiful. Certainly more so than the idea of living in an eternal cloud kingdom with lots of boring preachy people overseen by a grand dictator that is apparently incredibly judgemental, selfish, and egotistical in that he hates people for being gay and not bowing down to worship him for a few hours a week.
Really, the only reason you need religion in the first place is because you're so scared of the idea that one day your life will end and want to pretend you can continue being you forever, but really, believing in fairy tales like all religions are is on the same mental level of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny, so I wouldn't expect much sense from someone with the most childish of thought processes.
"Okay. A human is a biological entity that has a soul."
Does it? Where is this soul, what does it look like, and how is it measured? To date there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a "soul", so you've already failed at the first hurdle in trying to define a human being because you've had to resort to including something that is based on all evidence to date purely fictional in your description.
The problem is that you view the world with a kind of binary dumb-think, you seem to believe that people have to either view the world as completely scientific, or view it in a completely fictional way. It's simply not true, level of scientific application to life sits on a scale, and many are happy to reject the completely unscientific notion of religion and yet still apply the entirely moralistic (but not inherently scientific) view that if we choose to treat each other well, and not do harm to each other, that we may also wish to consider extending that to animals who are just as capable of feeling pain and stress as we are.
The problem is the metaphysical reality you refer to isn't, there exists absolutely no proof for it whatsoever. Yes, I've seen you link to articles in other replies, but these aren't actually evidence of what you're claiming, merely evidence that you're willing to misinterpret the meaning of scientific studies to suit your (unproven) preconceived beliefs. That just tells us that you're only willing to see what you want to see, and not factor real actual scientific understanding into your belief set.
You also talk about natural selection, and do you know what's being naturally selected away nowadays in the developed world? People who believe in metaphysical ideas like those behind most religions. Sorry buddy, you're a dying breed and no amount of flapping about misinterpreting scientific papers to try and justify to yourself that you're right will change that.
The fact is belief in religion confers no benefit upon the human race, so your contribution of living a life believing in fairy tales is a dying one - it's fundamentally a meaningless waste of time because people have realised they can achieve more in life by not wasting time on fairy tales and by getting on with doing something actually productive.
Just sayin'
Oh, here you go. Every technology you use, and every scientific framework, founded by theists. Looks productive to me.
No, it is your position that has no possibility of any outcome but your mass-elimination, according to you. Whatever your demographic percentage may be in 20 years, immediate following result: evolution eliminates every single one of you. It is you who is living in a provable "fairy tale", at least you weren't as pathetic in your statement as Hitchens' final e-mail to his followers, as his own DNA ironically and appropriately ate him, that he'd "be with them in spirit". No, he's just gone, because there is nothing else for him according to everything he argued for.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Okay, that's wonderful, you can keep saying that over and over all you want, but it wont change the reality that the downward trend in developed nations is religion, and the upward trend is atheism.
You obviously don't like this given how upset it's made you, but hey, if reality denial is your thing then that's your problem not mine, you're a dying breed in the developed world and that's an inescapable fact. You can't escape the numbers as much as you may wish to pretend to yourself otherwise.
I'm not upset in the least. Yes, there's a demographic increase. There's also a demographic increase in failing economies and 35 million deaths due to STD's. Are you suggesting that number of adherents determines what is true?
I do have to ask, because with your circular logic denial that even when presented with peer-reviewed evidence, it isn't evidence because it's theistic, your basic capability to discern what evidence is, is highly dubious. Then you use "evidence" and "proof" interchangably, as if that were valid in any context whatsoever. Yes, we both already know that you will switch your expectations from "evidence" to "proof" precisely to the degree that you can no longer deny there is evidence.
I sincerely hope you are fully aware you are just straight-out lying when you do this. Otherwise, your mind is simply defective. I suppose, I should expect that to be the case due to your claim there is "no evidence" which could only be arrived at by you having psychic powers to review all evidence received to everyone else on Earth, and determine its absence.
You are irrational. You are dishonest. Provably so, by your own words. You will by eliminated, undeniably, by both your worldview and mine. That will be the thoroughly appropriate outcome.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Really? You're still crying because I pointed out that you suffer a trait of the human race that's dying off?
Again, no amount of wishful thinking on your behalf changes the fact that folks like you that still believe in fairy tales as grown ups are dying out, whilst folks like me who don't believe in the fairy tales of religion are growing in number.
Reading your posts is like watching a caught fish on the deck of a ship flapping about desperately trying to survive but ultimately knowing it's a lost cause. You know how funny it is watching your desperation to deny reality right? You know everyone is winding you up because it's kind of funny trolling the crackpot yes?
You're creating so much stress for yourself spewing bile and desperately trying to defend that which cannot be defended because it fails the basic components of logic. Go lick the bible or whatever it is you get upto for your own sake, you're not convincing anyone with your drivel, because it's precisely that, drivel. If nothing else you're going to die off from an aneurysm caused by getting so stressed trying to defend something that just does not make sense and has no worthwhile evidence backing it.
Look, atheism is vastly outnumbered by theism demographically. In conjunction with that, it has even less representation politically.
We are not "dying off". I am limiting myself entirely to your terms, in which case you are a tiny minority protected entirely by -our- norms. By your terms, as the preponderant subculture, there is no reason you can name we shouldn't simply kill you all off to expand our dominance over resources. Be clear here. You live because of our ethical norms, as you try to destroy them. That is why, this isn't even a religious thing--you are an offense to logic and all notions of positive value, objectively, philosophically, with religion or without. You are pure parasite.
There is no "bile" here. These are -your- required conclusions. This is -you-, according to -you-. You simply refuse to draw the logically-required conclusions, temporarily blocking logic and reality from your consciousness, as you know, not as a matter of my opinion, but as objective fact, you should not exist. Thank the grace of theists that you do, for no justification you can name.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Really, there's a spectrum, from fully fledged religious extremist (i.e. you, ISIS), through to people who say "Yeah I'm Christian" in the census, but don't practice it or necessarily even believe in it, to people who identify as atheists.
People who actually identify as atheists are growing in number, all the other groups are shrinking. It doesn't really matter what the total numbers are when you were talking about dying out - the trend is still the opposite of what you're claiming, the trend is still that atheism is growing and theism is dying out.
The only places where this isn't true are backwater third world nations. It's true in the West because as people become more educated they stop believing in religious fairy tales, and the West is becoming ever more educated. Unfortunately, hold outs like you still like to pretend you prefer the 3rd world undereducated mentality and make a laughing stock of yourselves, so this is what we do, we laugh at you, because you're so wrong that it's really kind of funny - I mean, let's be clear here, you're preaching logic to a logician, whilst bastardising it and reaching false conclusions, to me that's incredibly hilarious, it's like watching a fat kid stumbling, panting and falling over repeatedly along a 100 metre sprint 2 hours after everyone else has already finished but insisting he's going to win.
The best bit is that you don't even realise you're the fat kid, I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't also such a blatant preachy dickhead that somehow believe he can spread his child-mind world view by spouting nonsense and pretending he has logic on his side.
You're basically failing at everything here.
We cannot "die out". Largely because, death has nil effect on us.
I understand you do not accept this. So, for the sake of argument, I am arguing from your worldview. There is absolutely no possibility you won't "die out", according to you yourself. In the unlikely event your worldview expands beyond 50%, it makes no difference. In the final analysis, if nothing else, entropy guarantees you will die out, as an inescapable attribute of your own worldview.
You are stuck on your own quasi-mystical, but in your case ridiculous, notion that somehow you, and every atheist you know, will not die out. That somehow, some "spirit of atheism" surviving means you still exist in contradiction to the direct scientific facts. Every atheist alive today will be dead in 150 years. Fast forward to then, every atheist then alive will be dead in another 150 years. Rinse, repeat.
So what is it you are expecting not to "die out", and what does that have to do with you?
Until you can contend with the fact that contrary to your wishful thinking, "survival of the fittest" means survival of nothing but information, and my metaphysics supports that having actual continuing value, and yours does not, you will get nowhere. You'll stay nowhere until you... die out, as you rabidly choose to every day.
Until then, work on comprehending what "evidence" and "proof" mean, decide if you want the forced conversion logically necessitated by providing the latter to you, and hone those psychic powers of knowing what evidence everyone else on the planet has not received. They may be of some temporary usefulness. Very temporary.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So, tell us ahead of time. Does your SO appreciate humor?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
You know you already lost the debate like 5 days ago right?
You seem to think if you keep posting drivel it'll somehow change the reality of the fact that atheism is on the rise, and theism is in decline in the developed world. It really wont. You're still a dying breed, and no amount of flapping about is going to change that.
You keep spouting mis-logic and I really really would like to give you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that you're just trolling and aren't actually that stupid, but I don't think it's really true is it? I mean, you really are actually so dumb that you a) believe what you're saying, b) fail incredibly hard at even the most basic forms of logical thinking, and c) really don't even understand half the concepts you're referencing.
When I talk about dying out, you know I'm talking about the segment of the human race that has the now undesirable genes that cause them to believe in fairy tales. I'm not talking about individuals but the whole, and again, folks like you with those undesirable genes that leave you believing in fairy tales are on the decline, there's just no place for people with such poor mental capacity as to believe that stuff in the gene pool as the gene pool increases in intelligence. Your anti-intellectualism is a relic, a no longer fit trait. This is why people like you are in decline, and people like me are not.
But I'll tell you what, let's do a deal, I'll go back to being a productive member of society, an atheism, part of the rising and growing and successful trend of humanity. You go back to being a relic that is easily fooled by the most nonsensical of discussion and that is part of the declining segment of humanity because you no longer have anything to offer the species. I'm sure you wont want this, because you can't accept that you're a dead end in the gene pool, but oh well, it's not really my problem is it? I'm not part of the dying trend.
Yes, true, most atheists don't resort to a stream of nonsensical ad hominems in lieu of actually rebutting any points. That is, they aren't direct knowing continual liars.
You are.
I will continue to be successful in my career short term. Long term, you will die off, and we'll collect everything. There is nothing you can do about this.
You didn't answer my question in the other sub-thread. Is there no aspect of evolution you accept?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I don't answer your questions because they're convoluted nonsense. I'm not going to engage with you in your debate because you just twist it and turn it into a combination of things people haven't said, things that aren't true, and things you just outright don't understand.
If you were even remotely capable of intelligent conversation I'd engage, but as is I'll just continue to stick to the indisputable fact that when you're gone, you're gone, and your ideas are going with you as your ideas and fairy tale belief die out also, whilst mine are spreading and growing in number. This is a fact you still so desperately want to avoid and as you can't even accept that you're part of a dying trend whilst I'm part of a growing trend then what's the point getting into things like evolution that you clearly don't understand?
I'm perfectly capable of it, and I know it very well - you asked what an atheist's definition of a human is, I'll tell you, it's a biological organism defined by a set of genes that match a pattern within a relatively small statistical degree of variation. I doubt you can even grasp what that means though, and it's also a factually accurate description - you'll undoubtedly argue against it regardless of the fact you'd be wrong. If you want to debate with people you need to start accepting which parts of your argument are just plain objectively wrong, and I'm afraid so far that's the vast majority of them. Given this, what you're after is not a debate, but an attempt to preach your preconceived ideas without challenge regardless of the high levels of factual inaccuracy within them.
No, they are not convoluted nonsense, you are simply evading responding to clear questions in a manner that directly disqualifies you from your self-proclaimed status as a "logician".
To recap:
1. Do you acknowledge a distinction between "evidence" and "proof"?
2. Do you acknowledge the existence of evidence for theism? Peer-reviewed evidence was provided as published in among the most respected medical journals in existence earlier in the thread. Refusing to acknowledge evidence as evidence does not change the definition of "evidence". Having an alternate explanation forwarded for evidence does not make it then non-evidence.
3. By what possible means do you know there is "no evidence" anyone has encountered, as this is tantamount to a claim of psychic powers? A person can know "what happened at the corner of State and Main at 2 AM". It is impossible for anyone to know that nobody knows. In this case and regarding theistic evidence, your claim is directly epistemologically and logically invalid, universally.
4. What difference does it possibly make what the "trend" is? You all die off regardless. You may as well cite a statistical increase in the number of people born with brown eyes. In neither case does it have any effect on the outcomes per our respective worldviews. Invoke your preferred statistic, see if it helps you from your own biological end.
5. Do you acknowledge that there is literally nothing you can reference from a material-reductionist standpoint as something regarding atheism that can "survive"? I'll avoid going down the more direct route of addressing your whole viewpoint as a reification fallacy, "logician", and pointing out that not-X is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is... including "theism". Simply answer the question. State what it is in existence you are claiming will survive in 150 years, so we can measure its existence empirically.
You continue to evade these basic questions. Because, you have no way to address them without self-contradiction. Self-contradiction usually avoiding by "logicians", except, apparently, ones with as much motivated bias as you. Why so strident in insisting on your own annihilation?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
But that was really my point - you make statements that simply aren't true. Even the peer-reviewed evidence you refer to is not evidence of theism, it's research you've chosen to claim is evidence of theism, but it's nothing of the sort.
As for the trend - well, you brought it up. You made this weird claim that atheists were all going to die out because they were being selected against, something that again there is no evidence of right now, and in fact the contrary - there is a growing atheist population, and a declining theist population in developed nations (and as nations become more developed and better educated the trend is always towards declining theism).
There is also of course something that can survive - the subsection of the species that are atheists, those who are less genetically pre-disposed to believing in theism, and hence are more productive and more useful members of society in a developed world. In contrast, nature is selecting against the sub-section of the human race that remains attached to theism.
So as I said, you aren't interested in intelligent discussion because we have a combination of you making things up, lying, and getting confused against fairly basic scientific concepts. Again, all you want to do is preach, but I'm not buying what you're selling, I don't do fairy tales, I do science and logic and no amount of you trying to re-declare logic as the thing you do but isn't will make it so. You're still wrong and the only way you can be right is by dropping the whole theological mysticism nonsense.
There's a certain irony in your ad-hominem attacks on me given that you cried so hard about them last post. I used them because I knew it was pointless trying to engage with you, you're using them because you know deep down you've already long lost the argument but are too desperate and insecure in your beliefs to ever admit it.
Okay, we're clearly at an impasse--claiming peer-reviewed, quantified, eye-witness accounts of what theism predicts being what happens post-death is not evidence, is, well, simply you lying, and/or failing to understand what "evidence" is.
I do hope you resolve your confusion on basic evolutionary theory, and your bizarre notion that abstract concepts have specific genetic representations that can be selected for or against. It does correspond to your overall inability to grasp that scientific materialism is insufficient for a coherent position on your part (as thoroughly demonstrated by the Logical Positivism movement, should you choose to investigate knowing something about it, as a "logician").
I do hope also you come to understand that characterization is not an argument, and call it "fairy tales" as many times as you like, you'll simply demonstrate yourself an incompetent who thinks he can counter evidence and massively greater demographic adherence by silly fiat.
There are no ad hominems, there are only questions you still fail to answer. That's what will remain of this discussion, available for the wider reader, as you are an irrelevancy. I hope you'll fix your nonsensical and self-contradictory worldview. If not, well, others will, and we agree on what awaits you.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Oh are you still here being wrong, failing at science and struggling to cope with the realisation that you're part of a dying breed?
I've answered everything, it's not my fault you're the part of the human race that's too mentally flawed to cope with things like science and that still believes in fairy tales. The type of person that, as and adult, still believes stories akin to santa claus and the easter bunny to be truth in the most laughably child like manner. If you can't recognise how ludicrous that is then of course you can't understand why you're wrong, so I guess I'll leave you to keep being wrong, you're just not mentally capable of anything else, it is precisely those defective genes that lead you to be part of the human race that is dying out.
Of course, you still wont understand this, you'll still keep spouting drivel, still keep being wrong, again, for the simple fact that you just cannot understand science. I can, that's how I make good money doing it, how I help develop things that actually offer something useful to the world rather than merely spouting child-mind drivel about fantasy stories being true. How many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay you to use your supposed knowledge of the realm of fairy tales? None? I thought that might be the case. Sucks to be you as part of the dying dead end breed I guess.