You're assuming first that a god exists to have this power taken away from him.
There's 2.9 million years worth of empirical evidence for existence of a god or gods; there's only the worship of objectivity (another myth) against.
You're also assuming there's a single god.
Well, yes and no. I assume there is a single god with many incarnations; you might call me a monopolytheist with tendencies towards animism.
You're probably also assuming that it's your god.
Also not entirely an accurate assumption, yes, it's my god, but no, it's also your god, even though you don't believe in a god. You can best think of my belief as deterministic anti-randomism with an understanding that my species, in total, is incapable of understanding anything approaching reality and truth.
And that it's actually him/her/it exercising this power.
As is every other movement of any given atom in the universe, for the universe cannot be separated from god, but is rather a subset of God.
Maybe this god that you posit to exist doesn't have anything to do with death at all.
If death exists, that God has something to do with death; it's human beings who might not exist.
We can't actually trust anything we touch, see, hear, or anything anybody writes down. We don't KNOW anything, not for certain. For all we know, our shared illusion of reality has more to do with our physiology than anything actually resembling reality.
A true scientist is humble enough to know this; to know that objective evidence and thus the scientific method itself is impossible. He draws his evidence from as WIDE a variety of sources as possible, and realizes that "Holy Books" are neither truth nor fiction.
"Now this isn't going to change unless you can find a cure for sterilization because if you even thought about trying to deny the biological ticking time bomb that is a middle aged lady with no bun in the oven.....well I'm gonna get popcorn and sell tickets to be quite honest. "
They did fine for the first 2.9 million years without this technology. Of course, back then a grade school dropout could still get a job that paid enough to support a family- including a stay-at-home-wife. Adoption worked for the rest. The real cure for most sterilization? Have kids before you're 30!
True in all cases, and not limited to religion alone.
Yeah, I love his "All test have shown there is no god. You got one that does?", completely ignoring the Tibetan Book of the Dead (a comprehensive record of over 1200 near death experiences over several centuries showing the existence of a savior), the animistic pre-civilization religions worldwide, hundreds of thousands of pages of "scripture", etc. Believing in science alone is like believing in a single religious orthodoxy: It works fine as a model for living as far as the model extends, but you're ignoring the empirical evidence of 99% of the human beings who have ever lived on this planet.
Oh, though I did have 30 people invest in the club. Not quite enough to form a corporation with at only $10/share, but I may revive it someday with a larger amount.
You claimed that this was a cure that had already worked on humans, and when I called you on it, you referred to the previous study that didn't even use humans for the test.
And that's why I called you an illiterate science-worshiper; you don't even bother to understand the science you refer to.
Actually, I started a club last year for the communal use of my property. Haven't had any takers yet, but as capitalism is currently melting down in the United States, I suspect I might in the next 10 years.
Only ones that admit to the perponderance of anecdotal evidence over 40,000 years of human existence. Eliminate that evidence on purpose, though, and no.
Woah, hold on there, chief. There's a rather large difference between creating another Human being and pulling out a bundle of cells. In some cases, you shed more skin cells during the day. Now, I'm not quite sure when an embryo counts as a Human, perhaps when it achieves sentience?
I'd argue for a more biochemical point- when it achieves different DNA than either of it's parent cells by random mixing of RNA strands.
Of course, one definition of a god (and in fact, the one that informs the entire Seamless Garment of Life theology) is "that being or species which controls all life and death for a given species".
Abortion by man is objectionable in that case for the same reason murder, war, and the death penalty are objectionable- it's taking governmental power away from God and giving it to man.
I dont have a problem creating a human bieng for replcements. My ethical dilemma begins at brain activity but stemm cell harvesting falls far short of that.
We don't know for sure how the brain operates or what suffices for "activity". It *may* be related to the electrochemical signals we can read with EEG machines, it might not.
Regardless of whether or not a God exists, it seems foolish to base one's ethical decisions on potentially incorrect information.
Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
I have, hundreds of times. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).
But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.
Which is why for Catholics, IVF is as big a sin as abortion (and is in fact the same sin).
I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.
And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.
My problem is that I keep allowing my past experiences to color my current experiences- which means even when I'm in a good situation I have a tendency to do something to screw it up. And since I don't know I'm doing it, when I'm in that situation, I have a tendency to get paranoid.
A good example was when I was being fired from my government job for misuse of public property- I got to the point that I actually wrote a small program to disconnect my computer from the internet when I was logged in, because they were calling every help request in Visual Studio a "hit on a website" when I wasn't supposed to be browsing the web, and sticking in a music CD to listen to at work resulted in 10 hits to filesharing sites by Windows Media Player.
It was MY fault for using my work computer for personal use, it was my disability's fault for me not understanding my management's definition of "personal use" and taking more than a week to figure it out.
Blaming management for doing their jobs was paranoia- even if eventually a court backed me up on it.
Yes, I've heard that theory before. It usually goes right along with the idea that Asperger's is an evolutionary step towards engineering instead of agriculture or finance being the primary economic provider. That and the diagnosis itself being a feminist conspiracy to eliminate male behavior with drugs.
While these three linked theories do have a certain amount of merit, I'm not willing to call any of them the absolute truth.
I thought I had already responded to this. Yes, and this is one of the big differences between NTs and autistics like you and I. For us, the immediate gratification of the work is reward enough. Now if only one could live and raise a family on gratification......
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming first that a god exists to have this power taken away from him.
There's 2.9 million years worth of empirical evidence for existence of a god or gods; there's only the worship of objectivity (another myth) against.
You're also assuming there's a single god.
Well, yes and no. I assume there is a single god with many incarnations; you might call me a monopolytheist with tendencies towards animism.
You're probably also assuming that it's your god.
Also not entirely an accurate assumption, yes, it's my god, but no, it's also your god, even though you don't believe in a god. You can best think of my belief as deterministic anti-randomism with an understanding that my species, in total, is incapable of understanding anything approaching reality and truth.
And that it's actually him/her/it exercising this power.
As is every other movement of any given atom in the universe, for the universe cannot be separated from god, but is rather a subset of God.
Maybe this god that you posit to exist doesn't have anything to do with death at all.
If death exists, that God has something to do with death; it's human beings who might not exist.
We can't actually trust anything we touch, see, hear, or anything anybody writes down. We don't KNOW anything, not for certain. For all we know, our shared illusion of reality has more to do with our physiology than anything actually resembling reality.
A true scientist is humble enough to know this; to know that objective evidence and thus the scientific method itself is impossible. He draws his evidence from as WIDE a variety of sources as possible, and realizes that "Holy Books" are neither truth nor fiction.
"Now this isn't going to change unless you can find a cure for sterilization because if you even thought about trying to deny the biological ticking time bomb that is a middle aged lady with no bun in the oven.....well I'm gonna get popcorn and sell tickets to be quite honest. "
They did fine for the first 2.9 million years without this technology. Of course, back then a grade school dropout could still get a job that paid enough to support a family- including a stay-at-home-wife. Adoption worked for the rest. The real cure for most sterilization? Have kids before you're 30!
It's a reply to geekoid
Thanks, I hate the new format......
True in all cases, and not limited to religion alone.
Yeah, I love his "All test have shown there is no god. You got one that does?", completely ignoring the Tibetan Book of the Dead (a comprehensive record of over 1200 near death experiences over several centuries showing the existence of a savior), the animistic pre-civilization religions worldwide, hundreds of thousands of pages of "scripture", etc. Believing in science alone is like believing in a single religious orthodoxy: It works fine as a model for living as far as the model extends, but you're ignoring the empirical evidence of 99% of the human beings who have ever lived on this planet.
You want to drive people away from atheism and lend credence to GP's "science worshiper" comment?
Who was this intended for? I think you hit reply on the wrong level.
Still, I find large numbers of people only believe the evidence their own beliefs will admit into evidence.
Oh, though I did have 30 people invest in the club.
Not quite enough to form a corporation with at only $10/share, but I may revive it someday with a larger amount.
You claimed that this was a cure that had already worked on humans, and when I called you on it, you referred to the previous study that didn't even use humans for the test.
And that's why I called you an illiterate science-worshiper; you don't even bother to understand the science you refer to.
Actually, I started a club last year for the communal use of my property. Haven't had any takers yet, but as capitalism is currently melting down in the United States, I suspect I might in the next 10 years.
Only ones that admit to the perponderance of anecdotal evidence over 40,000 years of human existence. Eliminate that evidence on purpose, though, and no.
I didn't say it wasn't a breakthrough, I said it wasn't a cure.
Illiterate scientists.
The difference between a scientist and an engineer: Engineers actually do something for humanity. Scientists work only for knowledge.
Woah, hold on there, chief. There's a rather large difference between creating another Human being and pulling out a bundle of cells. In some cases, you shed more skin cells during the day. Now, I'm not quite sure when an embryo counts as a Human, perhaps when it achieves sentience?
I'd argue for a more biochemical point- when it achieves different DNA than either of it's parent cells by random mixing of RNA strands.
And accounts are free.
Of course, one definition of a god (and in fact, the one that informs the entire Seamless Garment of Life theology) is "that being or species which controls all life and death for a given species".
Abortion by man is objectionable in that case for the same reason murder, war, and the death penalty are objectionable- it's taking governmental power away from God and giving it to man.
I dont have a problem creating a human bieng for replcements. My ethical dilemma begins at brain activity but stemm cell harvesting falls far short of that.
We don't know for sure how the brain operates or what suffices for "activity". It *may* be related to the electrochemical signals we can read with EEG machines, it might not.
Regardless of whether or not a God exists, it seems foolish to base one's ethical decisions on potentially incorrect information.
You mean kind of like how you called curing rats a human trial above?
Or maybe how stupid you are not to realize the ethical dilemma of creating another human being for the sole purpose of replacement parts?
And if you actually READ that study, the study was done on RATS, not on humans.
No wonder you've never heard of Humanae Vitae- you're as illiterate as any science-worshipper I've ever come across.
Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
I have, hundreds of times. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).
But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.
Which is why for Catholics, IVF is as big a sin as abortion (and is in fact the same sin).
Plenty of research yes. Plenty of failures yes. Huge amounts of cancer, yes.
Actual cures, no.
I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.
And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.
FTA: "To obtain the stem cells, Dr Watson took less than a millimeter of tissue from the side of each patients' cornea. "
Yep, not embryonic. For all the hype of embryonic stem cells, we've yet to see *ANYTHING* good come out of them.
What should I have done instead? Assassinate the governor who ordered them to "take care of" my inadvertent leak to the media?
My problem is that I keep allowing my past experiences to color my current experiences- which means even when I'm in a good situation I have a tendency to do something to screw it up. And since I don't know I'm doing it, when I'm in that situation, I have a tendency to get paranoid.
A good example was when I was being fired from my government job for misuse of public property- I got to the point that I actually wrote a small program to disconnect my computer from the internet when I was logged in, because they were calling every help request in Visual Studio a "hit on a website" when I wasn't supposed to be browsing the web, and sticking in a music CD to listen to at work resulted in 10 hits to filesharing sites by Windows Media Player.
It was MY fault for using my work computer for personal use, it was my disability's fault for me not understanding my management's definition of "personal use" and taking more than a week to figure it out.
Blaming management for doing their jobs was paranoia- even if eventually a court backed me up on it.
Sip the whiskey. Shoot the bankers.
Yes, I've heard that theory before. It usually goes right along with the idea that Asperger's is an evolutionary step towards engineering instead of agriculture or finance being the primary economic provider. That and the diagnosis itself being a feminist conspiracy to eliminate male behavior with drugs.
While these three linked theories do have a certain amount of merit, I'm not willing to call any of them the absolute truth.
I thought I had already responded to this. Yes, and this is one of the big differences between NTs and autistics like you and I. For us, the immediate gratification of the work is reward enough. Now if only one could live and raise a family on gratification......