Stem Cell Research

[Sage the Mage]

In an effort to stem the tides of thread hijacking (haha)...here's a thread!

First off, what exactly are Republicans doing to block stem cell research? Why?

[Essex]

bush prohibited anymore stem cells from being collected they can research what exsits now but no more can be made, thusly they are steming the tide because there are only a select few to study with whereas the rest of the world has open access to them.

Its just bloody stupid to me, but then again I clearly don't care about the sanctity of life.

[Sage the Mage]

Hrm? I thought there was a method to extract them from umbilical coords at least? Does it apply to that as well?

[Echod16]

In an effort to stem the tides of thread hijacking (haha)...here's a thread!

First off, what exactly are Republicans doing to block stem cell research? Why?

why? they're probably pro-life, because with the new way of producing stem cells (artificial pregnancy to about 32-cell stage) cana ctually create a new human, but we're not sure of the point in which we cna call the blastula (a speherical sturture of cells that are the first stages of human pregancy) a human life-form as the stem cells have no specialized yet to any specific human-like function, in this i think it is NOT a human, though it's all opinions at that point

personally, i find it very interesting, stem cells are a very cool topic with their great potential :P

[Essex]

i thought i might have heard that too but they aren't as potent apprently, you can also extract them from adults but the numbers are small and uses limited from what i understand.

[Echod16]

i thought i might have heard that too but they aren't as potent apprently, you can also extract them from adults but the numbers are small and uses limited from what i understand.

It's a very recent technique, and how else would you propose harvesting stem cells? besides, they can refine the process later surely :P

[ratbert]

Its just bloody stupid to me, but then again I clearly don't care about the sanctity of life.

As you said in the Moore thread Essex, it's a religious choice. Apparent as "they" care little for the sanctity of life when it come's down to killing civilians in war or petty third time offenders.
Beside, as abortion is allowed, taking stem cells from embryos makes no differens at all. Were abortion not allowed, I can see why people wouldn't want them allowed just to make stem cells readily available.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I clearly don't care about the sanctity of life.

But you care about your own - otherwise you wouldn't argue in favor of researching medicine to extend and/or improve the life of those already living.

[Havard]

As you said in the Moore thread Essex, it's a religious choice. Apparent as "they" care little for the sanctity of life when it come's down to killing civilians in war or petty third time offenders.

If "they" is conservatives, that is a reckless comment. Killing innocents is not the policy of any administration, but it is an unfortunate reality of war. Clinton authorized the bombing of Kosovo, which hit civilian targets, and our peacekeeping soldiers ra ped and killed innocent civilians there as well. The Bush administration contends that the Iraq war ultimately saved lives, though I doubt that any of us can confirm or deny this with any real authority.

As far as execution is concerned, most candidates on either side are pro-death penalty by and large, and that is unfortunate. I am against the death penalty, but sadly there are few candidates that take that position.

[Essex]

But you care about your own - otherwise you wouldn't argue in favor of researching medicine to extend and/or improve the life of those already living.
i was being sarcastic, but you're right I do care about my own life and those of the people I actually know. My grandfather has Alzhimers (sp) and my great aunt is almost a vegetable from all the strokes she's had. My father's side of the family is racked with Cancer and my mother's side has heart disease. Now I haven't heard of stem-cells having anything to do with those paticular diseases but who knows? I know for a fact that my father has Diabetes and I may have it one day too.

So yes I'm a selfish heartless bastard who wants to help myself and the people I know, clearly an evil evil action.

[Graav Wolfsong]

In an effort to stem the tides of thread hijacking (haha)...here's a thread!

First off, what exactly are Republicans doing to block stem cell research? Why?

So ... anyway ... :wink2:

Did anyone see that German mutant super child with twice the muscle mass and half the body fat of a normal child?
Apparently the kid has a mutated DNA segment that blocks the myostatin protein. A protein that limits muscle growth.

As a comic geek this is big news because what I see is a mutant with super strenght. :thumbsup:

http://content.nejm.org/ <-- Heres the article but it requires (free) registration to read.

Researchers say they will do tests on this little boy in order to determine how his mutation works so they can help people who have lost alot of muscle mass because of illness or were born with diminished muscle capasity or whatever. But we all know what they really want is to develop a new kind of steroid and get filthy rich. :grrr:



The Bush administration contends that the Iraq war ultimately saved lives, though I doubt that any of us can confirm or deny this with any real authority.

Considering how the situation is Iraq has developed I think you dont really need more than common sense to deny that.



So yes I'm a selfish heartless bastard who wants to help myself and the people I know, clearly an evil evil action.

Betrayer of the light!!
*Jabs Essex in the forehead with a cross*

[Essex]

IT BURNS US!!! *mumbles* stupid in shape hobbit, he hates us...


anyway... that super-baby thing is hella cool. The kid can hold seven pound weights in each hand with his arms sticking out... I couldn't do that.

here is a cnn article that requires no registration if you want it. http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/06/24/muscle.gene.ap/

[Daedric]

First off, stem cell research is not all-out banned. Adult stem cells are currently used widely for research. What is not allowed right now is using cells from human embryos. The government jsut won't give money to fund it.

A lot of people would have you believe, that if stem cell research were used on human embryos, the cures to all kinds of diseases and problems would be right around the corner! Not so! If the cures were that close to being made, government money would not be necessary for research. Private money (drug companies) would be funding this research, as they know that there would be billions of dollars to be made on a cure for diabetes, aids, etc. Since they are not investing money in this, it is pretty clear that the proffesionals do not believe that currently, research would be majorly beneficial. :spy:

[Graav Wolfsong]

here is a cnn article that requires no registration if you want it. http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/06/24/muscle.gene.ap/

It truly is amazing.
I mean, he is a superpowered mutant. I seriously have trouble wrapping my mind around this. All mutations I've ever heard of left people disabled in some way or outright killed them. It does say he may have trouble with his heart or other organs later in life, probably because they may not be able to support his muscle mass or something I guess.
But still. A humanbeing with a mutation that gives him super strength. That is pretty big. And that means it is not that far fetched that we may one day see a guy with a healing factor.

And consider the fact that in the picture he is seven months old. Usually 7 month old kids kinda look like the michelin man.

Not to mention besides research in genetics, we could also aquire these abilities from nanotechnology. Apparently nanomachines could be common on the market as soon as 2015 (I watch the Discovery channel alot :p )

[Essex]

i'm just waiting for the kid who can teleport, and or the kid who's skin turns into an organic steel.

I feel sorry for the kid who shoots optic beams out of his eyes though lol

[Havard]

Considering how the situation is Iraq has developed I think you dont really need more than common sense to deny that.

Really? I've heard liberal political commentators admit that the war has probably ultimately saved lives, but you are telling me "no", and that it is a simple issue of common sense? I don't mean to stray off-topic, but hundreds of thousands of people died at the hands of Hussein... Your bias becomes evident by proclaiming the "common sense" of a denial.

[Essex]

Really? I've heard liberal political commentators admit that the war has probably ultimately saved lives, but you are telling me "no", and that it is a simple issue of common sense? I don't mean to stray off-topic, but hundreds of thousands of people died at the hands of Hussein... Your bias becomes evident by proclaiming the "common sense" of a denial.
that's true Saddam was a bastard but you can't claim that this hasn't cost lives. 976 coalition deaths (800 something american 80 something brit one dane one dutch and a few others I can't remember off hand) then there are the costs to the Iraqi people.

this website http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ lists what officals list as the least amount of people killed and what the max may be currently the minimum is 9451 and the max may be as high as 11333 granted this is an anti-war site but its what I found with a super quick check. They link to some articles that back their claims up

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So yes I'm a selfish heartless bastard who wants to help myself and the people I know, clearly an evil evil action.

Nothing wrong with loving the self and others.. but lets at least acknowledge the horror of abortion and the killing of embryos, which are still developing people.

[Essex]

Nothing wrong with loving the self and others.. but lets at least acknowledge the horror of abortion and the killing of embryos, which are still developing people.
that's a matter of opinon and I for one don't hold that opinon to be true.

[Havard]

that's true Saddam was a bastard but you can't claim that this hasn't cost lives. 976 coalition deaths (800 something american 80 something brit one dane one dutch and a few others I can't remember off hand) then there are the costs to the Iraqi people.

this website http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ lists what officals list as the least amount of people killed and what the max may be currently the minimum is 9451 and the max may be as high as 11333 granted this is an anti-war site but its what I found with a super quick check. They link to some articles that back their claims up

Saddam killed over 100,000 Kurdish men and boys in less than one year, from February to September of 1988. Source = Human Rights Watch

For a more recent picture of Hussein's Iraq, here is the HRW report on Iraq the year before the war http://hrw.org/wr2k2/mena4.html

[Graav Wolfsong]

Really? I've heard liberal political commentators admit that the war has probably ultimately saved lives, but you are telling me "no", and that it is a simple issue of common sense? I don't mean to stray off-topic, but hundreds of thousands of people died at the hands of Hussein... Your bias becomes evident by proclaiming the "common sense" of a denial.

*Off topic*

At this moment, the war may not have taken more lives than Saddam would have had he been left alone. The point here is not what he has done in the past, but what he would or could have done in the future.
You must consider the events set in motion by this war as well. The handover is not the end of the war. Terrorists are more numerous and zealous than ever because of the war in Iraq. The jihad against the western world and the U.S. in particular has more support than ever. I find it hard to believe playing straight into the hands of guys like Bin Laden will ultimately save lives.
Things will get worse before they get better.
And Americans are not the ones taking the brunt of the terrorist attacks these days, had it been American civilians killed everyday by insurgents instead of Iraqis things would have been alot different. I keep getting the feeling the U.S. government dont really mind waging wars as long as it is not waged on American soil.

So, in the end, I strongly believe the price we will end up paying for this war will be far to high.

[Havard]

*Off topic* So, in the end, I strongly believe the price we will end up paying for this war will be far to high.

Fair enough. Back to embryos and biotechs...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

that's a matter of opinon and I for one don't hold that opinon to be true.

Dumb.. There is no such thing as opinion when it comes to the laws of universe. There are only objective truths. Stop hiding behind "opinion", and discover the thruth. Is it your opinion that you exist? (please dont give me a dumbass answer like "ummm.. i dont know if i exist...)

[Essex]

well i think sacrificing the lives of thousands for little ****ing cells that may or may not be alive is pretty damn dumb too.

do you oppose mice being used in scentific studies cause they exisit too.

Frankly I don't give a **** about the laws of the universe I want diabetes to no longer exisit. Get out of the high-minded clouds and down to reality for a moment. If you told me that you could cure some of the worsts diseases in the world but you'd have to shoot me in the head, after a long consideration I'd probably do it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lol.. that's the spirit Essex, show me your anger! :lol:

If you dont give a **** about the laws of nature, dont bother posting whimsically about content that DEPENDS on the laws of nature. Honestly, leave these issues to those who have the capacity to think about them, and discover the answers. Not all are meant to be great thinkers. You do your part, and let others do theirs :uhhuh:.

[Masamunae]

Since when is abortion a "law of the universe"?

[Eiger]

but lets at least acknowledge the killing of embryos, which are still developing people.
I'd rather do the research and sacrifice some very very small balls of cells for the possibility of eradicating some nasty diseases which will take the lives of already developed people. Put those two on the scales and that's a no brainer result for me.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes, bit IMO, the best route to take is to first ascertain the value of existing in itself. THe day we start arbitrarily making decisions and playing God to coincide with our individual value systems to "make things better", is the day we've lost the true meaning of being human. WHy sustain a life that's lived meaninglessly? WHat are you sustaining? Essex wants diabetes to "go away". Good for him - those people will rot away years down the road regardless. THen people settle on "lets make the best of what we have". Idiots.. THey blind themselves to the true purpose of this life, and merely play with the rats in the cage they've created. THere will be diseases and problems - live with it! Let those conditions teach you the frailty of your own humanity. This will teach you perspective and humility, and then you may go about discovering better ways of life - including medical assistance. To fight against the tide is futile. Meet it head on.

[Masamunae]

lol.. that's the spirit Essex, show me your anger! :lol:

If you dont give a **** about the laws of nature, dont bother posting whimsically about content that DEPENDS on the laws of nature. Honestly, leave these issues to those who have the capacity to think about them, and discover the answers. Not all are meant to be great thinkers. You do your part, and let others do theirs :uhhuh:.
Ok, so tossing out some pagan goddess worship along with right wing ignorant christian viewpoints qualifies you as a "great thinker" and Essex as a moron unfit for debate on a video game website? That's classy.

For someone who is obviously a very intelligent person, I find it very troublesome that you believe in imaginary beings like the baby jesus and the disembodied giant head they call his father who tells his worshippers to hate homos.

Maybe you should let sane and rational people do the thinking while you get over your little imaginary friend episode.

[Daedric]

I'd rather do the research and sacrifice some very very small balls of cells for the possibility of eradicating some nasty diseases which will take the lives of already developed people. Put those two on the scales and that's a no brainer result for me.

Eiger, as I said before,
A lot of people would have you believe, that if stem cell research were used on human embryos, the cures to all kinds of diseases and problems would be right around the corner! Not so! If the cures were that close to being made, government money would not be necessary for research. Private money (drug companies) would be funding this research, as they know that there would be billions of dollars to be made on a cure for diabetes, aids, etc. Since they are not investing money in this, it is pretty clear that the proffesionals do not believe that currently, research would be majorly beneficial.

[Essex]

Yes, bit IMO, the best route to take is to first ascertain the value of existing in itself. THe day we start arbitrarily making decisions and playing God to coincide with our individual value systems to "make things better", is the day we've lost the true meaning of being human. WHy sustain a life that's lived meaninglessly? WHat are you sustaining? Essex wants diabetes to "go away". Good for him - those people will rot away years down the road regardless. THen people settle on "lets make the best of what we have". Idiots.. THey blind themselves to the true purpose of this life, and merely play with the rats in the cage they've created. THere will be diseases and problems - live with it! Let those conditions teach you the frailty of your own humanity. This will teach you perspective and humility, and then you may go about discovering better ways of life - including medical assistance. To fight against the tide is futile. Meet it head on.
So why try to cure anything? why even have hospital? why even bother with science and learning, since we are all going to die in the end why even get out of bed in the morning. It just astounds me that you seem to choose a tiny ball of cells which number maybe around 32 over scores of people. The day I see a bastula come out and write a thesis over something or for that matter even live outside of a womb for a second I'll consider your approach.


Besides you talk about the law of nature, isn't always survival of the fittest? If we have the ability to make ourselves better then should we not do it? Do you think if Gorillas had a technique to make every human who stepped into the congo catch on fire they wouldn't do it? We may sacrifce some of our young but those embryos in the research labs were never going to be made for procreation anyway... besides it not as if we don't have enough people.

I know i'll never change your mind and you know you'll never change mine, it just when you revert to calling me dumb, and then assuming i'll make a dumbass statement after that (which apprently in AoA world I did) then all your doing is trying to piss me off.

[Eiger]

Yes, bit IMO, the best route to take is to first ascertain the value of existing in itself. THe day we start arbitrarily making decisions and playing God to coincide with our individual value systems to "make things better", is the day we've lost the true meaning of being human. WHy sustain a life that's lived meaninglessly? WHat are you sustaining? Essex wants diabetes to "go away". Good for him - those people will rot away years down the road regardless. THen people settle on "lets make the best of what we have". Idiots.. THey blind themselves to the true purpose of this life, and merely play with the rats in the cage they've created. THere will be diseases and problems - live with it! Let those conditions teach you the frailty of your own humanity. This will teach you perspective and humility, and then you may go about discovering better ways of life - including medical assistance. To fight against the tide is futile. Meet it head on.
Personally, I think that meeting it head on is doing research and doing away with diseases. I didn't realize you had Darwinistic leanings, hehe. Otherwise, that post just sounds mean as hell.

[Masamunae]

To fight against the tide is futile. Meet it head on.
wow, you're full of yourself aren't you. I'll let you get a handle on your ego............................................................................ there, that should be enough.

Now while you ignorantly prepare for a non-existant afterlife, and meet your tide head on, which is about as poeticly pointless as a samurai comiting sepoku for failing in a task, the rest of us will do what humans do best, and that is adapt and evolve. And while you go on praying to a non-existant disembodied head, with a pussy for a son, the rest of us will develop our own future. If "god" can't give me a disease free existance because he likes to punish me and my friends, **** him! I'll do it myself because he is too inept to do it himself.

Yay stem cell research!!!! Yay nanobots!!! Yay the freedom women have to choose what they want in regards to their own bodies!!!!

[Eiger]

Eiger, as I said before,
That's fine, but it's not necessarily true. I don't think that cures are just around the corner. I do believe that there's less private investment due to current laws and that government spends dollars in lots of areas that the privates don't - at least until they see the profit potential in the basic research that's been funded by the government.

[Daedric]

Funny how people can be against the death penalty in which a criminal is killed, but be for abortion where an innocent person is killed because of the person's rights.....

[Havard]

Masamunae, please do us all a favor and shut the hell up before you look like an even bigger jackass.

[Essex]

wow, you're full of yourself aren't you. I'll let you get a handle on your ego............................................................................ there, that should be enough.

Now while you ignorantly prepare for a non-existant afterlife, and meet your tide head on, which is about as poeticly pointless as a samurai comiting sepoku for failing in a task, the rest of us will do what humans do best, and that is adapt and evolve. And while you go on praying to a non-existant disembodied head, with a pussy for a son, the rest of us will develop our own future. If "god" can't give me a disease free existance because he likes to punish me and my friends, **** him! I'll do it myself because he is too inept to do it himself.

Yay stem cell research!!!! Yay nanobots!!! Yay the freedom women have to choose what they want in regards to their own bodies!!!!
oy that's not going to help us out any....

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, alot of opposition, no worries. Masamune and my usual detractors, listen up - let's slow down this process a bit. The first notion I've presented (along with some rhetoric later on), was that we should first examine our lives. Would that be an activity of an egoist? I'd offer that the arrogant are those who choose to act without first doing the former. Let's consider that point first of all.

[Havard]

Yes, for the sake of intelligent detractors like Essex and Eiger, whose thoughts and conversations I enjoy experiencing.

[Eiger]

Funny how people can be against the death penalty in which a criminal is killed, but be for abortion where an innocent person is killed because of the person's rights.....
Or be against abortion and for the death penalty. Go figure. Innocent people get killed by the death penalty as well...

[Havard]

Funny how people can be against the death penalty in which a criminal is killed, but be for abortion where an innocent person is killed because of the person's rights.....

Interesting point, but the death penalty can be distinguished from abortion by intelligent people. I am against both, but I can see the rationales for a pro-one, con-other person.

[Masamunae]

Ok, alot of opposition, no worries. Masamune and my usual detractors, listen up - let's slow down this process a bit. The first notion I've presented (along with some rhetoric later on), was that we should first examine our lives. Would that be an activity of an egoist? I'd offer that the arrogant are those who choose to act without first doing the former. Let's consider that point first of all.
Insinuating that someone is unintelligent so therefore they shouldn't be participating in discussions because their opinion isn't the same as yours is way big on the ego scale.

[Daedric]

Or be against abortion and for the death penalty. Go figure. Innocent people get killed by the death penalty as well...

I don't necessarily agree or disagree whether the death penalty is right or not; i have mixed feelings on that.

True, sometimes innocent people are killed by the death penalty; but 100% aren't innocent of crime whatsoever. I doubt anyone has commited a crime before they were born.

[Essex]

Insinuating that someone is unintelligent so therefore they shouldn't be participating in discussions because their opinion isn't the same as yours is way big on the ego scale.
yeah and calling jesus a pussy doesn't help either.

[Masamunae]

yeah and calling jesus a pussy doesn't help either.
I only speak the truth :)

[Eiger]

My, this is turning out quite entertaining. Keep it up folks! Lotsa giggles...

[Essex]

I only speak the truth :)
*sigh*

look in a deathmatch between the son of god and you i'm going with the son of god everytime....

[Havard]

You are one troubled individual, Masamunae. I'll pray to Jesus and His Father that you change your ways.

[Daedric]

I only speak the truth

After calling Jesus a pussy, I find it interesting to know that you would follow him in only speaking the truth. Kind have ironic, isn't it?

[Masamunae]

*sigh*

look in a deathmatch between the son of god and you i'm going with the son of god everytime....
jesus is an imaginary figure. If I were in a death match with wolverine, I would probably die too.

[Masamunae]

You are one troubled individual, Masamunae. I'll pray to Jesus and His Father that you change your ways.
I'm troubled, and you're praying to imaginary beings?

Hold on, let me consult wtih the easter bunny on a witty reply.

[Essex]

i must say i enjoyed yelling at AoA much more heh.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

wow, you're full of yourself aren't you. I'll let you get a handle on your ego............................................................................ there, that should be enough.


You ignorant brat.. I'd give you a smack if I could.. Time to educate you on forum culture. This is our place to discuss heavier subject matter, not to sling mud. Tone comes from mode of thinking. Your tone comes from the post modern age, after Nietzsche brought forth the the notion that truth was made, rather than found. However, his poetic nonsense was contrary to 2500 years of philosophers who assented to the opposite. He, nor his 20th century followers, did nothing to demonstrate their position, rather, they asserted it blindly. I speak with surety and boldness as a result of taking time to discover objective norms. This includes weeding out opinions, especially by those who have not developed their thinking.


Now while you ignorantly prepare for a non-existant afterlife, and meet your tide head on, which is about as poeticly pointless as a samurai comiting sepoku for failing in a task, the rest of us will do what humans do best, and that is adapt and evolve. And while you go on praying to a non-existant disembodied head, with a pussy for a son, the rest of us will develop our own future. If "god" can't give me a disease free existance because he likes to punish me and my friends, **** him! I'll do it myself because he is too inept to do it himself.

Yay stem cell research!!!! Yay nanobots!!! Yay the freedom women have to choose what they want in regards to their own bodies!!!!

What a brat.. for someone who rejects the existence of God, you certainly make a good case for belief in God by stating his attributes as a punisher. You're not even worthy to reply to punk, but I'm doing so because I'm bored at my workstation. Adaptation and evolution are fine, so long as they are seen in the context of the bigger picture. If you want to stay in our off topic community, prepare to be kicked around a bit.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i must say i enjoyed yelling at AoA much more heh.

I love you too Essex :lol:

[Daedric]

Jesus is an imaginary figure, huh? Well, he was very large part of the Bible. Maybe you should take a look at it. Praying to God is not wrong, and not in vain.

Maybe I shouldn't even be saying this to you. Maybe you don't really exist, even though you made comments in a forum.

[Havard]

I'm troubled, and you're praying to imaginary beings?

Hold on, let me consult wtih the easter bunny on a witty reply.

The fact is, there are many atheists on these forums and all of them display more class than you. If you don't want to believe that is your prerogative, but at least you should grow up and learn how to post.

[Havard]

I love you too Essex :lol:

Essex is like a puppy with big eyes... it's hard to stay mad at him :lol:

[Daedric]

Yay stem cell research!!!! Yay nanobots!!! Yay the freedom women have to choose what they want in regards to their own bodies!!!!

Throughout all of the years that abortion has been in existence, you have to wonder how many of these people killed would have grown up to be famous in some way, shape or form. Perhaps one of them would have invented something new or found a cure for cancer, aids, diabetes, etc. :scratch:

[Essex]

yeah even when I piss on the floor and tear up the coutch :) speaking of that... dont' go in the living room.

[Eiger]

Jesus is an imaginary figure, huh? Well, he was very large part of the Bible. Maybe you should take a look at it. Praying to God is not wrong, and not in vain.

Maybe I shouldn't even be saying this to you. Maybe you don't really exist, even though you made comments in a forum.
Just because you read something in a book doesn't make it so. Just had to point that one out. Couldn't resist, so sorry.

*Runs away - very fast*

You can't catch me, neener neener...

[Masamunae]

1. You ignorant brat.. I'd give you a smack if I could..


2. If you want to stay in our off topic community, prepare to be kicked around a bit.1. threats of physical violence just prove your mentality even more. as well I would like to point out my 5+ years of full contact fighting, plus many years of weightlifting and martial arts. You're more than welcome to try and smack me.

2. I'm still waiting to get kicked around. Not seeing it yet. I'd also like to point out that in response to your "our off topic board" comment, I would asume you would be discluding me from that statement, while I have been a part of this forum alot longer than most, including yourself. I just choose to not come here for lengty periods of time because every discussion turns into some god thread, with you and your fan boi cronies leading the march.

So here is the real truth, you brat :) hahaha that's witty. What right do you have, as a person who believes in a non existant baby jesus, to dictate to me how to live my life? If I and my wife/girlfriend or my sister or anyone I know decides to donate to science in a way to better our existance, such as with this stem cell research, who are you to tell us no? You believe in the tooth fairy and you get to tell me how to run my life? You get to dictate who dies from cancer because a form of research that would find a cure is morally unaceptable to you because of a bogus religion? I think you have your head to far up your *** praying to the homo hater to see the real truth. That the "death" of some cells to save the lives of countless people on earth far outweighs any moral objections any reasonably sane person would have.

If you have objections to this sort of thing for you and your family/friends, then power to you, you have that right to say no. But do not think to dictate to me or anyone else any moral viewpoint when you devote much of your life to the thought and worship of a non-existant, morally reprehensible, uber being. Because lets face it, if god were a human being, we would have executed his *** loooooong ago. What's that god? You gave my granmother cancer and decided to string her death along for 10 years and 15 major surguries? Well that's nice, but say hello to my friend the electric chair :)

[Daedric]

Just because you read something in a book doesn't make it so. Just had to point that one out. Couldn't resist, so sorry.

lol, Eiger. I'd love to spend a lot of time arguing about whether it is just "a book." :lol: Believing it comes through faith, not whether Science can prove it. However, some people just cannot be convinced one way or another, whether they be Athiest, Christian, or other...including me. :evil:

[Eiger]

lol, Eiger. I'd love to spend a lot of time arguing about whether it is just "a book." :lol: Believing it comes through faith, not whether Science can prove it. However, some people just cannot be convinced one way or another, whether they be Athiest, Christian, or other...including me. :evil:
Hehe - just poking fun. Just couldn't resist responding to the "it's in the bible" thing.

[Masamunae]

Just because you read something in a book doesn't make it so. Just had to point that one out. Couldn't resist, so sorry.

*Runs away - very fast*

You can't catch me, neener neener...
I was gonna point out that Captain Ahab plays a really large part in Moby Dick, but I don't go around worshipping him :P But it really would be a lesson in frivolity seeing as he would just use one of the many clichéd "christian" comebacks.

For I too have faith in the most holy of holies, the book of dick, his high holiness moby. And so Ishmael gave his only begotten captain to the white whale, so that we all might live in peace and harmony.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

1. threats of physical violence just prove your mentality even more. as well I would like to point out my 5+ years of full contact fighting, plus many years of weightlifting and martial arts. You're more than welcome to try and smack me.


I'd say it only proves that sometimes one has to condescend to another's level, as I've done in your case.


2. I'm still waiting to get kicked around. Not seeing it yet.


Naturally you haven't. Since you seem to ignore the posts of others, it's natural that their respective messages would wash over you, like water off a duck's back.


I'd also like to point out that in response to your "our off topic board" comment, I would asume you would be discluding me from that statement, while I have been a part of this forum alot longer than most, including yourself. I just choose to not come here for lengty periods of time because every discussion turns into some god thread, with you and your fan boi cronies leading the march.


If you did not see it fit to post before, why start now? Have you grown weary of the parade?


So here is the real truth, you brat :) hahaha that's witty. What right do you have, as a person who believes in a non existant baby jesus


Non existant? We'd have to deal with that one first. You're not a skeptic, you're a dogmatist, which is worse. One cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, but its demonstrations are by far more evident than the contrary (indeed, the contrary position cannot exist, as our universe demands a prime mover and designer).


, to dictate to me how to live my life?


You will ultimately make your own choices, regardless of the voices you hear. I however will continue to offer the ways of reason, providing objective norms. What you choose is up to you. COnversely, you would tell me how to live my life, by asking me to shut my mouth. No thanks.


If I and my wife/girlfriend or my sister or anyone I know decides to donate to science in a way to better our existance, such as with this stem cell research, who are you to tell us no?


I'm all for the use of science and medicine to improve our conditions. Yet, It's our duty to discover moral norms for its practise.


You believe in the tooth fairy and you get to tell me how to run my life? You get to dictate who dies from cancer because a form of research that would find a cure is morally unaceptable to you because of a bogus religion?


You're the only one being dogmatic here. By use of reason, one can easily come to conclusions about our options for our core beliefs, so believing in Christ is not like believing in the tooth fairy - thats a foolish argument.
Your second clause is equally as foolhardy. By means of the same argument, you would decide which child must be slaughtered to sustain another's life, because of a humanist outlook.


I think you have your head to far up your *** praying to the homo hater to see the real truth. That the "death" of some cells to save the lives of countless people on earth far outweighs any moral objections any reasonably sane person would have.


Well here at least you have assented to the existence of God, which is more than I can say about the tooth fairy lol.. You'd be well advised to investigate the nature of this "homo hater" you refer to. Cearly, your position is emotionally based. As such, I'm not sure my writ will have much affect, but I can try.


If you have objections to this sort of thing for you and your family/friends, then power to you, you have that right to say no. But do not think to dictate to me or anyone else any moral viewpoint when you devote much of your life to the thought and worship of a non-existant, morally reprehensible, uber being.


As I mentioned a few pages back, everyone imposes a certain type of morality wether they're aware of it or not. Regarding the last statement, I've already answered that sentiment earlier, but in terms of those who use reason to consider a God, you're horrendously in the minority.


Because lets face it, if god were a human being, we would have executed his *** loooooong ago. What's that god? You gave my granmother cancer and decided to string her death along for 10 years and 15 major surguries? Well that's nice, but say hello to my friend the electric chair :)

I'm sorry to hear about your losses, but to kick and scream won't help. THere are answers, beyond a dogmatic labeling of the creator.

[Essex]

i would say that in order for us to have civil conversation we have to appercaite each other's believe. Now I do not believe in god or a divine christ. However that does not mean i'm going to call someone's diety a pussy... while we have playful arguements trying to convince one another of our believes at our core we respect what the others believe. I understand that havard and AoA and others have a strong connection to God its something i'm not about to fault them for or make fun of them for.

Its because of our mutual respect we are able to have knockdown dragouts like we do but still remain frinedly... when you start childishly refering to their believes in the way you have you threaten that ability for us to remain friendly... that is why I ask you to tone it down.

Oh and i'll admit that Jesus did exisist there was a man who was 30 something years old who lead a group of followers in the holy land. In AD 33 (there about) he was cruxifed, now that's where i stop agreeing and state that he remained dead and was just a relaxed and groovy guy who had his philosphy turned into a religion by others.

[Eiger]

Oh and i'll admit that Jesus did exisist there was a man who was 30 something years old who lead a group of followers in the holy land. In AD 33 (there about) he was cruxifed, now that's where i stop agreeing and state that he remained dead and was just a relaxed and groovy guy who had his philosphy turned into a religion by others.
That's my take on it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

One tiny notation Essex - it's not necessary for one to have a "strong connection to God" to understand the position I offer. I never argue by virture of religion (you guys would have a fit!), but rather, by reason. Some prominent atheist figures (including philiosophers, such as Wittgenstein and Sarte) have concluded eventually that the honest and precise intellectual will discover that there really is only one way to look at it. The key is "discovery", rather than "assertion".

[Eiger]

Speaking of the Bible, I'm curious about your takes on this:



Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and a Greek convert named John.

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever. The beginning of Christianity stands two figures: Jesus and Paul. Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion, in that the events of his life comprise the foundation story of Christianity; but Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time. The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism and converted to Christ.

And this from the Sierra Reference Encyclopedia (whatever that is):
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.

While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).

Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.

The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."

After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.

Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.

Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.

Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made many converts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.

Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).

At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.

It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.

The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him. Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority over his converts as their inspired teacher. The view often asserted, however, that Paul writes in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. His occasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

[Essex]

i saw a special on abc about that called jesus and pual

[Daedric]

Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.

Actually, it was not Paul who came up with Jesus' death as saving mankind from their sins. In John 20:23, after Christ was resurrected and before He ascended into heaven, he said "Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

Earlier starting in John 17:2 He says:
"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."

There are numerous other references to counter that Paul had that original idea. Obviously, Jesus never said the He was starting a religion. He only did what he was supposed to do and said what he was doing. The beings that religions are based on are usually not the ones who start them, rather people do. But, Paul did not have this original idea.

I think I will believe the Bible on what it says, rather than an Encyclopedia's interpretation of what happened. In other words, don't put words in the author's mouth.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Indeed, I was going to do one of my "pic you apart" posts, but Daedric did a good job summarizing what I was going to say. Jesus started christianity, not St. Paul. He merely "spread the word". And most certainly, Jesus did not preach an "enlightened judaism", whatever that means lol.. It appears, Eiger, that the position you offered was that Paul was the primary artificer of christianity (indeed, "pauline" christianity), and it was essentially an expression of his own prior influences, exacerbated by his own "mystical experience". In the end however, it would seem like just another speedbump in the long, winding road of the generic spiritual experience of humankind, which has its various expressions and docrines. Forgive me, but all that is tripe.

The notion however that one's expression of belief or of self comes through one's experience and identity is definitely true, as I'm sure Paul's influences gave a tone to his message, but I would emphasize that the proclamation of the gospel in this case was mostly done by means of miraculous power. Nobody would assent to a seemingly dogmatic - and countercultural message (these two modalities presenting a stumbling block to roman and jewish culture, respectively). You cannot go one page in the book of acts without reference to a work of power that would back up their preaching (not only paul's, but also the other apostles and followers). I find it troubling that many sources that claim to be scholarly choose to neglect the most essential texts, which, in this case, includes the scriptures.
In closing, you'll find early on in the book of acts - a group of pharisees were accusing paul of blasphemy, etc, and accusing him of creating a movement that disturbs the people. An elder rabbi wisely answered "if it is of God, it will last.., but if of human artifice, it will pass" (paraphrased, of course). Good words to reflect on. No matter what this fool culture comes up with, it will never defeat the deposit of revelation, and the immutibility of reason. Never.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Just because you read something in a book doesn't make it so. Just had to point that one out. Couldn't resist, so sorry.

What?! Does that mean the things I see on TV might not be true too?
Say it a'int so!! :( :hanky:

----------------------------
Well, anyway ... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I agree with some of the things Masamunae said, even tho' he is too extreme in his opinions and I dont approve of the way he stated his opinions at all. But when you look beyond his words and see the meaning, I see some rational thought.

----------------------------

As pretty much everyone knows, I like to stick to reality, the things presented to me in the 'real world. Wich is why I dump on philosophy and pretty much all religious stuff that deals with mankinds notion of 'God'. I dont believe in the objective truth and immutable reason. Like I've said, reason is tainted by the human mind and truth is relative.
So, of course, in the eyes of guys like AoA, I am a fool. Fine.
So now I am going to sound like I'm offending certain people alot but I'm really just stating an opinion:
Personally, I've read a fair amount of philosophy because I found it interesting. At first. Then it became a bunch of BS to me. I found every one of the philosophers I've read to be a bunch of cocky, big headed, know-it-all, everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-stupid, bastards that are so drunk on their own ego they cant see past their own nose. I mean, its a bunch of cheap-talk guys with egos big enough to fill the grand canyon all calling eachother fools.
Now guess wich of Masamunaes statements I agreed the most with. :wink2:

So as for abortion and stem cell research in general, I ignore the philosophical and religious crap and focus on the reality and the practical application of morals in society.
Yes, abortion technically takes a life, but not yet a sentient life, it could have been but it was not.
And I do think these skanks who go and get pregnant at 15 should be forced to have the baby and learn to deal with the consequences of their actions. Harsh? Yes, but fair.
But then we have situations like women who get pregnant after being *****, should they have to give birth to the child of their attacker? No.
When it comes down to it, it is a womans right to choose. And if abortion was not allowed we would see scores of desperate young women trying to cause a miscarriage or taking their own lives.
The way I see it, abortion beats the alternative to a bloody pulp with a big lead pipe.

As for stem cell research. You take what could\would have been a life and use it to attempt to save other lives. Is it a fair tradeoff? I think so. Its not a pretty tradeoff, but it is acceptable.
When you think of the number of people stem cell research can help, I dont really understand why anyone can say it should be stopped.
People can say that a life is a life and we are taking them but there is a big difference between embryos and people. It comes back to the sentient being argument again.
Its not like researchers are going around hacking babies to death like they were baby seals. Wich is pretty much the picture anti stem cell research people try to paint.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

As pretty much everyone knows, I like to stick to reality, the things presented to me in the 'real world.


Begin there yes, but don't simply end there.


Wich is why I dump on philosophy


No, you do not dump on "philosophy". The very notion that you choose to apprehend the world in this way "empiricism only", is a philosophy. Your statement attempted to say that you did not have a view, but as I'm sure we can agree, everyone does have one - but you already knew that ;).


and pretty much all religious stuff that deals with mankinds notion of 'God'. I dont believe in the objective truth and immutable reason. Like I've said, reason is tainted by the human mind and truth is relative.


*sigh* I must have explained it a thousand times before.. To say that "truth" is relative is an absolute truth value statement. I'm sorry graavy-boy, but you simply cannot get out of the trap reason sets for you. Reason carries heavy demands, and they must be met. I've used the example of mathmatics before as being an expample of objectivity. Why do you refuse to learn, thread after thread??


So, of course, in the eyes of guys like AoA, I am a fool. Fine.
So now I am going to sound like I'm offending certain people alot but I'm really just stating an opinion:


Really Graav, why settle for mere opinion? Doesnt that get tiring after a while, knowing that you continually are unable to back up your statements, save by common platitudes, that are easily broken under the weight of a rational argument? Does this not bother you? If not, why continue to post your thoughts?


Personally, I've read a fair amount of philosophy because I found it interesting. At first. Then it became a bunch of BS to me. I found every one of the philosophers I've read to be a bunch of cocky, big headed, know-it-all, everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-stupid, bastards that are so drunk on their own ego they cant see past their own nose. I mean, its a bunch of cheap-talk guys with egos big enough to fill the grand canyon all calling eachother fools.


BUHAHAH OMG!! Man.. I nearly fell off my chair!!! Please do me a favor and state the texts you've read. What a rediculous statement.. man.. that's just a hard pill to swallow, I'm afraid :cheesy:


Now guess wich of Masamunaes statements I agreed the most with.


Umm.. how about the ones you "liked best"...


So as for abortion and stem cell research in general, I ignore the philosophical and religious crap and focus on the reality and the practical application of morals in society.


You cannot ignore philosophy, as it underpins those "practical applications" you speak of. As I mentioned, everythng is done in a certain fashion. I know you can do better than this Graav.


Yes, abortion technically takes a life, but not yet a sentient life, it could have been but it was not.
And I do think these skanks who go and get pregnant at 15 should be forced to have the baby and learn to deal with the consequences of their actions. Harsh? Yes, but fair.


Fair according to you. What exactly makes it fair? This is why you must investigate it further. There is no "technically" about it. Life is either spared, or taken.


As for stem cell research. You take what could\would have been a life and use it to attempt to save other lives. Is it a fair tradeoff? I think so. Its not a pretty tradeoff, but it is acceptable.


You acceptance of intellectual mediocrity merely translates to mediocrity in practical applications. This is precisely why you must not disregard philosophy.

[Booms]

I stole this from the Fahrenheit 911 thread:

But is a man in a permanent vegetative state a human? Either you believe that he will never be more than organic matter, or you believe that there is something special about his unconscious flesh. And since an embryo has the eventual capability of developing a rational thought, the vegetative man is even less worthy than the embryo, if sentience is our standard. And if our standard isn't thought, then what is it?

But the whole point of stem cell research is to prevent man from reaching a premanent vegetative state. The embryo has the chance of eventually developing rational thought, but the man has rational thought. The goal is to protect those who are already human, not a few cells which aren't human.

Either we have the right to destroy the cells or we don't. Justifying an evil by it's consequences does not change the nature of the evil.

We have a right to destroy stem cells. They aren't yet human, the action isn't evil.

I'll try to comment on the rest of the stuff in this thread, but I wanted to get this into this thread before I forgot about it.

[Semidi]

Masamunae there is obviusly no convincing you, and I really don't know how to feel about you calling my Lord and Savior a pussy.

Before you hijacked this thread I was actually intrested on what people where err saying.

I guess one day we'll find out who's right, and until them (cliche coming up) I'll pray for you.

OT: why is naz1 filtered and not pussy?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Booms - you're snuffing out life.

[Booms]

I'm snuffing out the possiblity of a life. On the other hand, the same thing happens when a woman has her period or a man masturbates.

Snuffing out the life of some non-sentient not-yet-human cells in exchange for saving the lives of sentient people is worth it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, those paralells cannot be applied here. Those cells - in ovam and semen, are not human beings on their own. However, when they merge, a new entity is created, that, from that moment onward, develops along the human genetic code - which continues with us as we speak. You not only prevent life, you prevent human life - you kill it at the root.

[Sage the Mage]

...THey blind themselves to the true purpose of this life, and merely play with the rats in the cage they've created....

If you know the true purpose in life I'd like to hear it, and you better not be drunk!

No, those paralells cannot be applied here. Those cells - in ovam and semen, are not human beings on their own. However, when they merge, a new entity is created, that, from that moment onward, develops along the human genetic code - which continues with us as we speak. You not only prevent life, you prevent human life - you kill it at the root.

Hrm...how to explain this. I kill someone, but that person was going to have a family. Does that not prevent a few lives? Sure that implies that there is a set path in life but ignore that if you can, even though the free will proof is a fun one :)

Either way...look at it in potential lives. One doesn't make it or might itself died of a disease that could be prevented, but 100 more survive because of it, and then go on to have 200 children...By saving the first you deny the possibility of the others.

[Essex]

If you know the true purpose in life I'd like to hear it, and you better not be drunk!



Hrm...how to explain this. I kill someone, but that person was going to have a family. Does that not prevent a few lives? Sure that implies that there is a set path in life but ignore that if you can, even though the free will proof is a fun one :)

Either way...look at it in potential lives. One doesn't make it or might itself died of a disease that could be prevented, but 100 more survive because of it, and then go on to have 200 children...By saving the first you deny the possibility of the others.
but every life is precious.. you can't kill one person to help others.. cells that are indeterminate (meaning they don't even know what they are going to become) are clearly alive and thusly need saving.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would kill any one of you in this thread to have prevented my mom from going what she has the last 5 years, let alone what she will continue going through. If these numbers were accurate, I could forgive the preventing of one life to relieve the suffering of every 20. Cancer for example, few people truly realize how horrible it really is. Few people have ever had to be exposed to it, to sit and watch someone you love suffer every second of every day. Compile that day over 5 years, some as many as 15 or 20. Now figure into account the sheer amount of people who are victims of cancer. If I could end the suffering of 20 people for every life I prevented, a life that never knew pain and suffering, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Yes I know that in essence I am killing a baby, however one life for twenty? Thirty? The more you save, the less that one life plays on your concience.

[Daedric]

Gosh, if only some people would read the thread! I don't want to keep repeating myself, and I'm sure some people don't want to keep hearing it either, but I feel I must for those who haven't read the early parts of the thread. (Wow, what a run-on sentence)

As I said earlier,

A lot of people would have you believe, that if stem cell research were used on human embryos, the cures to all kinds of diseases and problems would be right around the corner! Not so! If the cures were that close to being made, government money would not be necessary for research. Private money (drug companies) would be funding this research, as they know that there would be billions of dollars to be made on a cure for diabetes, aids, etc. Since they are not investing money in this, it is pretty clear that the proffesionals do not believe that currently, research would be majorly beneficial.

As of today, we don't have the capabilities to benefit from stem cell research. There just isn't a lot to be gained there. Sure, we would all love to save your mom, no matter how much you want to kill us for your problems.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would kill any one of you in this thread to have prevented my mom from going what she has the last 5 years, let alone what she will continue going through.

What you said was just horrible; take a life to save another. That is completely wrong to say and doesn't even compare to taking an embryo's "life" away.

[Daedric]

Anyone is free to argue for or against the stance that AoA, I, and others take, but please, lets leave threats to our lives out of this

[Graav Wolfsong]

What you said was just horrible; take a life to save another. That is completely wrong to say and doesn't even compare to taking an embryo's "life" away.

Wrong but completely understandable.

[Essex]

Anyone is free to argue for or against the stance that AoA, I, and others take, but please, lets leave threats to our lives out of this
he wasn't threatening you, i think he was just saying that he would do anything to stop his mother from going through that... killing himself his friends whatever. Not a direct attack... like when I said I'd shoot myself in the head if I could cure all those disease I didn't actually have a gun pointed at my forehead :)

your new here don't take things seriously lol

[Daedric]

I see what you're saying Essex. If I came off too serious I am sorry for that. I felt it a horrible comparison though. This is especially true when pro-research people say that the cells may not even be alive. However, people posting in these forums are alive for sure (at the moment they posted anyway) and aren't to be sacrificed for it. Guess it was my way of evaluating a bad comparison.

[Eiger]

Just remember - we're not talking about a fetus here. We're talking about an embryo which is a very very small little bitty ball of cells with no outwardly defining characteristics. It looks more like a baseball than a human. Yes, it would eventually turn into a human, but at this point in its development it doesn't think, feel, touch, smell, etc or even have a clue that it is anything. Getting worked up about fetuses I can understand - getting worked up about an embryo just seems so absurd that all I can think of is - get a grip...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Gosh, if only some people would read the thread! I don't want to keep repeating myself, and I'm sure some people don't want to keep hearing it either, but I feel I must for those who haven't read the early parts of the thread. (Wow, what a run-on sentence)

Ha! I've read the thread my friend, but I was to understand we are not simply talking about current stem cell research, but the possibilites it brings. Curing of current diseases IS an understood possibility of stem cell research, hence my thoughts. You also have to pay close attention to how many times I said "IF". I am discussing likely possibilities.

Sure, we would all love to save your mom, no matter how much you want to kill us for your problems.

That sentence struck a big nerve. Before getting mad, I will simply give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood me.

What you said was just horrible; take a life to save another. That is completely wrong to say and doesn't even compare to taking an embryo's "life" away.

What you call horrible I call the brutal honest truth. Ask yourself this: Who are you to me? I don't know you, I have never met you, I have no emotional attatchment to you what-so-ever. My mother on the other hand is someone who I value quite a bit. She, to me(as most mothers are to their children) is one of the most important people currently walking this earth. Obviously I would value her life over yours, so if it came to it, yes I would kill you if it meant giving her life back to her. Put yourself in the same position, who is more important to you? Me? Or someone you love? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Yes it is horrible, but the world is not all cute fluffy bunnies. The truth can be a horrible thing.

If right now you held the cure to cancer in your blood and I could save not only my mother but the thousands of others who are currently suffering from cancer, I hate to say it, but I would be buying a plane ticket now and coming to your house.

[Eiger]

Go
As I said earlier,


Yes, yes, we already read that, twice. A third isn't necessary, especially since we already established that your statement is not correct.

[Eiger]

but please, lets leave threats to our lives out of this
Please leave the misinterpretations and overreactions out as well. Thanks!

[Havard]

Just remember - we're not talking about a fetus here. We're talking about an embryo which is a very very small little bitty ball of cells with no outwardly defining characteristics. It looks more like a baseball than a human. Yes, it would eventually turn into a human, but at this point in its development it doesn't think, feel, touch, smell, etc or even have a clue that it is anything. Getting worked up about fetuses I can understand - getting worked up about an embryo just seems so absurd that all I can think of is - get a grip...

Why does it seem absurd? Sure, embryos can't do much, but their present capabilities really aren't their source of worth, IMO. I don't know how you felt when you found out you were having a baby, but do you think it's silly for other parents to value the life of their embryo before it has any arms or legs? I know it's a romantic notion, but I think the same argument can be applied to people in permanent vegetative states. Their humanity, and their 'worth' doesn't lie in their capabilities, but simply in their existence.

[Eiger]

Why does it seem absurd? Sure, embryos can't do much, but their present capabilities really aren't their source of worth, IMO. I don't know how you felt when you found out you were having a baby, but do you think it's silly for other parents to value the life of their embryo before it has any arms or legs? I know it's a romantic notion, but I think the same argument can be applied to people in permanent vegetative states. Their humanity, and their 'worth' doesn't lie in their capabilities, but simply in their existence.
That's a nice emotional argument, I'll grant you that. But it's still a little itty bitty ball of cells.

[Essex]

Why does it seem absurd? Sure, embryos can't do much, but their present capabilities really aren't their source of worth, IMO. I don't know how you felt when you found out you were having a baby, but do you think it's silly for other parents to value the life of their embryo before it has any arms or legs? I know it's a romantic notion, but I think the same argument can be applied to people in permanent vegetative states. Their humanity, and their 'worth' doesn't lie in their capabilities, but simply in their existence.
but these embryos are not taken from mothers while their asleep they are created for this purpose, what greater purpose could a person have than to cure cancer?

[Havard]

That's a nice emotional argument, I'll grant you that. But it's still a little itty bitty ball of cells.

Is the person in the permanent vegetative condition a big ball of cells? :uhhuh:

Ok, I think this argument can be made without the emotional appeal. It goes back to question of what makes life have value. I don't believe it's a matter of physical or intellectual ability. There is the slippery slope argument of **** Germany and eugenics, which I don't think we're approaching yet, but it still frightens me that many consider a baby (up until the last moments before birth) expendable because of a technical detail. The same child could have been a premee (sp?), but they wouldn't advocate it's execution then. I think we need to approach an understanding on where it's worth comes from.

[Havard]

but these embryos are not taken from mothers while their asleep they are created for this purpose, what greater purpose could a person have than to cure cancer?

It all goes back to what gives life its value. If the embryo doesn't have inherent value, I would agree with you. But since I think there is inherent value, I don't.

[Essex]

but we aren't talking about a fetus we are talking about an embryo which is just a ball of cells... and that's where the arguement is stuck because the two sides can't see past that either it is or isn't i think it isn't you think it is.

[Eiger]

Is the person in the permanent vegetative condition a big ball of cells? :uhhuh:


I don't think they're using the veggie for stem cell research... :lol:

[Havard]

I don't think they're using the veggie for stem cell research... :lol:

Ok, why don't we use them? Because of a romantic notion of who they once were? If it's only romantic notions, why is a romantic attachment of a past person more important than the romantic notion of a future person? That illustrates my point that it isn't simply about romantic notions, but that there is an inherent value to both.

[Daedric]

What you call horrible I call the brutal honest truth. Ask yourself this: Who are you to me? I don't know you, I have never met you, I have no emotional attatchment to you what-so-ever. My mother on the other hand is someone who I value quite a bit. She, to me(as most mothers are to their children) is one of the most important people currently walking this earth. Obviously I would value her life over yours, so if it came to it, yes I would kill you if it meant giving her life back to her. Put yourself in the same position, who is more important to you? Me? Or someone you love? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Yes it is horrible, but the world is not all cute fluffy bunnies. The truth can be a horrible thing.

If right now you held the cure to cancer in your blood and I could save not only my mother but the thousands of others who are currently suffering from cancer, I hate to say it, but I would be buying a plane ticket now and coming to your house.

I understood what you meant the first time around. I know that I, or anyone else for that matter who you have never met, "mean nothing to you." I feel the same way. But, it's one thing to harvest cells from an embryo and another to murder someone. I'm sure your mother would be very proud of you knowing that you murdered someone to help her.

[Essex]

I understood what you meant the first time around. I know that I, or anyone else for that matter who you have never met, "mean nothing to you." I feel the same way. But, it's one thing to harvest cells from an embryo and another to murder someone. I'm sure your mother would be very proud of you knowing that you murdered someone to help her.
daedric you may not have meant it that way but that last comment sounded like a smartass remark... lets avoid talking about people mothers ok? you should have learned that in the thrid grade.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Apparently we are just going to argue semantics now...

I understood what you meant the first time around. I know that I, or anyone else for that matter who you have never met, "mean nothing to you." I feel the same way. But, it's one thing to harvest cells from an embryo and another to murder someone.

Really? If it is your belief, as it obviously is for many in this thread, that the embryo IS (the approaching inevitablity of) a living person, then how would killing them NOT be murder? What would you call it? Death by medicine? If it would make you feel better to call it something else, that's fine. However it still does not change the very basic fact that you are taking a life(assuming the side of the arguement that the embryo is life).

I'm sure your mother would be very proud of you knowing that you murdered someone to help her.

Probably not, but I don't actually think I'd be walking up to her to say "Hey mom, you feel better? That's good because the cells they used were the from the spleen of some guy, I pushed him into an alley and cut him open when I saw him walking by. Afterwards I rubbed his blood all over my naked body and proceeded to dance around his body like a rythemless monkey in heat."

Long story short, I don't think I would be telling her. I would be the one living with what I had done, and I alone would pay the consequences of my actions come time for judgement. But you know what? I would feel damn good about it. But since my mother is not a point of debate here and was only used to make a point, why don't we leave your ignorant guessing at my mothers thoughts out of this ok? If you want, you can feel free to argue with me about the actions I described taking, but you have no place mentioning my mother.

Either way, I don't see what you are trying to accomplish with this second line. So... back to them stem cells eh?

[Eiger]

Ok, why don't we use them? Because of a romantic notion of who they once were? If it's only romantic notions, why is a romantic attachment of a past person more important than the romantic notion of a future person? That illustrates my point that it isn't simply about romantic notions, but that there is an inherent value to both.
Nice tangent, but no dice. It's really kind of irrelevant to the conversation.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If you know the true purpose in life I'd like to hear it, and you better not be drunk!


The purpose of life is to know, love, and serve God. How can this be? (one would say - I dont believe in God, or - how am I to know this?). Essentially, this goes back to the position that truth is discovered, not created. We can create our own purposes in life, but in truth, they really have no intrinsic meaning, or objective meanings, separate than the ones we would superimpose. Meaning and purpose must coincide with the objective of the prime mover, which initiated your existence. Thus, to start with, it is our duty as creatures to discover what this purpose, or this ultimate good is. THanks to Descartes, who asserted that we need "absolute certainty", one is inclined to ask for a cut and paste solution that everyone can abide by. However, in asking that question, one assumes a human faculty that is higher than the one we are endowed with - which is a faculty that is incapable of absolute knowledge, especially of the immediate sort. To sum it up, we must live this question, with our knowledge of those foundational principles in check.


Hrm...how to explain this. I kill someone, but that person was going to have a family. Does that not prevent a few lives? Sure that implies that there is a set path in life but ignore that if you can, even though the free will proof is a fun one :)

Either way...look at it in potential lives. One doesn't make it or might itself died of a disease that could be prevented, but 100 more survive because of it, and then go on to have 200 children...By saving the first you deny the possibility of the others.

To this, and to others who side on this platform, I'll offer that a mathematical model cannot be applied to the value of life. Indeed, this would seem a fair model, in all practicality, that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", as Spock would say. Then again, Spock wasn't all that good with the "lovey-dovey" stuff. In all seriousness, if you're unwilling (or unable) to see that there is more to existence to strictly empirical considerations, one is locked into creating a solution within that small framework. As such, your model would make sense in that way. However, the only solution to this would be to see life and its values which includes the holisitic framework of metaphysical considerations, and of course, the will of God.

[Booms]

Ok, why don't we use them? Because of a romantic notion of who they once were? If it's only romantic notions, why is a romantic attachment of a past person more important than the romantic notion of a future person? That illustrates my point that it isn't simply about romantic notions, but that there is an inherent value to both.

No. The veggie once was "human." The embryo never was...all it is a small bundle of cells (not a fetus, so lay off the baby killing).

The person in the vegetative state may continue to live up to a point where medicine can cure him. The embryo's sole purpose is to be used for science, otherwise it would have never been created.

[Havard]

Nice tangent, but no dice. It's really kind of irrelevant to the conversation.

That was patronizing. It was not a tangent, and I'd appreciate it if you'd give me a little more respect, Eiger. I respect your opinion and if you think it's not relevant, you could at least lay out *why*.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hate to break it to you Booms, but the killing of a human embryo is baby killing. I can't fathom how you cannot see this. Once conception occurs, a human being is created, and continues in development. By placing an arbitrary date on the developmental process of human growth, you do nothing to prove your position. Kill a human embryo, and murder an unborn chiild. Period.

[Essex]

The purpose of life is to know, love, and serve God. How can this be? (one would say - I dont believe in God, or - how am I to know this?). Essentially, this goes back to the position that truth is discovered, not created. We can create our own purposes in life, but in truth, they really have no intrinsic meaning, or objective meanings, separate than the ones we would superimpose. Meaning and purpose must coincide with the objective of the prime mover, which initiated your existence. Thus, to start with, it is our duty as creatures to discover what this purpose, or this ultimate good is. THanks to Descartes, who asserted that we need "absolute certainty", one is inclined to ask for a cut and paste solution that everyone can abide by. However, in asking that question, one assumes a human faculty that is higher than the one we are endowed with - which is a faculty that is incapable of absolute knowledge, especially of the immediate sort. To sum it up, we must live this question, with our knowledge of those foundational principles in check.



To this, and to others who side on this platform, I'll offer that a mathematical model cannot be applied to the value of life. Indeed, this would seem a fair model, in all practicality, that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", as Spock would say. Then again, Spock wasn't all that good with the "lovey-dovey" stuff. In all seriousness, if you're unwilling (or unable) to see that there is more to existence to strictly empirical considerations, one is locked into creating a solution within that small framework. As such, your model would make sense in that way. However, the only solution to this would be to see life and its values which includes the holisitic framework of metaphysical considerations, and of course, the will of God.
ever stopped to consider your wrong? all this basic truths, will of God, laws of the universe, maybe your just wrong. If that is the case then we should live for the here and now and try to help as many people as we can instead of relying on the will of the universe or nature.. or god.. i don't know there's a lot of wills going around.

[Eiger]

That was patronizing. It was not a tangent, and I'd appreciate it if you'd give me a little more respect, Eiger. I respect your opinion and if you think it's not relevant, you could at least lay out *why*.
Because stem cell research is performed on embryos not fully developed humans. I'm not aware of any suggestions by those in the scientific community to perform it on vegetated humans. Are you aware of any? Therefore it seems to me to be a red herring tangent without any purpose or real value to the conversation. Just my read...

[Eiger]

Hate to break it to you Booms, but the killing of a human embryo is baby killing. I can't fathom how you cannot see this. Once conception occurs, a human being is created, and continues in development. By placing an arbitrary date on the developmental process of human growth, you do nothing to prove your position. Kill a human embryo, and murder an unborn chiild. Period.
Then we have a difference of opinion. I don't see an embryo as being the same thing as a baby. Not at all.

[Havard]

No. The veggie once was "human." The embryo never was...all it is a small bundle of cells (not a fetus, so lay off the baby killing).

The person in the vegetative state may continue to live up to a point where medicine can cure him. The embryo's sole purpose is to be used for science, otherwise it would have never been created.

"Lay off the baby killing?" Don't make up crap, Booms, I never said anything resembling "baby killing." I said that I don't think it's absurd for parents to believe that there is value in their child as soon as they find out about it, before it has arms and legs. Listen to what people say, that's the least respect you can give.

As far as the purpose of the embryo's creation is concerned, it only matters if there is no inherent value to life. As I said to Essex, if there isn't, I would agree with you.

[Havard]

Because stem cell research is performed on embryos not fully developed humans. I'm not aware of any suggestions by those in the scientific community to perform it on vegetated humans. Are you aware of any? Therefore it seems to me to be a red herring tangent without any purpose or real value to the conversation. Just my read...

Okaaayyy, and I am taking that a step further by offering why that isn't the case. There are two possible reasons that I can see: 1) simply romantic memories of vegetables' former selves or 2) that there is an inherent value to them.

If 1) is the case, my argument is simply "What makes a romantic memory more important than a romantic expectation?"

If 2) is the case, then you agree with me.

Or... there may be some 3), 4), or 5) explanations, which I would be glad to hear and consider.

[Essex]

just read about something most of the embryos used are the spare embryos prouduced during invetro fertilization... if those embryos were not used to make stem cells then they would have been discarded anyway, these embryos were made so a couple could have a child... they have the child and consent to allow the spare embryos to be used for stem cells... now if these embryos were going to be destroyed anyway where is the harm?

unless you don't want to allow invetro...

also so long as we have inventro and we have these spare embryos that will be destoryed ANYWAY (not upset just making it a noted point) then why not use them for stem cell research?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

ever stopped to consider your wrong? all this basic truths, will of God, laws of the universe, maybe your just wrong.


Maybe if you'd read my posts, and the text I perscribe, you'd discover that I, and the legions of other thinkers before me, are "just right". :)


If that is the case then we should live for the here and now and try to help as many people as we can instead of relying on the will of the universe or nature.. or god.. i don't know there's a lot of wills going around.

See Essex, we ARE supposed to live in the moment. YOu make the mistake of separating the spiritual life from the temporal life. Relying on God does not mean that we become pseudo mystics that live on a mountaintop and "contemplate truths", but God is invloved in every facet of life, even the little details. God does his part, and we do ours.

[Bhs Crew]

As far as the purpose of the embryo's creation is concerned, it only matters if there is no inherent value to life.

Which is what this whole debate ends up as. If an embryo has inherent value that is less then the value of the people its saving then it is ok. If the embryo has equal or more value then the people it's saving then it isn't.

What about the stem cells taken from aborted fetuses? They are dead either way, so taking the stem cells would seem to cause no harm (provided that the abortion is in no way related to the fact that stem cells are being harvested from said fetus).

[Essex]

I, and the legions of other thinkers before me, are "just right". :) .

oh i get it... like Bush and his cronies :)

just kiddin

:flip:

[Havard]

Which is what this whole debate ends up as. If an embryo has inherent value that is less then the value of the people its saving then it is ok. If the embryo has equal or more value then the people it's saving then it isn't.

What about the stem cells taken from aborted fetuses? They are dead either way, so taking the stem cells would seem to cause no harm (provided that the abortion is in no way related to the fact that stem cells are being harvested from said fetus).

I have no problem with using dead humans/babies/tissue/cells for medical research. In the case of frozen embryos, they can be revived and they are thus still living, though.

[Sage the Mage]

To this, and to others who side on this platform, I'll offer that a mathematical model cannot be applied to the value of life. Indeed, this would seem a fair model, in all practicality, that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", as Spock would say. Then again, Spock wasn't all that good with the "lovey-dovey" stuff. In all seriousness, if you're unwilling (or unable) to see that there is more to existence to strictly empirical considerations, one is locked into creating a solution within that small framework. As such, your model would make sense in that way. However, the only solution to this would be to see life and its values which includes the holisitic framework of metaphysical considerations, and of course, the will of God.

Since one can not comprehend what that is, if it exists, so we can ignore that. And since we agree that God cannot be proven to exist, we can ignore that as well. So what other reason is there?

[Daedric]

Really? If it is your belief, as it obviously is for many in this thread, that the embryo IS (the approaching inevitablity of) a living person, then how would killing them NOT be murder? What would you call it? Death by medicine? If it would make you feel better to call it something else, that's fine. However it still does not change the very basic fact that you are taking a life(assuming the side of the arguement that the embryo is life)

I believe that killing the embryo is, in fact a killing of an innocent human being. Surely, someone would have realized that I was trying to appeal to the opposite side's thoughts on whether the cell is a human or not. This would show the difference between a killing of an embryo or a developed person. Pro-stem cell research people would surely see this. By doing this, I have forced the issue of making you realize what destroying an embryo is.

And no, I have nothing against your mom at all. My saying was not a pun for making fun of her. It was just to make you think about what you said. I do feel sorry for her and anyone that has had to go through things like that. I wouldn't make light of her condition at all. Just remember I was not the one who brought her into this discussion. My apologies if you felt offended in any way.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

oh i get it... like Bush and his cronies :)

just kiddin

:flip:

lol.. Naw, Bush is a dogmatist, not a thinker. But I'd rather him than liberal ironists who believe themselves to be intelligent.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Since one can not comprehend what that is, if it exists, so we can ignore that. And since we agree that God cannot be proven to exist, we can ignore that as well. So what other reason is there?

No, we certainly cannot ignore that. Your last question - what reason - is the next step. From our empirical observations, we can deduce our options for a metaphysical model. There is room for rejoycing in this, because we can discover the limits of our own abilities in our exploration of the cosmos. So, since the world transcends our own empirical abilities (ie. "its bigger than us"), we can consider our options for belief in regards to our creator. Reason, like math, is immutuble in its "structure". It only remains that people remain faithful to logic and its demands. I cannot prove God for you - in order to do that, I would have to BE God, or have the faculties to understand that being. Our senses are not made for that (but our hearts are, and we all need love). In that sense, even angels cannot prove God, since they are lesser beings. But, In our investigation of the world, it stands that there really is only one option, which lies in accord with a prime mover - AKA, God.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I believe that killing the embryo is, in fact a killing of an innocent human being. Surely, someone would have realized that I was trying to appeal to the opposite side's thoughts on whether the cell is a human or not. This would show the difference between a killing of an embryo or a developed person. Pro-stem cell research people would surely see this. By doing this, I have forced the issue of making you realize what destroying an embryo is.

Then we are going to end up talking circles around each other. I too am part of the camp that believes a fertilized embryo is in essence a life because in my mind the most probabable end is it becoming a baby if allowed to develop. I stop short of calling it a life before that point, but that it is the simply the inevitability of life. I realize fully well what destroying an embryo is just as I realize what destroying an already born person is. I suppose you could say I am an ally of AoA's Spock. The mathmatical stance of the life of one embryo being able to potentially save 20 or more people who in alot of cases can only be described as brutal torture seems a good sacrifice to me.

But you must keep in mind that I don't believe an embryo to be life itself, only the inevitable formation into a life. If it could be proven that the embryo was just as much "alive"(Whether that has to mean self aware, capable of emotion or whatnot) as you or I, then my stance would be different. Since it can't be proven one way or another, only opinionated, my stance remains that the embryo can be "harvested"(I really hate that term) at a time when the embryo cannot feel pain, cannot know love, cannot understand its existance, and cannot grasp the fact that it is alive.

My apologies if you felt offended in any way.

No problem, from here on out we'll pretend that was never part of the conversation.

[Essex]

i would still love to hear the anti-stem cell people's stance on the fact that some researchers use the embryos from invetro couples, and if they aren't used for stem-cells they would be discarded anyway.. i made a whole post a bout last page... *mumbles* actually say something halfway decent and it gets ignored lol

[Lilly.m]

Edit: Er, that link was about abortion. I don't see anything wrong with stem cell research though.

[Booms]

"Lay off the baby killing?" Don't make up crap, Booms, I never said anything resembling "baby killing." I said that I don't think it's absurd for parents to believe that there is value in their child as soon as they find out about it, before it has arms and legs. Listen to what people say, that's the least respect you can give.

The baby killing part was in response to you mentioning premees and abortions.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i would still love to hear the anti-stem cell people's stance on the fact that some researchers use the embryos from invetro couples, and if they aren't used for stem-cells they would be discarded anyway.. i made a whole post a bout last page... *mumbles* actually say something halfway decent and it gets ignored lol

Wether in a test tube or in a uterus, a human is still a human.

[Booms]

Maybe if you'd read my posts, and the text I perscribe, you'd discover that I, and the legions of other thinkers before me, are "just right". :)

And this is why people sometimes think you come off as "holier-than-thou" or that you have a somewhat large ego.

[Booms]

Wether in a test tube or in a uterus, a human is still a human.

But at this point in the cell's development it is not yet "a human."

[Eiger]

Okaaayyy, and I am taking that a step further by offering why that isn't the case. There are two possible reasons that I can see: 1) simply romantic memories of vegetables' former selves or 2) that there is an inherent value to them.

If 1) is the case, my argument is simply "What makes a romantic memory more important than a romantic expectation?"

If 2) is the case, then you agree with me.

Or... there may be some 3), 4), or 5) explanations, which I would be glad to hear and consider.
But what's that got to do with stem cell research? I'm just not getting it...

[Eiger]

just read about something most of the embryos used are the spare embryos prouduced during invetro fertilization... if those embryos were not used to make stem cells then they would have been discarded anyway, these embryos were made so a couple could have a child... they have the child and consent to allow the spare embryos to be used for stem cells... now if these embryos were going to be destroyed anyway where is the harm?

unless you don't want to allow invetro...

also so long as we have inventro and we have these spare embryos that will be destoryed ANYWAY (not upset just making it a noted point) then why not use them for stem cell research?
Now that's a very good point Essex. Thanks.

[Booms]

He's trying to say that if you value people in a vegetative state you should also be placing value on the embryos.

[Eiger]

He's trying to say that if you value people in a vegetative state you should also be placing value on the embryos.
Oh, ok. I advocate pulling the plug and lowering our insurance premiums. I guess that should be clear enough... :uhhuh:

[Sage the Mage]

No, we certainly cannot ignore that. Your last question - what reason - is the next step. From our empirical observations, we can deduce our options for a metaphysical model. There is room for rejoycing in this, because we can discover the limits of our own abilities in our exploration of the cosmos. So, since the world transcends our own empirical abilities (ie. "its bigger than us"), we can consider our options for belief in regards to our creator. Reason, like math, is immutuble in its "structure". It only remains that people remain faithful to logic and its demands. I cannot prove God for you - in order to do that, I would have to BE God, or have the faculties to understand that being. Our senses are not made for that (but our hearts are, and we all need love). In that sense, even angels cannot prove God, since they are lesser beings. But, In our investigation of the world, it stands that there really is only one option, which lies in accord with a prime mover - AKA, God.

If you cannot prove a God then it cannot be proven it exists, but you still assume that it does. That's a problem you need to get by.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And this is why people sometimes think you come off as "holier-than-thou" or that you have a somewhat large ego.

I'd say the more egotistical approach would be to use excuses like that to remain in the dark about the correct processes of thinking, outlined over the last few thousand years.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But at this point in the cell's development it is not yet "a human."

Yes, when cells merge, you have a developing human. If your statement holds true, you're not a human - as the body continually develops.

[Bhs Crew]

If you cannot prove a God then it cannot be proven it exists, but you still assume that it does. That's a problem you need to get by.
I'll just try to head this off now. He can't prove a god exists. However you can't prove God doesn't exist either. So it comes down to a long discussion on causes, laws, theories, physics, etc.

The point is that AoA's assumption that God does exist isn't any more of a problem then your assumption that he doesn't. Both of you are making the conclusion that you have come to from what you know.

If you start this discussion it will take many, many pages.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If you cannot prove a God then it cannot be proven it exists, but you still assume that it does. That's a problem you need to get by.

There really is no problematic involved, quite the opposite in fact. I cannot put God under a microscope, but I can study nature. In our observations and our reasoning, there is 100% "proof" and surety that by the nature of the universe, "God" is the creator and sustainer. Perhaps I should switch to rhetoric, instead of using technical language, since obviously you're decades away from becoming a competent philosopher. In rhetorical, common speech, then yes, the existence of God is clearly "proven" by creation and its contents.

[Eiger]

I'll just try to head this off now. He can't prove a god exists. However you can't prove God doesn't exist either. So it comes down to a long discussion on causes, laws, theories, physics, etc.

The point is that AoA's assumption that God does exist isn't any more of a problem then your assumption that he doesn't. Both of you are making the conclusion that you have come to from what you know.

If you start this discussion it will take many, many pages.And, ummm, we've kinda been there before. Many many times. Kinda old now.... If you want to go there, why not resurrect a couple old threads so I know which ones to ignore, ok? Can't believe I just said that... :bonk:

[Booms]

I'd say the more egotistical approach would be to use excuses like that to remain in the dark about the correct processes of thinking, outlined over the last few thousand years.

I actually wasn't trying to say that you were being "holier-than-thou," I was just pointing out that its the comments like that the give newcomers that kind of vibe from you.

Yes, when cells merge, you have a developing human. If your statement holds true, you're not a human - as the body continually develops.

I think its a matter of definition. At this point in the cell's stage of development it has not human form or function. Techinically it is "human," but it is not yet a person. It is no more of a person than the eggs people eat for breakfast are chicken...probably less so than the eggs.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Correct Bhs. See, here is an example of someone who was a former detractor of mine (and perhaps still is in some ways), but has taken an interest in the texts I offer.

So, the key now is to discover the "limits" of what we can know. I'm telling all you guys - Sage, Booms, Graav, Essex, etc - there really is only one way to look at it, and as Bhs stated, and as I've been saying for MONTHS, is that when you investigate all this, there is one solution you will uncover - there is no other way!! Kant's "critique of pure reason" is a text you should read. This isn't my arbitrary stuff - its stuff that philosophers built upon, discovered, and developed for centuries. Dont, after all this time, come here and say stuff like "umm.. your arrogant, or ummm.. maybe you're just wrong etc".. I know my shyt.

[Booms]

And, ummm, we've kinda been there before. Many many times. Kinda old now.... If you want to go there, why not resurrect a couple old threads so I know which ones to ignore, ok? Can't believe I just said that... :bonk:

Seconded. Although I'd prefer a new thread, just so that if I do decide to participate in it I wouldn't have to read through 7 or so pages to be up to speed.

But for Eiger's sake, if you do make a new thread entitle it something like Another God Thread so everyone knows to stay as far away as humanly possible.

[Syndakit]

I'll just try to head this off now. He can't prove a god exists. However you can't prove God doesn't exist either. So it comes down to a long discussion on causes, laws, theories, physics, etc.

The point is that AoA's assumption that God does exist isn't any more of a problem then your assumption that he doesn't.

If I said there were giant pink bunnies that were invisible, and my PROOF that they exsisted was that you COULDNT proove they didnt exsist...not much of a proof is it?


There really is no problematic involved, quite the opposite in fact. I cannot put God under a microscope, but I can study nature. In our observations and our reasoning, there is 100% "proof" and surety that by the nature of the universe, "God" is the creator and sustainer. Perhaps I should switch to rhetoric, instead of using technical language, since obviously you're decades away from becoming a competent philosopher. In rhetorical, common speech, then yes, the existence of God is clearly "proven" by creation and its contents.

Funny how people will try so hard to find proof of god in anything. Using nature to proove there is a god is a cop out. You can say how the complexity of everything in nature prooves there must be some sort of creator behind it, then you can get that warm, lovey dovey feeling inside you when you think some powerful being actually cares about a spec like you..... The fact is, the earth has been around for billions of years, and nature has had that long to become what it is today. Just because we dont understand everything in this life, doesnt mean we should pussy out and just say "oh god did that". Too bad that wont change, we've been doing it since day one.

When we couldnt understand lighting, it was a god throwing down bolts cause he was pissed at us. When we didnt understand how the sun was able to rise and set the same place everyday, it was a god on a chariot pulling it across the sky. Now, because our knowledge has not reached certain aspects, we throw the, "oh that prooves theres a god" theory again.

You can bring as many philosophical points to help your agrument as you want, it doesnt hide the fact you, nor anyone else on this earth, actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to higher powers. If it helps you sleep at night when you think some "being" is watching over you, and when you die you will live in his castle, than more power to you. Its what being human is all about.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think its a matter of definition. At this point in the cell's stage of development it has not human form or function. Techinically it is "human," but it is not yet a person. It is no more of a person than the eggs people eat for breakfast are chicken...probably less so than the eggs.

That's highly poblematic, as definitions are of human artifice. We have set "stages" for just about everything - from physical stages, to psychological ones (maslow's need hierarchy, etc). These are labels to help us understand better - puts it in a nice framework. But when the labels take over, theres trouble. I'll stand by what I said earlier - human from conception onward.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

. Dont, after all this time, come here and say stuff like "umm.. your arrogant, or ummm.. maybe you're just wrong etc".. I know my shyt.

Umm.. your arrogant.

*runs and hides*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Funny how people will try so hard to find proof of god in anything. Using nature to proove there is a god is a cop out. You can say how the complexity of everything in nature prooves there must be some sort of creator behind it, then you can get that warm, lovey dovey feeling inside you when you think some powerful being actually cares about a spec like you..... The fact is, the earth has been around for billions of years, and nature has had that long to become what it is today. Just because we dont understand everything in this life, doesnt mean we should pussy out and just say "oh god did that". Too bad that wont change, we've been doing it since day one.

When we couldnt understand lighting, it was a god throwing down bolts cause he was pissed at us. When we didnt understand how the sun was able to rise and set the same place everyday, it was a god on a chariot pulling it across the sky. Now, because our knowledge has not reached certain aspects, we throw the, "oh that prooves theres a god" theory again.

You can bring as many philosophical points to help your agrument as you want, it doesnt hide the fact you, nor anyone else on this earth, actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to higher powers. If it helps you sleep at night when you think some "being" is watching over you, and when you die you will live in his castle, than more power to you. Its what being human is all about.


Thanks for all that. Obviously you're new :uhhuh:. If you want to speak in terms of emotional needs, perhaps it was theraputic for you to voice the above ignorance, to liberate yourself from a God you dont want to serve. Think it over - if God is real, it means something. :)

[Bhs Crew]

If I said there were giant pink bunnies that were invisible, and my PROOF that they exsisted was that you COULDNT proove they didnt exsist...not much of a proof is it?
I'm not getting into this. All I said was, and I quote,

"He can't prove a god exists. However you can't prove God doesn't exist either. So it comes down to a long discussion on causes, laws, theories, physics, etc.

The point is that AoA's assumption that God does exist isn't any more of a problem then your assumption that he doesn't."


Funny how people will try so hard to find proof of god in anything. Using nature to proove there is a god is a cop out. You can say how the complexity of everything in nature prooves there must be some sort of creator behind it, then you can get that warm, lovey dovey feeling inside you when you think some powerful being actually cares about a spec like you..... The fact is, the earth has been around for billions of years, and nature has had that long to become what it is today. Just because we dont understand everything in this life, doesnt mean we should pussy out and just say "oh god did that". Too bad that wont change, we've been doing it since day one.

When we couldnt understand lighting, it was a god throwing down bolts cause he was pissed at us. When we didnt understand how the sun was able to rise and set the same place everyday, it was a god on a chariot pulling it across the sky. Now, because our knowledge has not reached certain aspects, we throw the, "oh that prooves theres a god" theory again.

You can bring as many philosophical points to help your agrument as you want, it doesnt hide the fact you, nor anyone else on this earth, actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to higher powers. If it helps you sleep at night when you think some "being" is watching over you, and when you die you will live in his castle, than more power to you. Its what being human is all about.

And here comes the "long discussion on causes, laws, theories, physics, etc."
Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Essex]

Wether in a test tube or in a uterus, a human is still a human.
yes but wheter you like it or not it is happening, hundres of embryos are being thrown away every day. Now this likely is not going to stop for years to come, if they are going to be thrown away anyway, and there is nothing to stop that from happening, shouldn't they be used for stem cell research instead? can you honestly tell me you'd rather them be discarded. You only have two choices throw them away or use them for stem cells... because couples will not stop using invetro anytime soon.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

yes but wheter you like it or not it is happening, hundres of embryos are being thrown away every day. Now this likely is not going to stop for years to come, if they are going to be thrown away anyway, and there is nothing to stop that from happening, shouldn't they be used for stem cell research instead? can you honestly tell me you'd rather them be discarded. You only have two choices throw them away or use them for stem cells... because couples will not stop using invetro anytime soon.

Solving a problem is most perfectly realized by laying the axe to the root, not the branch. Any willingness to compromize demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the issue at stake, or an unwillingness to solve it. Attack the root - outlaw invitro.

[Havard]

The baby killing part was in response to you mentioning premees and abortions.

The connection between premees and partial birth abortion plays a particularly interesting role because it begs the question as to what gives life its worth. The only thing I did was to bring that example up to engage in thoughtful debate, the "baby killing" comment is still uncalled for. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do, I'm sorry if my example touches upon an area that you aren't comfortable with.

[Essex]

Solving a problem is most perfectly realized by laying the axe to the root, not the branch. Any willingness to compromize demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the issue at stake, or an unwillingness to solve it. Attack the root - outlaw invitro.
yeah well good luck with outlawing invetro... its not going to happen anytime soon and as long as bush is stopping the stem cell research a large number of those embryos which are gonna be destoryed anyway are going to waste.

That's like saying you can stop drunk driving by prohibtion yes you can, but its not going to happen, so instead try to do something positive.

[Booms]

The connection between premees and partial birth abortion plays a particularly interesting role because it begs the question as to what gives life its worth. The only thing I did was to bring that example up to engage in thoughtful debate, the "baby killing" comment is still uncalled for. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do, I'm sorry if my example touches upon an area that you aren't comfortable with.

I'm not sure what you think I'm accusing you of. You brought up babies up to the point of birth to being considered expendable by some people. IMO, killing babies is an action that can warrant bold fonts when being spoke of, and I was saying that killing fully-developed babies does not relate to the discussion at hand.

it still frightens me that many consider a baby (up until the last moments before birth) expendable because of a technical detail. The same child could have been a premee (sp?), but they wouldn't advocate it's execution then.

[Booms]

Solving a problem is most perfectly realized by laying the axe to the root, not the branch. Any willingness to compromize demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the issue at stake, or an unwillingness to solve it. Attack the root - outlaw invitro.

Okay, while you attempt to pass the legislation that outlaws invitro, should we be throwing out the embryos or should we be using them for stem cell research?

[Sage the Mage]

...In rhetorical, common speech, then yes, the existence of God is clearly "proven" by creation and its contents.

Proof by creation is an invalid arguement and you know it, so don't use it.

Lets go on to the purpose of life argument...
I'll provide that one cannot ascertain the true purpose in life, since one cannot come in contact with the creator. So to say that each human life is meaningful is ******** pretty much.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It's late and I'm tired, but that statement irritated me enough to make me click that reply button. Creation is meant, in that sentance, to imply the makeup of empirical data we can accrue. Creation must have a creator - how could you say it's invalid - it's so obvious that I didn't think I would have to explain it to you? Clean the **** out of your ears Sage, seriously.

Ok, so finding true purpose = "coming into contact" with the creator. Ok, that's not horribly bad then.. Yet, let's start off with the notion that there is a purpose, but it may be sought more perfectly than it's discovered. Perhaps that's the purpose, hmm? Live the question. One last note, it's folly for you to claim that because you have not encountered the Christ, others have not.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Okay, while you attempt to pass the legislation that outlaws invitro, should we be throwing out the embryos or should we be using them for stem cell research?

Out of curiousity, why is it important that this question be answered?

[Echod16]

Ya..anyways my stand is to use stem cells to better ensure the survival of humanity, like all species wish O_o

[Daedric]

Okay, while you attempt to pass the legislation that outlaws invitro, should we be throwing out the embryos or should we be using them for stem cell research?

I think you'll find it interesting to know that these babies are not simply thrown out, as that would be as bad, in fact worse that studying them. There would be no cause to argue against research in this case.

Thousands and thousands of embryos are frozen and kept in labs, with parent's names on the tubes actually! Parents who do this have their possible future children stored in case there would ever be a problem such as infertility. If infertility occurs in the future, there is hope that eventually an embryo can be surgically implanted into the uterus, and administered hormones help the whole things get started again :thumbsup:

It's nearly the same way that they cloned sheep earlier, by implanting cells into the animal. Surely this will be able to be done soon.

[Daedric]

Other than that, they are also stored in case Science would ever need them down the road. It's not like that the day stem cell research is allowed, suddenly thousands of people are going to be having embryos extracted from their bodies and given to Science. That is why they are frozen in laboratories; in case they could ever be used.

[Eiger]

Attack the root - outlaw invitro.Not bloody likely. :lol: With all the nearly infertile couples and people wanting to have children later in life and having trouble doing so and that they really really want those kids and are willing and able to put big big bucks into it - it's not going away. Rather demand worldwide will only increase. This is not something that a "smart" politician will want to try to outlaw. He'll be seen as invading people's homes, their privacy, messing with the family, etc. etc. AoA - this suggestion's DoA. Oooh, that's a cool one. Damn I'm good. hehe.

[Eiger]

One last note, it's folly for you to claim that because you have not encountered the Christ, others have not.
Hmm, I'd be curious to find out who's encountered him. In real life that is, rather than in their dreams. Anything verifiable?

[Eiger]

I think you'll find it interesting to know that these [embryos] are not simply thrown out, as that would be as bad, in fact worse that studying them. There would be no cause to argue against research in this case.
Glad to see you agree!

[Essex]

Hmm, I'd be curious to find out who's encountered him. In real life that is, rather than in their dreams. Anything verifiable?
i saw a guy who looked like christ once... it was just a hippy :) a cool hippy though

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, outlawing invitro wouldn't happen, that much I attest to. But if I were calling the shots - I would pass that law. (aren't you glad I'm not in charge? :p)

Hmm, I'd be curious to find out who's encountered him. In real life that is, rather than in their dreams. Anything verifiable?

Sure, there are many, many who have, very likely someone you know. The ownice rests however on your criteria for justifying belief - and thus far, you haven't got a good record for that kind of stuff :p. Someone would tell you "yes, I've encountered Christ etc etc", and you'd come up with some biolgical or psychological reductionist argument against that. So, the true question is - how willing are you to give this the possibility of being feasible?

[Essex]

No, outlawing invitro wouldn't happen, that much I attest to. But if I were calling the shots - I would pass that law. (aren't you glad I'm not in charge? :p)

so then will you at least admit that while invitro is going on we should use the embryos that are being produced for stem cells rather than them being destoryed.

also yes i'm very glad your not in charge :) lol

[Eiger]

No, outlawing invitro wouldn't happen, that much I attest to. But if I were calling the shots - I would pass that law. (aren't you glad I'm not in charge? :p)



Sure, there are many, many who have, very likely someone you know. The ownice rests however on your criteria for justifying belief - and thus far, you haven't got a good record for that kind of stuff :p. Someone would tell you "yes, I've encountered Christ etc etc", and you'd come up with some biolgical or psychological reductionist argument against that. So, the true question is - how willing are you to give this the possibility of being feasible?
Yup, I'm glad. hehe

I'm very willing to give the possibility feasibility. I'm always open. But I need some verification which will take rather a bit more than the word of the encounterer. "Signs" don't cut it. I'm not sure what would frankly considering that photos and videos and such can be altered with special effects so easily, but yes, I'd be looking for empirical proof.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Essex - I would refuse the research of the embryos as a matter of principle. That may seem to stymie "progress", but progress in medicine at the expense of values is abhorrent.

Indeed, If I were ruler, you two (essex and eiger) would notably suffer a bit lol.. But I'd have you over for lunch on occasion ^^.

Ironically Eiger, I've been arguing from an empirical foundation in my attempts to educate you in the feasibility of metaphysics and its deduction of a prime mover. You would have me believe I have failed, or that there are "other options". Somewhere along the line, either I wasn't communicating clearly enough, or you simply were not listening.
I had a friend who took the same position as you - he constantly said "I'm open!", yet refused to see further than the end of his nose. He was open.. but to only a criterion he set. He was open to God "appearing before him", yet could not see God in every little thing of creation, or in the yearnings of his own desire for love - which is shared by us all. Too bad really, he turned in on himself for answers, and now he smokes 2 grams of dope a day. Others just simply choose to ignore it.

[Eiger]

Ironically Eiger, I've been arguing from an empirical foundation in my attempts to educate you in the feasibility of metaphysics and its deduction of a prime mover. You would have me believe I have failed, or that there are "other options". Somewhere along the line, either I wasn't communicating clearly enough, or you simply were not listening.
I had a friend who took the same position as you - he constantly said "I'm open!", yet refused to see further than the end of his nose. He was open.. but to only a criterion he set. He was open to God "appearing before him", yet could not see God in every little thing of creation, or in the yearnings of his own desire for love - which is shared by us all. Too bad really, he turned in on himself for answers, and now he smokes 2 grams of dope a day. Others just simply choose to ignore it.
That's true, I don't see him in those things. I am open to the possibility, but I'm not willing to manufacture it. And no I don't see myself smoking dope anytime soon, hehe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I guess in reply, I will offer that our senses are not created for directly apprehending God - but only empirical realities. SO, we can't see God. :)

But, now you have the opportunity to ask yourself what other powers are available to the human being other than the 5 senses.

[Eiger]

I guess in reply, I will offer that our senses are not created for directly apprehending God - but only empirical realities. SO, we can't see God. :)


But people did see Jesus did they not? And how do we know that God can't present himself in a form in which we can see him? I'd assume an omnipotent being would be capable of that one at the very least...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes Eiger, some have claimed to see Jesus, including a member of my family (and that's pretty amazing, coming from this certain individual). You would ask now that if God could take corporeal form, why won't he? Ironically, the disciples asked Jesus the same thing. Yet, the answer was that if people were closed to him in their hearts, seeing Jesus would not have mattered. For my part, I believed for a years, but there were phases in my life where I just didnt give a ****. As I explain with metaphysics, we have enough evidence.
An associate of mine once asked me "why isn't salvation clear to everyone?". My reply was that if salvation were clear to all, it would not truly be salvation. THis is because one would already be in the state of completeness to begin with. Life is a process, and I'm in no hurry.

[Daedric]

But people did see Jesus did they not? And how do we know that God can't present himself in a form in which we can see him? I'd assume an omnipotent being would be capable of that one at the very least...

Somwhere in the Old Testament I believe it says that if anyone were to see God through human eyes, the power would be so overwhelming that they would die.

God can reveal himself to us if He wants to. He leaves it up to us to have faith in Him. If anyone could just see God, what would be the point in believing He existed. Then it would be knowing through fact.

In John 20:29 it says: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[Eiger]

In John 20:29 it says: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Yup, the old faith argument. A very powerful and effective one that. Amazingly enough. Anyway, if I were writing the bible, I'd surely add in a couple sections like the one above.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hmm..You should really consider writing us a bible Eiger :).

[Sage the Mage]

Creation must have a creator - how could you say it's invalid - it's so obvious that I didn't think I would have to explain it to you? Clean the **** out of your ears Sage, seriously.
What that boils down to is: Stuff exists, so there must be a God.
Do you see the problem yet?

Ok, so finding true purpose = "coming into contact" with the creator. Ok, that's not horribly bad then.. Yet, let's start off with the notion that there is a purpose, but it may be sought more perfectly than it's discovered. Perhaps that's the purpose, hmm?

That's not what I was asking: How do you know that stem cell research is not part of the way to achieving the purpose?

[Daedric]

An amazing revelation just came to me. Correct me if this is already being done, but otherwise, take heed:

Most medical research/product testing is done on animals for around ten years before humans. This is mostly to get approval from the FDA. Rather than sitting on their duffs, why don't scientists try stem cell research using animal embryos first? Laboratories treat animals for cancer and about every disease in the book, so why not try this? Clearly, we are currently not at the point that we could majorly benefit from it on humans, and thousands of future human lives need not be sacrificed through research in vain.

Just an idea that stumbled across my brain. Let me know what you think. :scratch:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What that boils down to is: Stuff exists, so there must be a God.
Do you see the problem yet?


Quite frankly, no. What worries me is that you would see such a statement as problematic. "stuff", by definition, being composite (existing in space and time, having definition), needs a prime mover, before all its previous movers. Very simple concepts really.


That's not what I was asking: How do you know that stem cell research is not part of the way to achieving the purpose?

Stem cell research will no doubt lead to more knowledge. Yet, I offer the view that the ends cannot justify the means, if we are to uphold objective moral norms that benefit our wholeness.

[Sage the Mage]

Quite frankly, no. What worries me is that you would see such a statement as problematic. "stuff", by definition, being composite (existing in space and time, having definition), needs a prime mover, before all its previous movers. Very simple concepts really.
You're going to the beginning of time, which we aren't even sure exists in the first place.

Stem cell research will no doubt lead to more knowledge. Yet, I offer the view that the ends cannot justify the means, if we are to uphold objective moral norms that benefit our wholeness.

The problem here is now that you state "objective moral norms" and imply that stem cell research is against these norms. Why are they?

[WiglyWorm]

Really? If it is your belief, as it obviously is for many in this thread, that the embryo IS (the approaching inevitablity of) a living person, then how would killing them NOT be murder? What would you call it? Death by medicine? If it would make you feel better to call it something else, that's fine. However it still does not change the very basic fact that you are taking a life(assuming the side of the arguement that the embryo is life).


I haven't read this thread. I may never read this thread. Maybe monday if i have the time but i happend upon that.
Here's the deal with stem cell research. The stem cells used come from embryos used for in vitro fertilization (making test tube babies) when this happens, they fertilize many eggs, and the most viable ones get transplanted into the mother's womb. The rest get frozen and will never get used for anything. May as well use them to benifit the living, IMO.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

**** Sage, if you can't readily agree that time is a reality, there is no point discussing anything further :cheesy:

[Essex]

An amazing revelation just came to me. Correct me if this is already being done, but otherwise, take heed:

Most medical research/product testing is done on animals for around ten years before humans. This is mostly to get approval from the FDA. Rather than sitting on their duffs, why don't scientists try stem cell research using animal embryos first? Laboratories treat animals for cancer and about every disease in the book, so why not try this? Clearly, we are currently not at the point that we could majorly benefit from it on humans, and thousands of future human lives need not be sacrificed through research in vain.

Just an idea that stumbled across my brain. Let me know what you think. :scratch:
someone with a better knowledge will have to correct me but i'm pretty sure they already did extensive testing on animal stem cells, however the dna is too different to get a good idea of just what we can do with our own.

again this is just recollection I may be wrong.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Wot abot teh monkeyz?
Chimps are pretty much the same as us, well, theyre the same as Bush and Bush leads the free world, maybe their stem cells could be used for humans. Or, if nothing else, their stem cells could be used for the Bush family.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I haven't read this thread. I may never read this thread. Maybe monday if i have the time but i happend upon that.
Here's the deal with stem cell research. The stem cells used come from embryos used for in vitro fertilization (making test tube babies) when this happens, they fertilize many eggs, and the most viable ones get transplanted into the mother's womb. The rest get frozen and will never get used for anything. May as well use them to benifit the living, IMO.

Then you really should read it before making a reply to my comment without knowing why that comment was made. It appears as if you are trying to debate a point of mine that wasn't entirely mine, that happens when you don't read the whole arguement.

Hell, I AM one of the people speaking for the use of stem cells. :lol:

[Daedric]

Wot abot teh monkeyz?
Chimps are pretty much the same as us, well, theyre the same as Bush and Bush leads the free world, maybe their stem cells could be used for humans. Or, if nothing else, their stem cells could be used for the Bush family.

If a monkey could verbally talk, even it wouldn't say something that stupid. They already can use sign language, and trained, can score a 14 on the ACT test.

I agree however, that chimpanzee DNA is very similar to a human's DNA code.

[Booms]

You can't use animal stem cells to grow human organs/tissues/cells. It won't work.

[Daedric]

You can't use animal stem cells to grow human organs/tissues/cells. It won't work.

Never said that you could. Animals are often used for testing before it is tried on humans. Usually if something works on animals, it will work for humans as well. If stem cell research can cure diabetes on lab rats, then it would be interesting to see if it would work on humans.

This is not to say I am for stem cell research; I am against it. But, I would like to know if it even works on other life forms before we try it with human lives. Learning the right techniques to do the research on animals would be a great step forward rather than jumping right in on it with humans.

[Booms]

They have tested stem cells on mice, I don't know what other animals they have tried though...but its not like they (the scientists) are saying that stem cells are going to work without having sufficient data to back them up.

[Graav Wolfsong]

If a monkey could verbally talk, even it wouldn't say something that stupid. They already can use sign language, and trained, can score a 14 on the ACT test.

I agree however, that chimpanzee DNA is very similar to a human's DNA code.

Geez. You are seriously lacking in the humour department arent you?

I crack a bad joke and you get all like "Oh man, he really meant that. What a stupid comment. Lets yell at him."

Anyway, judging from your reaction and the amount of religious -dare I say it?- BS youve spewed forth on this thread I assume youre a Bush supporter as well. No wonder you got mad, I insulted Dubya. How dare I!? Better get your pitchfork. :thumbsup:

You need to lighten up bub.

[Daedric]

I crack a bad joke and you get all like "Oh man, he really meant that. What a stupid comment. Lets yell at him."

Anyway, judging from your reaction and the amount of religious -dare I say it?- BS youve spewed forth on this thread I assume youre a Bush supporter as well. No wonder you got mad, I insulted Dubya. How dare I!? Better get your pitchfork.

I sure didn't see any "just kidding, lol, haha," or a smiley/funny face. I could really tell it was a joke. Maybe mine was just a joke as well? You should lighten up and not slander people for having faith in God. Whether you think so or not, you are religious; athieism is a belief that God does not exist. Either way, you have faith whether there is a god or not.

Better get my pitchfork? Better get your cross to burn.

Let's stick to the stem-cell research topic.

[Daedric]

They have tested stem cells on mice, I don't know what other animals they have tried though...but its not like they (the scientists) are saying that stem cells are going to work without having sufficient data to back them up.

I'd have to agree with you there. :lol:

[Essex]

I sure didn't see any "just kidding, lol, haha," or a smiley/funny face. I could really tell it was a joke. Maybe mine was just a joke as well? You should lighten up and not slander people for having faith in God. Whether you think so or not, you are religious; athieism is a belief that God does not exist. Either way, you have faith whether there is a god or not.

Better get my pitchfork? Better get your cross to burn.

Let's stick to the stem-cell research topic.

Dae I like you you seem like a nice guy. But you also seem to get upset rather easy (I do it myself too but let me give you some advice)

Ever watch the show tough crowd with colin quinn? We're sorta like that around here... we say things that are outragoues because of the air we have.... sorta like friends ripping on each other understand?

That's why AoA doesn't take it personally when we say he's long winded and I don't care when Dragon informs me g.ay people don't exsist, and thusly I don't exisit cause I know its just friendly.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Whether you think so or not, you are religious; athieism is a belief that God does not exist. Either way, you have faith whether there is a god or not.


Niiiiice :) Carry on, my faithful acolyte :evil: J/K :lol:

[Sage the Mage]

**** Sage, if you can't readily agree that time is a reality, there is no point discussing anything further
I stated the possibility of time having no beginning, and you still haven't gone to the other question yet :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, I'll go again. Even I get tired now and then ;)

You're going to the beginning of time, which we aren't even sure exists in the first place.


Who is "WE"? I'm certainly not numbered among them, and nary a speculatve thinker would be numbered among advocates of your weak claim. I told you before that time must have a beginning, because eternity cannot be measured. Time is a mode of measurement, which contains movement and aspects that can be defined (time is known by movement). Silly.


The problem here is now that you state "objective moral norms" and imply that stem cell research is against these norms. Why are they?

Extract your foot from your mouth, and use proper syntax. "Why is it" (stem cell research) would be appropriate. Or, did you mean "What are they?" as in "what are these objective norms?". The latter seems more of a question befitting someone of your ability. By affirming that stem cell research would benefit those living by providing knowledge, you yourself are attesting to an "objective norm". Yet, which view is correct? Wait now, do all viewpoints have the same merit? If that's the case, let's throw away science, for it cannot hope to shed light on any matter ^^. Enough Sage trashing..
Life has its own intrinsic value. This value is undermined (if not mocked), when we take life in an attempt to further it in others.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Uhng, you could at least argue the points and not spend like 95% of your post arguing semantics. :)


I think we all agree that all life have inherent value. Now I dunno about you but as a Buddhist I say all life, not just human life.

But we find ourselves in a situation were we have to assign value to life. All life has value but whose life is valued more? I'm sure we all agree thats not really a thing humankind should have the right to determine, but we pretty much have to.
And throughout history we always have placed different value on different lives, the life of a rich kid means more than the life of a poor kid, life of a white kid means more than the life of a black kid, the life of the president means more than your life. And now, a persons life means more than the potential developing life of a child. All values of life set by society.

That all human life has the same inherent value and to take one in order to save another is wrong no matter how many it might save is a real cute thought and all. But the world doesnt work that way.

Deal with the realities of life, deal with what is and dont spout a bunch of inconsequential, trite philosphical\religious yammering about how you think it should be.

If the choice is to be made about who means more, a living person facing a lifethreatening disease or horrible handicap or an embryo that has yet to develop into a sentient being, --and that is a choice we find ourselves making-- the choice should be simple.

[Daedric]

Graav, you have some great points in there. The only thing I disagree with is that the choice to determine whose life is worth more is simple, at the end of your post. Other than that, great arguement! :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Uhng, you could at least argue the points and not spend like 95% of your post arguing semantics. :)


mmm? For your sake, I take time to extrapolate my points, but even if you do understand only 5% of the content, we're making progress :uhhuh:


I think we all agree that all life have inherent value. Now I dunno about you but as a Buddhist I say all life, not just human life.
But we find ourselves in a situation were we have to assign value to life.


heh.. Total stream of conciousness here.. Perahps you should concentrate on more "semantics", seeing you still cannot post an argument correctly, let alone discover one. I've colored in the inconsistency in red/green above. Inherent value needs no affirmation by us.


All life has value but whose life is valued more? I'm sure we all agree thats not really a thing humankind should have the right to determine, but we pretty much have to.


lol.. more of the same.. You affirm one argument in one sentance, only to provide the opposite in the next. wtf.. Do you even know what you're talking about? If we don't have to determine it (as you agree it's already inherent), why would we HAVE TO? The answer is thus "dicovery", not "assertion". And I do emphasize that "***" in ASSertion.


And throughout history we always have placed different value on different lives, the life of a rich kid means more than the life of a poor kid, life of a white kid means more than the life of a black kid, the life of the president means more than your life. And now, a persons life means more than the potential developing life of a child. All values of life set by society.


wow.. you don't need my guidance after all... but you do need someone to edit for you. You've already answered your own question lol.. (its highlighted above). Now, if you correctly affirm that values are asserted by society, and also that there are inherent values that we cannot arbitrarily claim, would it not be the case that the problematic lies in us re-labelling what is objectively so? That's the bullshyt I've been arguing against here from DAY 1.


That all human life has the same inherent value and to take one in order to save another is wrong no matter how many it might save is a real cute thought and all. But the world doesnt work that way.


Now you're superimposing your own labels again.. Good job. Leave it to an empirical sceptic to discover "how it works". I'd rather have a metaphysician do that, thanks.


Deal with the realities of life, deal with what is and dont spout a bunch of inconsequential, trite philosphical\religious yammering about how you think it should be.


lmao.. As I've demonstrated above, it is you who affirmed inherent values, yet chose to label. All this time I've been about discovering what's there already, not creating something new. I think you've got it upside down bub.
If you value poetry over philosophy, you really should just write children's books, not argue in a philosophical debate.


If the choice is to be made about who means more, a living person facing a lifethreatening disease or horrible handicap or an embryo that has yet to develop into a sentient being, --and that is a choice we find ourselves making-- the choice should be simple.

Any choice made on a false premise is no choice - it is a reaction.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Graav, you have some great points in there. The only thing I disagree with is that the choice to determine whose life is worth more is simple, at the end of your post. Other than that, great arguement! :thumbsup:

Actually, he sucked. He's ok on the political debate stuff - where arguments are limited to that "level" of discussion, but here, he'll just get pwned every time until he develops into a speculative thinker.

[Essex]

Actually, he sucked. He's ok on the political debate stuff - where arguments are limited to that "level" of discussion, but here, he'll just get pwned every time until he develops into a speculative thinker.
huh what's that? I can't see for AoA's huge freaking head

[AgeOfAbnegation]

huh what's that? I can't see for AoA's huge freaking head

lol.. w/e :p I'll admit, that was a bit nasty, but the argument did suck, as I posted earlier :howdy:. Keep it objective, and we'll be fine :).

[Sage the Mage]

Who is "WE"? I'm certainly not numbered among them, and nary a speculatve thinker would be numbered among advocates of your weak claim. I told you before that time must have a beginning, because eternity cannot be measured. Time is a mode of measurement, which contains movement and aspects that can be defined (time is known by movement). Silly.

Think of the beginning as an unreachable limit of sorts. Eh anyway, I didn't say that was my theory.
You always say eternity cannot be measured though, why? Constant motion?


Extract your foot from your mouth, and use proper syntax. "Why is it" (stem cell research) would be appropriate. Or, did you mean "What are they?" as in "what are these objective norms?". The latter seems more of a question befitting someone of your ability. By affirming that stem cell research would benefit those living by providing knowledge, you yourself are attesting to an "objective norm". Yet, which view is correct? Wait now, do all viewpoints have the same merit? If that's the case, let's throw away science, for it cannot hope to shed light on any matter ^^. Enough Sage trashing..
Life has its own intrinsic value. This value is undermined (if not mocked), when we take life in an attempt to further it in others.

Science wouldn't be hurt by morals not being objective. What you should be refering to is laws and governments.

Why does life have an intrinsic value?

[Graav Wolfsong]

lol.. more of the same.. You affirm one argument in one sentance, only to provide the opposite in the next. wtf.. Do you even know what you're talking about? If we don't have to determine it (as you agree it's already inherent), why would we HAVE TO? The answer is thus "dicovery", not "assertion". And I do emphasize that "***" in ASSertion.

What I'm saying is, its not that simple. The world is full of paradoxes.
Hence my earlier statement that you cant just say all life is equally valued and it should not be sacrificed for another. The world simply doesnt work that way.
Sometimes we have to assign different levels of value to lives, as in one life for a hundred lives is a fair trade. Like Spock said. :) And as I pointed out, society has always been doing that. Most of it unfair and downright wrong, but I believe the embryo for a person sacrifice is a right one.
No way will I ever agree that an itty bitty ball of cells is worth the same as a living breathing person, even tho' it has the potential to become a person itself.
No one has really argued that all life doesnt have value, at least I dont. I argue that often it is left up to us to assign the value, because we have to in order to make society work and now in order to make important progress in medical science. Some lives are more important than others. I dont like it, but I realize it has to be done to a certain extent.
Its the realities of life, it has nothing to do with the grand philosophical ideals. You do what you have to do, even if it may not be right from a moral standpoint.



If you value poetry over philosophy, you really should just write children's books, not argue in a philosophical debate.

Well, maybe I should point out that this is not really a philosophical debate, at least it was not started as one. It was started as a discussion on the use of stem cells and did not turn to philosophy until you did your darn best to turn it into one.
This thread has been pretty much standing still since page two because of it.
Instead of rationally discussing the pros and cons of stem cell research it turned into a value of life debate and then in to (yet another) God debate.
Wich is just alot of trite talk that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. So what we ended up with is about 2 and a half pages of interesting discussion and 6+ pages of cheap talk.


Actually, he sucked. He's ok on the political debate stuff - where arguments are limited to that "level" of discussion, but here, he'll just get pwned every time until he develops into a speculative thinker.

You are just so classy AoA. :uhhuh:

I assume what you meant to say was I'll just get pwned until I start agreeing with you?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Think of the beginning as an unreachable limit of sorts. Eh anyway, I didn't say that was my theory.
You always say eternity cannot be measured though, why? Constant motion?


Not sure what you mean by the "unreachable limit" :cheesy:

Eternity cannot be measured because there is no motion, no definition (even no objects).


Science wouldn't be hurt by morals not being objective. What you should be refering to is laws and governments.

Why does life have an intrinsic value?

I do refer to politics, but our politics influence the direction of science (ref. Kan't "conflict of faculties"). Life has intrinsic value because it exists.

[Sage the Mage]

A rock exists too, so what makes life more valuable? Or does it have the same value?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What I'm saying is, its not that simple. The world is full of paradoxes.


The world is? Wouldn't you say that your own thinking creates these paradoxes? If you took up speculative philosophy, these paradoxes would dissipate before you, I assure you. For paradoxes, which have A vs B of equal strength, a third option must enter the picture to reconcile the two. Kind of like free will and determinism - try to solve that dilemma. The third thing here would be a greater influencing power (beyond the elemental powers) to allow us to make a "free choice". That's another thread.


Hence my earlier statement that you cant just say all life is equally valued and it should not be sacrificed for another. The world simply doesnt work that way.


Well it's time to discover a more enlightened approach, and this begins with a better discovery of values, and hopefully, trust in "God's plan" for the human subject.


Sometimes we have to assign different levels of value to lives, as in one life for a hundred lives is a fair trade. Like Spock said. :) And as I pointed out, society has always been doing that. Most of it unfair and downright wrong, but I believe the embryo for a person sacrifice is a right one.
No way will I ever agree that an itty bitty ball of cells is worth the same as a living breathing person, even tho' it has the potential to become a person itself.
Its the realities of life, it has nothing to do with the grand philosophical ideals. You do what you have to do, even if it may not be right from a moral standpoint.


You're being honest with yourself, and that's fine. I offer an opportunity to see beyond this temporal framework. Naturally, I would be more inclined to save the life of the one I love, moreso than someone else - and so would anyone here I'd think. But, I truly believe that our progress in life would have God as its highest love object. As such, we could act in accord with his plans. I can't blame you for your position, but I can tell you it is wrong from an objective standpoint. You agreed that it was wrong to arbitrarily label values - and that's the truth! But, the paradox is, as you mentioned, we have to be "practical" about these things. The "third aspect" that enters the picture to resolve these two is the framework given by the Godhead. Some would say that it's a fabrication, but when we look at reality and what it shows is, there really can be no other option.


Well, maybe I should point out that this is not really a philosophical debate, at least it was not started as one. It was started as a discussion on the use of stem cells and did not turn to philosophy until you did your darn best to turn it into one.


lol 'scuse me for livin :p (excuse those embryos from living). Count on me to pester you guys to be intellectually honest and consistent. As long as I have computer access and time on my hands, I'll be here :).


This thread has been pretty much standing still since page two because of it.
Instead of rationally discussing the pros and cons of stem cell research it turned into a value of life debate and then in to (yet another) God debate.
Wich is just alot of trite talk that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


That's "trite talk" just there. Philosophical framework underpins ANY & ALL discussions. You belive you shoud slay unborn innocents because the're not alive, and I believe you to support that slaying by holding that they are alive. In terms of "God", any framework that accepts more than simple empirical data (and even that) will trace itself back to God. Forgive me for being consistent. :uhhuh:



You are just so classy AoA.

I assume what you meant to say was I'll just get pwned until I start agreeing with you?

Actually no - because you'd still be dishonest if you just agreed with me for the sake of harmony or fallacy of intellectual authority. When you undergo your own speculative transformation, you and I will no longer butt heads.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A rock exists too, so what makes life more valuable? Or does it have the same value?

Good start. Value may be further defined in terms of a thing's "powers". We can thus determine value by the powers of a soul or object. Now, power may seem a utilitarian type of term, but i merely denotes the kind of "thing" we are dealing with.

[Sage the Mage]

So why is a person's power different from a rock, if it is?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You do have a penchant for asking self-evident questions don't you? THink of power then in terms of ability. What is different from a human being, and a rock, for instance? Don't answer "there is no difference", or I won't reply lol.. :p

[Sage the Mage]

I'm going to get it out of you :P
What is the difference between a rock and a human? Why does this make their value differ?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Dude.. The answer is in my previous posts. I'll use this as an opportunity to teach you better reading skills.

[Sage the Mage]

You're going to say sentinence is the quality that determines value. And I'm going to say why is that more valuable. You're going to say because its closer to perfection because its a quality that God would have. Which you'll then say can be determined by "speculative reason." The only argument you've given for a God is that a "prime mover" must exist. That's the only quality you need, it must have moved at least once.

So you best try to rate perfection in ability to move things :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hahahah looks like you've been digging around in the past threads. Not an entirely accurate account, but you've got a general feel for it. Why would you want me to reiterate all that then? Perfection is determined in proximity of qualities to the Godhead. So, I can be described as Aquinean in this regard (you know what thinkers I've drawn from most if you've researched all the back threads).

I've stuck to the "prime mover" argument (there are others), because it's the simplest, and it directly relates to a simple concept of movement we can all grasp. Now movement is mainly concerned with power and influence, but certainly also is seen in simple movement of objects and bodies in the temporal realm. (BTW, sentience is "A" quality that determines value, not "the" quality, so u screwed that up lol). Anyway, thats an argument I've discovered for apprehending perfection(s) in things. If you want a complete account, see (Aquinas' summa theologica, prima pars), it will help if you're looking.

[Sage the Mage]

Setinence being a quality to any extent proves my point still, you're basing a claim on something you cannot prove.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sorry.. what was your point again? :scratch:

What claim do I make that I cannot "prove"?

[Essex]

Sorry.. what was your point again? :scratch:

What claim do I make that I cannot "prove"?
haven't read this really for a number of pages... but I would think you'd find it hard to prove just how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.


damn that's even hard to type.

[Sage the Mage]

She sells seashells by the sea shore!

In all seriousness, if you're unwilling (or unable) to see that there is more to existence to strictly empirical considerations, one is locked into creating a solution within that small framework. As such, your model would make sense in that way. However, the only solution to this would be to see life and its values which includes the holisitic framework of metaphysical considerations, and of course, the will of God.
You can't prove why my argument is wrong without the assumption that the "prime mover" is sentinent.

No, those paralells cannot be applied here. Those cells - in ovam and semen, are not human beings on their own. However, when they merge, a new entity is created, that, from that moment onward, develops along the human genetic code - which continues with us as we speak. You not only prevent life, you prevent human life - you kill it at the root.
You cannot prove that an embryo has more value than its components as well without implying that humans have some higher value than those.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

She sells seashells by the sea shore!


You can't prove why my argument is wrong without the assumption that the "prime mover" is sentinent.


Sentience is a necessary step in the hierarchy of attributes. A rock can be moved, and it in turn can move other things, but when you work up the scale of attributes and powers, it would take a sentient thing to be moved, and move things of greater power. (there's only so much that a rock can "do", you see). I hope I'm being clear. The scale is only proven by a graduated and incremental system of powers, which by necessity, must fill the system that encases it.



You cannot prove that an embryo has more value than its components as well without implying that humans have some higher value than those.

An embryo is its components. As such, grown humans cannot transcend the dignity of the embryo. While its form may change, the essence remains the same.

[Sage the Mage]

Sentience is a necessary step in the hierarchy of attributes. A rock can be moved, and it in turn can move other things, but when you work up the scale of attributes and powers, it would take a sentient thing to be moved, and move things of greater power. (there's only so much that a rock can "do", you see). I hope I'm being clear. The scale is only proven by a graduated and incremental system of powers, which by necessity, must fill the system that encases it.
Why does it require a sentinent being to move things?


As such, grown humans cannot transcend the dignity of the embryo. While its form may change, the essence remains the same.

Lets use the chance of death thing here. At early stages, embryos have a very high chance of death. So wouldn't that make each human more important because it survived?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why does it require a sentinent being to move things?


Honestly, I'm getting a little pissed that you're not reading my posts. Re-read the last one, and discover how rocks for instance can "move and be moved". I also dislike the fact that having "anticipated my replies", you would have me go through the trouble of repeating myself, just so you could "get it out of me".
Sentience is required higher in the hierarchy, because sentience implies immateriality, which is greater than the material.


Lets use the chance of death thing here. At early stages, embryos have a very high chance of death. So wouldn't that make each human more important because it survived?

Humans will die regardless. Time does nothing to give, or detract from value. So, an embryo has the same value as a grown adult, but the mistake is made in our arbitraty labelling of value.

[Eiger]

Humans will die regardless. Time does nothing to give, or detract from value. So, an embryo has the same value as a grown adult, but the mistake is made in our arbitraty labelling of value.
Don't much care about the value of rocks, but whether or not an embryo holds the same value as an adult human is certainly debatable. Depends on your definition of value. Economic value? Unless the adult is a drug addict, he's probably more productive than an embryo. Wisdom? I'm guessing the adult can probably give better advice than an embryo. Etc - you can see where I'm going with this.

It's probably a tangent since I didn't read the previous posts, but ser la vie. hehe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes, it definitely depends on our understanding of value, which is central to our discussion.

[Eiger]

Oh, I suppose I should qualify that and say that unless the adult's a veggie. If he is then the "potential" value or just the neutral state of the embryo must outweigh the relative lack of value or even negative value (costing society to keep him alive, but has nothing left to contribute) of the veggie. Of course a veggie likely has great "sentimental" (for lack of a better word - my apologies) value to his/her family, where in fact that same family may view an embryo as a little ball of cells and nothing more. Then again... Ah who knows...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Indeed, who knows. One of my brothers is vegetable-esque due to a disability, and for my part, he's one of my greatest teachers. Perspective is key.

[Eiger]

Very true on perspective. My apologies as no offense was intended. I was really referring to someone who's more in a coma, on life support, with exceedingly small chances of recovery.

[Lord Chad]

If we are still talking about abortion their is 2 things that will help you from getting pregent or getting someone else pregant.

1.Condoms they protect you from diese and getting someone pregant.
2.Rember these wise words from a very smart man "shouldnt been doing that!" lol.(these words came from my freinds grandfather and may god bless him.)


And my thoughts on abortion.

In some cases abortion is ok like lets say someone was forced to have sex then a abortion should be allowed.Now the mother should have the say if the father is a drug addic and a *******.But if the father is a hard working man and is providing for the family then he should have a say to.Although I think abortion is wrong becuase you are killing a baby.Which I think is really wrong and goes against everything I believe.

[Essex]

yeah but most of the people who are anti-abortion are also anti-condoms.... they want you to abstain or just take the risk of having a kid which to me is ****ing ridiculous (no offense intended I just don't understand it... i understand the religious aspect I just don't think it makes sense)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

True, anti-contraception to coincide with scripture. Only issue with contraceptives is that one closes off the act of lovemaking from being open to children. Essex is right tho, without reference to God (which will have to be referred to later on), alot of these notions are foolish.

[Essex]

True, anti-contraception to coincide with scripture. Only issue with contraceptives is that one closes off the act of lovemaking from being open to children. Essex is right tho, without reference to God (which will have to be referred to later on), alot of these notions are foolish.
so you agree its damned if you do... and well... a 30 year old something virgin if you don't (and don't want to have a kid from it)

[Graav Wolfsong]

Sentience is a necessary step in the hierarchy of attributes. A rock can be moved, and it in turn can move other things, but when you work up the scale of attributes and powers, it would take a sentient thing to be moved, and move things of greater power. (there's only so much that a rock can "do", you see). I hope I'm being clear. The scale is only proven by a graduated and incremental system of powers, which by necessity, must fill the system that encases it.

I'll just gratuitously air some thoughts on that since I have some 20 minutes to kill before the Simpsons comes on.

A rock is an inanimate object. As such, it can not be compared to humans or any living being. A better discussion would be the worth of a plant vs a human or an animal vs a human.

So lets see things in terms of 'power'. A human is superior to a rock due to its lifeforce, sentience and soul.
In terms of the value of life, we have agreed that life itself is inherently valuable. But this must apply to all life, plants and animals too, not just human life. How then, can we excuse the fact that we murder and eat plants and animals?
We then have to resort to sentience and souls to determine value.

A plant has life, but it lacks sentience (well, arguably, some plants can be considered sentient but I'll ignore this for agruments sake) and a soul.

So what about animals? They have life, they are sentient but do they have a soul?
Now I'm not very fresh on my Biblical ****e as I havent touched a Bible in 12 years but I seem to remember it saying that animals lack souls so humans are masters of the beast.
So according to Christianity, animals does not posess souls, or a spirit if you will, they are purely physical beings. Something I disagree with as a Buddhist.
Lets say animals do have souls. What then makes man superior to animal? Our more developed and aware minds? Or nothing? Are we superior simply because we are humans?

Then look at an embryo, the itty bitty ball of cells. It has a lifeforce, it is not yet sentient, does it have a soul? Yes or no, either way, when does a human get its soul? Upon conception, during the time it evolves from embryo to a human? Is a soul given or developed?
But the embryo still lacks sentience, so in terms of 'powers' it is not equal to a humanbeing.

Now, the promise of developing in to a humanbeing counts for something, but does that make an embryo equally valuable as a human?
If it does, are we not arbitrarily assigning value? If animals have souls, do we not assign value when we consider ourselves superior to them?



An embryo is its components. As such, grown humans cannot transcend the dignity of the embryo. While its form may change, the essence remains the same.

Is this statement not in conflict with what you said earlier?
An embryo does not have the same 'powers' as us, nor is it yet a humanbeing, it just has the potential of becoming one. It is valuable, but is its value comparable to that of a living breathing humanbeing based on what it is, not what it can be?

Note that I conveniently left out any "Because God says so" thoughts in my statements. That answer is just to simple.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'll just gratuitously air some thoughts on that since I have some 20 minutes to kill before the Simpsons comes on.


lol.. casual learning.. :cheesy:


A rock is an inanimate object. As such, it can not be compared to humans or any living being. A better discussion would be the worth of a plant vs a human or an animal vs a human.


Certainly it can be compared. A rock is still a physical thing, the same as a plant or human, only that its much more "basic" in the hierarchy of things.


So lets see things in terms of 'power'. A human is superior to a rock due to its lifeforce, sentience and soul.


What is a "lifeforce"? Sounds like im playing nintendo lol..


In terms of the value of life, we have agreed that life itself is inherently valuable. But this must apply to all life, plants and animals too, not just human life. How then, can we excuse the fact that we murder and eat plants and animals?


Yes, all life is valuable. However, humans will die regardless, so we must define more clearly our morality in terms of being and thing. I'll offer that things of more value, which contain more likeness of the Godhead in terms of being and power, are more valuable than those less in the hierarchy. As such, those things under us are subject to our wishes. It is a good guideline, however, to be a good steward of nature.


We then have to resort to sentience and souls to determine value.


We've answered that in light of the above. Sentience is not the cornerstone of the argument, but a key indicator of hierarchy.


A plant has life, but it lacks sentience (well, arguably, some plants can be considered sentient but I'll ignore this for agruments sake) and a soul.

So what about animals? They have life, they are sentient but do they have a soul?
Now I'm not very fresh on my Biblical ****e as I havent touched a Bible in 12 years but I seem to remember it saying that animals lack souls so humans are masters of the beast.


Animals and plants have souls as well - as does any living thing. It is only a matter of what type of soul this can be. Humans are "rational animals". Our souls are immortal by virtue of the being infused by God. ANimals are called "material souls", with their destiny being locked into the temporal continuum. We however, by our immortal souls, will partake in an eternal existence, the expression of which depends on our relationship to the Godhead.


So according to Christianity, animals does not posess souls, or a spirit if you will, they are purely physical beings. Something I disagree with as a Buddhist.


THan, in light of the above, you disagree with a notion that does not exist. One of these days, I'll have you preach your understanding of buddhism to me :).


Lets say animals do have souls. What then makes man superior to animal? Our more developed and aware minds? Or nothing? Are we superior simply because we are humans?


As above - they have souls, but do not partake in an eternal aspect, like humans do. We are superior to animals by virtue of this hybrid being God has instilled in us.


Then look at an embryo, the itty bitty ball of cells. It has a lifeforce, it is not yet sentient, does it have a soul? Yes or no, either way, when does a human get its soul? Upon conception, during the time it evolves from embryo to a human? Is a soul given or developed?
But the embryo still lacks sentience, so in terms of 'powers' it is not equal to a humanbeing.

Now, the promise of developing in to a humanbeing counts for something, but does that make an embryo equally valuable as a human?
If it does, are we not arbitrarily assigning value? If animals have souls, do we not assign value when we consider ourselves superior to them?


You may wish to adapt your questions, as I've answered most of the thread in the first line.



Is this statement not in conflict with what you said earlier?
An embryo does not have the same 'powers' as us, nor is it yet a humanbeing, it just has the potential of becoming one. It is valuable, but is its value comparable to that of a living breathing humanbeing based on what it is, not what it can be?


This must be described in terms of "potency and act" (ref. aristotle, de anima). The developmental states of a human being does not detract from its objective potential. THus, an underdeveloped or new human being, having the actualization in an immortal creature that can share in the divine essence, is by far more valuable than a fully actualized creature that is lower in the hierarchy.


Note that I conveniently left out any "Because God says so" thoughts in my statements. That answer is just to simple.

In closing, I'll point out that alot of the answers in life are simple. In fact, God is utterly simple in being - complete in oneness. As beings increase in complexity, they increase in division, which moves away from the Godhead. Something to think about.

[Sage the Mage]

Animals and plants have souls as well - as does any living thing. It is only a matter of what type of soul this can be. Humans are "rational animals". Our souls are immortal by virtue of the being infused by God. ANimals are called "material souls", with their destiny being locked into the temporal continuum. We however, by our immortal souls, will partake in an eternal existence, the expression of which depends on our relationship to the Godhead.

I seriously hope you won't try to prove this, because um...yeah. But if this is where your hierarchy comes from, then well, its pretty much safe to call you system for why stem cell research is wrong a belief. Which would be my point in the first place.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I seriously hope you won't try to prove this, because um...yeah. But if this is where your hierarchy comes from, then well, its pretty much safe to call you system for why stem cell research is wrong a belief. Which would be my point in the first place.

Sage, you never make points, you just attempt to pick anything apart that's not outstandingly obvious. Not only that, you ask me questions you already know the answers for. You're a mild irritation as a result. Here you sound like a fool casually brushing off these truths. I don't suppose you'd take the effort to actually read some of the texts I mention. You're out to get AoA, and you're failing miserably.
I will offer you something to chew on however. From your post, I assume you refer to humans being of immortal nature, and animals being of mortal. The key here lies in the faculty of the intellect. This is not often seen these days, as most people choose to live like animals (by means of reacting to things, and submission to base instinct). Many posters believe that animals posess intelligence, somewhat akin to humans. They voice platitudes such as "chimps have 98% dna match", or "look at those smart dolphins.. studies show that... etc etc". The one thing that we have that separates us from animals is a critical reasoning faculty. Animals, while posessing keen sensory abilities and learning capacity, cannot act against their nature (and no, not even in a zoo, because of conditioning of environmental considerations). We humans however, partake to a degree in this divine attribute, and can exercise our wills beyond our tendencies. The intellect is outside time and space, we are merely limited in our bodies.

[Sage the Mage]

cannot act against their nature (and no, not even in a zoo, because of conditioning of environmental considerations). We humans however, partake to a degree in this divine attribute, and can exercise our wills beyond our tendencies.

If we acted beyond our tendencies, then hold your breath until you pass out.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If we acted beyond our tendencies, then hold your breath until you pass out.


THis is an example of posting with inconsistency. The subject matter I was discussing was in terms of choice and free will. A rat can always be depended upon to act the in the same type of patterns, given a stable environment. Humans have tendencies as animals do for bodily needs, and habitual behavior. However, we cah exercise our wills against this if we so choose.

[Booms]

I don't think it can truly be argued that humans can act against their nature. The psychological effects of the morals and ethics society imposes upon the people and also the belief in the God (and the whole sinning and good deeds stuff) are probably to complicated to completely disect, but it could just as easily turn out that when someone goes to feed the homeless they are doing it within their human tendency to seek happiness (because God will reward them, society tells them that helping others is good, etc).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The paradox of free will and determinism is deadlocked, until you bring in a 3rd aspect. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about psychological and environetal considerations. It is these that will influence us on many levels, which is correct. THis refers to my arguments regarding movement and influence. Yet, the influence of the prime mover is able to effect us beyond our natural inclinations.
In terms of our intellects, they are not subject to movements per se, as our wills may accept or reject a premise.

[Xaf]

THis is an example of posting with inconsistency. The subject matter I was discussing was in terms of choice and free will. A rat can always be depended upon to act the in the same type of patterns, given a stable environment. Humans have tendencies as animals do for bodily needs, and habitual behavior. However, we cah exercise our wills against this if we so choose.
Well the only difference between a rat and a human is that we have more complicated needs. Yes a rat may be easier to predict than a human, but that doesnt necessarily mean there is a fundamental difference other than the physical.

[Sage the Mage]

The paradox of free will and determinism is deadlocked, until you bring in a 3rd aspect. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about psychological and environetal considerations. It is these that will influence us on many levels, which is correct. THis refers to my arguments regarding movement and influence. Yet, the influence of the prime mover is able to effect us beyond our natural inclinations.
In terms of our intellects, they are not subject to movements per se, as our wills may accept or reject a premise.

What exactly are you implying? I think you're trying to argue for free will, but well, end up arguing for determinism.

Anywhoo...
The intellect is outside time and space, we are merely limited in our bodies.
The only way to prove that right there is to die and still "think." Else your concisousness is limited entirely to your brain.

And you haven't passed out yet! :P

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well the only difference between a rat and a human is that we have more complicated needs. Yes a rat may be easier to predict than a human, but that doesnt necessarily mean there is a fundamental difference other than the physical.

Ok, what is at stake when we look into the nature of these "complicated needs". As I mentioned earlier, all "things" (including creature), are ordered toward the Godhead.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What exactly are you implying? I think you're trying to argue for free will, but well, end up arguing for determinism.


By assenting to the prime mover, author and object of all striving, we can say that his influence by far transcends the influence of lesser beings. I see where you're coming from when you regard determinism in this, and in a way, we are subject to determinism by means of our nature in its inherent quest for union with the prime mover (love). However, if we could not choose, we could not be determined. One is thus defined by the other's opposite. Since that offers a paradox simply by looking at the temporal world as a solution to an eternal probelmatic, we are thus directed by necessity to apprehend the source of life that will free our souls to not be enslaved to the world. Acceptance of God's love is not determinism, as determinism is slavery. In apprehending the Godhead, we reach our point of actualization.


The only way to prove that right there is to die and still "think." Else your concisousness is limited entirely to your brain.

And you haven't passed out yet! :P

It can easily be proven that just the brain per se is not the artifice of thought. The nature of thought is incorporeal, and a corporeal body cannot give assent to the incorporeal. Rather, as Aquinas and later Kant pointed out, our bodies are the sensory vehicles to the spiritual aspect of humanity. This includes the brain being a "CPU" of the senses, or the "common sense", which presents our soul with a connection to this world.

[Xaf]

It can easily be proven that just the brain per se is not the artifice of thought. The nature of thought is incorporeal, and a corporeal body cannot give assent to the incorporeal. Rather, as Aquinas and later Kant pointed out, our bodies are the sensory vehicles to the spiritual aspect of humanity. This includes the brain being a "CPU" of the senses, or the "common sense", which presents our soul with a connection to this world.
It can????? How is that?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I told you - these idiot scientists have forgotten the key principles of metaphysics. The brain is a corporeal object. It can only perform functions. Chemiclas are not thoughts. They too are corporeal. THought is incorporeal. What the brain does is amalgamate the senses, presenting a "bodily posture" to the intellect.

[Xaf]

I told you - these idiot scientists have forgotten the key principles of metaphysics. The brain is a corporeal object. It can only perform functions. Chemiclas are not thoughts. They too are corporeal. THought is incorporeal. What the brain does is amalgamate the senses, presenting a "bodily posture" to the intellect.
Well i would consider thought a function. Is there some proof where you can leave your body and enter somewhere else? Ive heard of this happening but the proof is lacking severely.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

"Astral projection" is irrelevant. Furthermore, you're asking to go beyond reason in asking for a scientific, empirical method to prove incorporeal realities. Reason takes empirical concepts and composes and divides it, giving us new knowledge. THat's what the intellect does. Your body is totally corporeal - an incorporeal reality like thinking cannot arise from corporeal substances. THat's just silly.

[billobob]

I think I'll paraphrase this entire thread by saying:

We don't know anything, but sure do make a lot of pretty-sounding guesses. :D

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think I'll paraphrase this entire thread by saying:

We don't know anything, but sure do make a lot of pretty-sounding guesses. :D

I think I'll paraphrase you:

"I'm a mental midget who would like to believe the world is the way I see it."

[Sage the Mage]

you're asking to go beyond reason in asking for a scientific, empirical method to prove incorporeal realities.

Thanks for actually providing that everything you state about the subject is "beyond reason" aka based on beliefs :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Thanks for actually providing that everything you state about the subject is "beyond reason" aka based on beliefs :)

Thanks again for picking sentances out of context to support your dry platitudes. Reason has methodologies to ascertain knowledge. As such, empiricism demands a scientific, or "observed" model. Speculative reason uses this data to bring forth necessary conclusions that flow from then. Further, the empirical model also requires the composing and dividing action of reason to follow through data to conclusions.
To go "beyond reason" in this case is stated accurately in the very sentance you chose to pick apart. Namely, going beyond the laws of reason is using empirical methods to arrive at speculative conclusions - which can never be just simply "opinion". Stop being a little **** disturber and reply to the whole text if you're able, or go quote your 1 liners on the community threads.

[Xaf]

Thanks for actually providing that everything you state about the subject is "beyond reason" aka based on beliefs :)
LOL.

What exactly is your theory based on if it isnt beliefs? Just the fact that you dont think its possible for the mind to be made up of cells, impulses and chemicals? I think that is what you said before but i got confused when you started talking about not needing proofs and the empirical logic system.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Seriously guys, must I lead you by the hand in everything? The mind CANNOT be composed of anything corporeal. Coproreal objects - including air, fire, and water, still take up space and fulfill their respective operations. THe intellect's nature cannot be composed of any kind of material. Beliefs and opinion have nothing to do with this. Don't just laugh off what you cannot yet comprehend, as in truth, the knowledge you disregard by your own narrow scope will be the knowledge most in need of discovery.

Further, never once did I toss empiricism away - its necessary to lay the groundwork. I said that the scientific method cannot discover conclusions that only speculative reason can discover. That may be difficult for a generation completely immersed in empirical skepticism, but that's not an excuse to stay within it.

[Xaf]

Seriously guys, must I lead you by the hand in everything? The mind CANNOT be composed of anything corporeal. Coproreal objects - including air, fire, and water, still take up space and fulfill their respective operations. THe intellect's nature cannot be composed of any kind of material. Beliefs and opinion have nothing to do with this. Don't just laugh off what you cannot yet comprehend, as in truth, the knowledge you disregard by your own narrow scope will be the knowledge most in need of discovery.

Further, never once did I toss empiricism away - its necessary to lay the groundwork. I said that the scientific method cannot discover conclusions that only speculative reason can discover. That may be difficult for a generation completely immersed in empirical skepticism, but that's not an excuse to stay within it.
Ok well im still not quite getting you here, but going to see anchorman so ill chat when i get back :).