- FI5HERMAN, on 02/06/2009, -31/+10Regardless what your religion, we are all entitled to believe what we want and should not need anyone to convert us !!!
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -3/+12You sound scared...
- antwan17, on 02/06/2009, -3/+7I'm sorry but I'm with Harlan Ellison on this point, "you are not entitled to an opinion; you are entitled to an informed opinion."
- bemenaker, on 02/06/2009, -1/+6And you realize the Big Bang Theory was created by a Vatican Scientist looking through a telescope right?
- Wargasmic, on 02/06/2009, -3/+5Just like you're entitled to believe that praying your childs cancer will go away instead of taking them to a doctor, right?
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Apparently you believe it's an "either/or" proposition. I pray for my daughter's healing *AND* take her to the doctor. I have seen faith heal what science couldn't, and I've seen science heal what faith didn't. Consequently, I use them both.
And yes, I *am* entitled to that belief. - manjas8, on 02/06/2009, -5/+2Wargasmic, nice sweeping generalization. A small percentage of Theists rely only on faith healing.
Many Athiests seem to think that believing in a God makes a person less intelligent, while nothing could be farther from the truth.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Apparently you believe it's an "either/or" proposition. I pray for my daughter's healing *AND* take her to the doctor. I have seen faith heal what science couldn't, and I've seen science heal what faith didn't. Consequently, I use them both.
- jukeboxheroine, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2You're not being converted; you're merely being given the tools you need to make that intelligent decision for yourself. Have some self-respect.
- pw378, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2I'm not trying to make you gay, I just want you to play with my tool so you can make an intelligent decision for yourself.
- manjas8, on 02/06/2009, -3/+0So many Athiests complain about having religion pushed onto them, yet they will get into a debate with a Theist whenever they can and attempt to persuade the Theist that their beliefs are wrong. Sounds a bit like conversion to me.
You should get some self-respect and allow others to believe in what they wish to. There is a thing called Freedom of Religion, which makes it OK to believe or NOT to believe. - Paulorific, on 02/07/2009, -0/+3manjas8, why do you resort to bringing up freedoms? No one is proposing outlawing religion and arresting people who have a certain belief, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an honest talk about it.
You don't even have to persuade a religious person (not simply a theist) that their beliefs are wrong, because they just won't listen. Religious people WANT to believe, and so they trick themselves into doing so.
I on the other hand also WANT to believe, but realize that believing doesn't make something true. - jukeboxheroine, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2pw: Thank you for showing me the maturity so common in right-wingers.
manjas: So why aren't you similarly condemning theists who try to convert atheists? Theists are constantly telling atheists that they're bad, wrong, immoral and going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity. Suddenly, theists don't like it when it gets turned back on them! You're going to have to learn to grow up and deal with it.
Freedom of religion is widely accepted; protection from criticism is not. Your personal relationship with your imaginary friend doesn't protect you from being told that you're delusional. Criticism doesn't infringe on your freedom, and attempting to stifle it because you're insecure is a violation of the critic's free speech rights. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
- pw378, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2I'm not trying to make you gay, I just want you to play with my tool so you can make an intelligent decision for yourself.
- macweirdo42, on 02/06/2009, -14/+39Huh, that's funny, I actually side with the Church on this one. Not for the same reasons, obviously, but I do oppose IVF, mainly because I think in an already overpopulated world, I don't think it's responsible to be going out of your way to create new life, especially when, if you want a kid, there are many children in need of adoptive parents.
But yeah, otherwise, I really don't like the Church's reasoning, which basically boils down to "God said it should be this way," which seems kind of arbitrary to me because I could just make up any rule I wanted and justify it by saying "Well God said so."- chrisOrbit, on 02/06/2009, -3/+22I guess I'm not the only one sickened by these shows like "14 kids and counting".
Holy crap have these people ever heard of population momentum? - Fragowell, on 02/06/2009, -2/+22Making IVF illegal would just create a nasty black market for it. You think wanting women are going to give up the right to their most basic of instincts because someone said they're just not allowed to? Terrible idea. Unless our society is facing the immediate, catastrophic threat of overcrowding/overpopulation, we should protect everyone's freedoms best we can.
- Pixelante, on 02/06/2009, -1/+0IVF pusher in an alley. "Pssst, do you want to buy some in vitro?"
- macweirdo42, on 02/06/2009, -2/+13I didn't say anything about the legality of it. That's totally beside the point. I would oppose making it illegal myself, simply because I don't see why it's any of the government's business. I'm simply saying I find it objectionable. You don't have to believe something should be illegal simply because you disagree with it.
What is with people and that attitude? I say something's bad, and they immediately assume I'm calling for it to be banned. I don't much care for country music, but I'm not gonna make a law about it. - MWeather, on 02/06/2009, -4/+7"Unless our society is facing the immediate, catastrophic threat of overcrowding/overpopulation, we should protect everyone's freedoms best we can."
But we ARE facing the immediate, catastrophic threat of overcrowding/overpopulation.
It took 10,000+ years to get to a billion people, 123 years to get to 2 billion, and 32 years to get to 3 billion. Ever since we've added a billion people every ~12 years.
The Earth's population will double between 1999 and 2040. - noumuon, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10"I don't much care for country music, but I'm not gonna make a law about it. "
let's not get too hasty and say things we shouldn't... ;) - jukeboxheroine, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3macweirdo, thanks for clearing up the issue of choice. In a broader context, people tend to have a hard time understanding why we might object to something but not try to ban it outright (see: gay marriage, abortion, other wedge issues). The government is not an extension of our personal preferences.
- cfuse, on 02/07/2009, -1/+1Even the Chinese government realises that if they didn't allow people at least one they'd be out of government in a heartbeat - overcrowding or not.
- puzzleman04, on 02/08/2009, -0/+1jukeboxheroine, You're right, the government is not an extension of our preferences, but I believe it's generally accepted that the government has the responsibility to protect the inalienable rights of a human being. The problem is deciding when a human being has those rights, when the human is born of the mother, or when the human exists as a complete DNA strand. I'm fairly certain that's the issue at hand here, because it's the same argument that the Catholic church makes against abortion, during which a naturally conceived fetus, which could continue to become a human, is killed. In IVF, generally several more eggs are fertilized than what are actually brought to term, and I'm not sure what happens with the others, but presumably they're destroyed, which is the problem the Catholic church has with it. In this situation, it becomes an argument between science and philosophy, the science shows that once an egg is fertilized it has its own DNA strand and could become a unique human, but philosophically when a human is a human with all the rights associated with a human is a little more tricky, because a fetus relies 100% on the mother for the first 9 months or so of its survival. Ironically, I think the Catholic church IS actually siding with science on these issues, and the government is taking a more cautious philosophical approach.
- heresyforme, on 02/06/2009, -15/+4I've noticed something among atheists. They don't really care much for property rights or even recognize when their trampling all over them. The answer to the question in this case is "a person owns their body and can do with it whatever they want." It's not that atheists haven't shown their lack of respect for individual sovereignty over the last century. So, keep it up and let me know how that works out for you.
- macweirdo42, on 02/06/2009, -0/+12I didn't ***** say they couldn't. Simply because I do not personally condone a particular action does not immediately imply that I am attempt to force my belief on others. No, it takes a religious person to believe that his own personal morality should be imposed on other people.
I mean, *****, I said it's bad. How does that ***** affect your life? Does me saying that spontaneously prevent anyone from getting IVF? I'm not omnipotent, you know. - dvnt1, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3*EDIT*: Never mind, I looked at some of your other comments and you're just a moron. You're forgiven.
...what the ***** are you talking about? Do you even know? You're advocating complete anarchy and chaos. There are things that you can do with your body that affect other people. One for instance is being a complete ***** moron when it comes to nutrition and raising your family on McDonalds. It's their body right? They should be able to do whatever they want right? Well I think that's what they should be told when they're in the hospital at 18 for the litany of diseases that will plague their obese ass. "Sorry you'll get no care here, this was a choice you made!"
Having babies puts strain on society and it effects us all. I'd like to see IVF revisted too, but not because of some idiotic theological dogma, but because I understand and want to account for the effects of creating more people in this world.
Your premise "It's my body I can do whatever I want" is absurd. There is need for government and laws that keep society comfortable and equitable even with issues that seem purely personal.
I should hope, with your "It's my body" attitude, that you'd agree that drug prohibition is a joke as well. If you're going to have these views at least don't be a hypocrite about it. - elementop, on 02/06/2009, -6/+1@macweirdo: You are painting with a pretty broad brush in your reply to heresyforme. Are there religious people who believe that they should impose their beliefs on others? Absolutely. However, there are atheists who believe the same thing. Both are evil.
I am a person of faith. I believe in sharing that faith with anyone who is interested in what I think or why I believe what I believe because I think I have found something of value. However, I do not think there is *any value whatsoever* in trying to force my beliefs on others (nor do most of the other Christians I associate with), so please knock off the stereotypes, 'kay? Thanks. - macweirdo42, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3@elementop
I do apologize if I offended you. I generalized, I know, but I get sick of this kind of *****. From Islam's grip on the Middle East to (thankfully recently-repealed) anti-sodomy laws right here in the United States, I have seen countless examples of religious people believing their personal code of morality needs to be codified into law and imposed on others. However, the person I was replying to had the audacity to claim I was doing the same.
I had no intentions whatsoever of implying that other people should be forced to follow what I personally think. I don't think the government has any business in that sort of thing anyway. I was just pointing out that I personally thought it was a bad idea, no different than if I were pointing out that eating McDonald's every day is not healthy. Yeah, I think it's bad, but I'm not gonna rip that Big Mac out of your hand. What you do is your choice, I'm just commenting that I think there are better options.
Anyway, sorry, got carried away there, my point is that I really hate when people completely misrepresent what I'm saying, and I apologize for making overly-broad generalizations, I was just kind of pissed to see my statements so horribly misconstrued. - MWeather, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1"a person owns their body and can do with it whatever they want."
That sounds an awful lot like "my body, my choice".
- macweirdo42, on 02/06/2009, -0/+12I didn't ***** say they couldn't. Simply because I do not personally condone a particular action does not immediately imply that I am attempt to force my belief on others. No, it takes a religious person to believe that his own personal morality should be imposed on other people.
- dvnt1, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1Much love Digg! I was going to write this exact same thing but was happy to find that not only has someone already said it but it's also the first (visible) comment!
I hate to be the downer but does anyone have any idea how screwed we would be if we cured cancer, AIDs, infertility, heart disease, a world hunger...that's not a dream...it's a nightmare. - texpundit, on 02/06/2009, -4/+7Thought experiment:
Maybe being infertile is nature's way of telling these couples "You're seriously messed up. You're so messed up that I'm not going to allow you to have children."
Discuss.- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+5Or these:
1. Maybe breaking a tooth, getting an infection which goes through your bone marrow and kills you is nature's way of saying, "You're so messed up you should die."
2. Maybe having astigmatism is nature's way of saying, "You are meant to live a life of struggle and die early when you accidentally step in front of a bus."
3. Maybe being a believer is nature's way of saying, "You're so gullible you'll buy any load of crap. Good luck losing it all to the TV preacher."
Infertility isn't a sign you're seriously messed up. It's a sign that some tiny factor in an incredibly complex process isn't working like it should. No surprise, normal couples can "attempt" to get pregnant many times without success too. Only difference is that medicine can now tell those at the very shallow ends of the bell curve, "We have a solution." If you really believe that whatever "nature" intended should be left alone that way, go hunt using your bare hands and eat what you forage with no clothes, speech, modern anything (and by modern, I mean anything at all invented in the last 10,000 years!). Have fun with that. - jukeboxheroine, on 02/06/2009, -0/+0The only case in which I can see that being valid is if a hereditary disease causes the infertility, in which case IVF isn't going to be much of a help anyway. I assume you're more talking about the couple's capacity to parent well, but that's unrelated to fertility.
- aduzik, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2I've always seen it like this: infertility is nature's way of saying that maybe there's an orphan out there you could be raising.
- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+5Or these:
- Ouchimoo, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3Under that same logic "Well God said so." we should be preventing people from getting medical and dental health. It's funny/horrifying to me that these people skew to their liking what god and god doesn't want.
- atroxodisse, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2We are not facing overpopulation. Not even close. Look up the numbers and you'll see just how ridiculous that is. It's crap spouted by the ignorant and those with a political agenda. In areas with very high population density population growth has either slowed, stopped or gone negative. In many parts of Europe(where there is obviously not an overcrowding problem) people are intelligent enough to know that having too many kids puts a strain on everyone and there is negative population growth. Further there are still vast expanses of land on this planet that are very habitable but which we have not begone to exploit. I'm not saying we don't have to be paying attention here but the fact is that we are paying attention and we are acting accordingly. The problems of starvation and poverty in this world are entirely socio-economic conditions. Just search on google for overpopulation myth and you'll have all the evidence you need.
- gixxer600, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1too bad your still wrong .....just because u feel that way, u should never try to enforce other to feel the same way, u are entitled to your opinion and practice it for your self but to tell another person or couple that they cant do IVF is intruding on their right to privacy.....i have opinions to but if someone asked me if i think that all people should do what i think i would say ***** no they can to whatever the ***** they want as long as it doesn't directly conflict with someone else's rights ( that sound ultra liberal but my opinions are kinda old school so weird)
- jukeboxheroine, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1"I do oppose IVF, mainly because I think in an already overpopulated world, I don't think it's responsible to be going out of your way to create new life, especially when, if you want a kid, there are many children in need of adoptive parents."
Could you find the part of that statement where he said he wanted to make it illegal or difficult for people to have IVF treatment? He said he opposed it, but he said nothing about taking legal action or harassing people who do undergo the treatment. He's what you would call pro-choice; even if he finds something personally objectionable, he's not going to force his viewpoint on others. You fail at reading comprehension.
- jukeboxheroine, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1"I do oppose IVF, mainly because I think in an already overpopulated world, I don't think it's responsible to be going out of your way to create new life, especially when, if you want a kid, there are many children in need of adoptive parents."
- cfuse, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2I love it. I could make up any rule and say "God said so" - what do you think religion *is*?
- mmastrac, 13 hr 50 min ago, -0/+1Why not just outlaw all biological reproduction until all babies are adopted then? Makes just as much sense as wanting to prevent parents from using whatever means necessary they need to have their own biological children.
- chrisOrbit, on 02/06/2009, -3/+22I guess I'm not the only one sickened by these shows like "14 kids and counting".
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -11/+55FTA "The pope remains opposed to IVF on the grounds that sexual union is sacred, and therefore only conception achieved through sexual union accords sufficient dignity to the end product."
So children who are the product of rape don't have souls?
The Catholic Church - what a racket that is.- Testiculese, on 02/06/2009, -3/+17Billions of dollars racket, too.
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4Are not those robes and hats the goofiest things?
I mean, he still wears the same outfits he was wearing 500 years ago (or more). I see him on TV or whatever and think get over yourself already. - pmoy, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2Billions of dollars? That sure does explain why churches all over the world are closing because there is no money to keep them open. It also explains why the thousands of charitable projects worldwide are in constant need for funding...
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1Struggling to keep their doors open? Really? Perhaps the Pope should pawn his idiotic ring.
- Testiculese, 4 hr 5 min ago, -0/+1pmoy, the Catholic church is the richest organization in the world. Billions and billions.
Of course, they don't give a ***** about charitable projects. They want to kepe the money for themselves, and piss it away on making the Vatican as expensive-looking as possible, because, you know, their god approves of that sort of thing.
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4Are not those robes and hats the goofiest things?
- lukasmack, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3Yeah and seeing how they don't allow birth control either these children would be kind of screwed
- MWeather, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3If they're screwed, then the end product will have dignity.
- twertyto, on 02/06/2009, -4/+12"So children who are the product of rape don't have souls?" Where in that sentence are you getting that notion?
I guess you missed that part in the article where it says that the Church doesn't believe that.- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -4/+5I didn't miss that part. It doesn't matter if later that particular statement was recanted. It just proves how the whole thing is a bunch of bull.
I'm responding to the idiocy of ancient, pre-science doctrine in general, and its foolish followers. There I said it. - toekneebullard, on 02/06/2009, -6/+6"I'm responding to the idiocy of ancient, pre-science doctrine in general, and its foolish followers. There I said it."
So you're mocking early scientists then also right?
Information changes, people change. Science changes every day due to new discoveries. But I guess I'm retarded cause a couple years ago I thought Pluto was a planet. - twertyto, on 02/06/2009, -3/+3Ditto to what toekneebullard said.
The Greek were a bunch of idiots.
/sarcasm - elementop, on 02/06/2009, -5/+4@Batfishy: "This is new therefore it must be good. This is old therefore it must be good. Both statements are equally false." Just because faith is ancient does not make it false, nor does it make its followers foolish.
I am often surprised at how those athiests who blast people of faith (Christian or otherwise) for being dogmatic are very often dogmatic about their own beliefs... - atomheartmother, on 02/06/2009, -4/+1Excellent point, elementop, but I've long since ceased to be surprised at the hypocrisy of the left.
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -4/+5I didn't miss that part. It doesn't matter if later that particular statement was recanted. It just proves how the whole thing is a bunch of bull.
- BobFromReboot, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10Nobody has a soul, it's just a made up thing.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -8/+1[Citation needed]
- BobFromReboot, on 02/06/2009, -0/+11Prove there is a soul. Every thought we have and everything that makes us who we are is in our brain.
- MrOdwin, on 02/06/2009, -5/+2Your logic is just baffling. Your sentence does not follow from what you quote. At all.
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -1/+5"Sex is sacred." "Sacred sex makes babies with souls."
Unless rape is also sacred, my point was valid.
.
- Batfishy, on 02/06/2009, -1/+5"Sex is sacred." "Sacred sex makes babies with souls."
- Testiculese, on 02/06/2009, -3/+17Billions of dollars racket, too.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -11/+12The longer they go against science the sooner they will become irrelevant. The Catholics are pretty sneaky though. They usually come around way faster than other Christian denominations. Which is good. I prefer the Catholics to any evangelists that are out there.
- Leviathan433, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3holy generalizations batman!
- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -1/+6Actually you are right and this is due to their theology being around for 2000 yrs. Its had time to evolve. Pope Urban the VIII espoused Ptolemy's model of the solar system, with the earth in the center (smile), symbolizing "Gods focus on man." After Galileo died, the Copernican model of the solar system, replaced Ptolemy's and Catholic theology evolved once again. The Catholic church can tolerate some diversity even with a very conservative Pope, as well as modify its stance because it has theological "orders" from more liberal to more conservative. These orders argue with each other while preserving the unity of the church. I would love have a microphone in the room of one of those debates.
The bioethics branch of philosophy has really matured in light of 21st century science. With the power that we wield its always appropriate to ask questions such as "just because we can, should we?"- Pixelante, on 02/06/2009, -4/+1Yes, because we can we should. Let's go for it and consequences be damned. Body explosions and blood rains are the best lessons, period.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Can you explain to me what a body explosion is?
- Pixelante, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1Something like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po77bJk1DdI
Omae wa mo shindeiru!
- Swift2, on 02/06/2009, -0/+5The basic thing that the Catholic Church has to re-understand now is sexuality. Most of the categories that they use to understand human sexuality were formulated when the homunculus theory of gestation ruled what they called "science" -- actually, it was still Aristotelian science, adapted from the Greeks. So, birth control is wrong, because the divine spark of a teeny-tiny human has just been planted in the "soil" of a woman. The little human was perfectly formed, and obviously had a soul. The woman's contribution was not understood at all. Biology? Not understood. So, add a little medieval metaphysics, and voila! No birth control, no extramarital sex, no homosexuality -- you're wasting your homunculi, see? Ejaculation throws away souls by the millions? Silly science -- but the Church was committed to the morally bankrupt vision of Humanae Vita, the encyclical which condemned birth control for once and for all. How do American Catholics behave about this? They use birth control, have unapproved sex, and have abortions, in about the same proportions as any other group. That's why the modern church is so schizophrenic about sex: ignoring all the guilty molesters they recruited as priests for so long, and being officially in favor of a behavior only fully endorsed by ignorant peasants and the governments of "Catholic countries" like the countries ruled by Franco and Mussolini. I'm afraid that Benedict comes from that tradition. Bring back John XXIII, and let the Church evolve into the 21st century! Married priests! Female clergy! Gay clergy! Sacraments of gay marriage? Why not?
The actual morality involved here is nothing but a respect for love. Love one another, Jesus said, and I think he meant that in the sexual realm, too. Promiscuity is the enemy of human love, not being gay, or using birth control, or doing something that 13th-century morality would find shocking. - daronicus, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Thank you for bringing that up. Most people assume that Catholics are in the midst of the Bible-thumping anti-science Christians because of the whole Galileo issue (people could really use to study that more, because there was much more behind it than it being against church doctrine), but Catholics are big into reading the Bible as a religious text, not a historical or scientific one. They have opposed scientific movements in the past, but so have scientists. People forget that very many scientists thought that Galileo and Darwin were wrong in their time, too. Whether that was because of religious beliefs or not, they argued a lack of evidence, and for a while there was none to placate them. The point is, the Catholic church does change with the times, if a bit slowly for some.
- Sonan, on 02/06/2009, -11/+62Silly Catholics, myths are for kids!
- tgc1, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4I can't say I could have put that any better. Well done!
- IKORKYI, on 02/06/2009, -1/+2Here is why i think Catholicism is doomed. They are going to lose people, no matter what they do with science, for one of two reasons.
1) they will begin to change so many policies that are so definitely outdated that people will realize that God doesn't make the rules, the church makes the rules, and no one in the church talks with God. No longer will you have the defense that people are homosexuals are going ot hell because God says so, its because the Catholic Church thinks so. So really, you have a bunch of old guys making the rules. People will start asking similiar questions for reasons why distrubuting condoms to aids-stricken africa is a sin, and the church will have no satisfying answers. They won't be able to say "this is when God says life starts," because if you can change one rule, why can't you change another? It will be harder and harder to rely on faith if something just doesn't make any logical sense.
2) they will keep defying common sense and base ethics arguments soley on faith, and eventually a large chunk of people will see it as so hypocritical and so unreal that they won't follow any more. - kyyled, on 02/07/2009, -3/+3Here's why I think Catholicism is doomed.
It's a religion based on the teachings of a homeless carpenter that is presided over by an old virgin in a dress and a phallic hat who lives in a palace.
- tonycomp, on 02/06/2009, -14/+16you really can't classify either side as right or wrong, they have different views... just move on.
- Lythium, on 02/06/2009, -2/+7The attitude that "It's more important for YOU to listen to ME than vice versa" isn't really helping promote true dialogue, either.... Right or wrong, scientist or priest, if you expect other people to listen to YOU with respect, you need to accord them the same courtesy. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but this guy is basically saying that his viewpoint is more deserving of respect than theirs. Again - doesn't matter whether or not he's "right" (whatever that means to you personally), but that attitude is a surefire way to lose your audience before you've even presented your argument. Bad, BAD rhetoric.
(For the record, I'm agnostic - not that it *should* matter, but it does, and I see it as a small preventative measure against the inevitable ad hominem blathering.)- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2I wanted to say something to that effect, but decided not to. But I think you're dead right: this whole "YOU need to listen to ME more than I need to listen to YOU" is pretty durn insulting and arrogant, whether it's "right" or not. I do certainly agree that everyone benefits from science while only certain people benefit from theology; but, even so, if the point is to foster a dialogue between the two fields, why should a speaker make such a childish remark to begin his lecture?
- Crimsoneer, on 02/06/2009, -4/+18Can we stop spouting this whole "religion can't be wrong" BS? Seriously, a view based on facts is entirely different to a view based on absolutely bugger all.
- Wargasmic, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3Thank you, good sir. The church has been losing ground since the enlightenment for a reason.
- daronicus, on 02/06/2009, -1/+0Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you think the Catholic church is in the same boat as other fundy churches that simply throw faith in the face of science and think it works. It isn't. The Catholic church views the Bible as a religious text and not a scientific or historical account. They use science to help interpret the Bible, not the other way around. So it's not like they simply ignore facts. And please don't bring up Galileo. Even his contemporaries thought he was wrong.
- TinmanHero, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2Daronicus: Same boat? Yep, same *****, different name and it all stinks. Doesn't matter how much they 'accommodate' science, just the fact that they have to accommodate reality should sign its death warrant right then and there.
- n00854180t, on 02/06/2009, -3/+4I call *****. One side *is* wrong. Here's a clue: It's the side that bases everything they do and say on mythology.
- daronicus, on 02/07/2009, -2/+0I'm going to get tired of pointing this out, but the Catholic church is not a literalist one. They do not define things because it says so in the Bible. The Catholic church is actually one of the most accepting of science and its advances.
- Lythium, on 02/06/2009, -2/+7The attitude that "It's more important for YOU to listen to ME than vice versa" isn't really helping promote true dialogue, either.... Right or wrong, scientist or priest, if you expect other people to listen to YOU with respect, you need to accord them the same courtesy. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but this guy is basically saying that his viewpoint is more deserving of respect than theirs. Again - doesn't matter whether or not he's "right" (whatever that means to you personally), but that attitude is a surefire way to lose your audience before you've even presented your argument. Bad, BAD rhetoric.
- M4NiC5, on 02/06/2009, -6/+13Life's much easier if you just believe in yourself and stop being so weak.
- MWeather, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3A wise man believes himself to be a fool.
- crimsonalucard, on 02/06/2009, -2/+5A man who places all his trust in himself is far wiser than a man who places his faith in the hands of an imaginary god.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -4/+1@crimsonalucard: Agreed. However, based upon my experience, I do not believe my God is imaginary. If I am correct, then by putting my faith in His hands, I am wiser still. If I am wrong, what have I lost? Seems like a safe bet to me...
- MWeather, on 02/07/2009, -0/+4@elementop
"If I am wrong, what have I lost?"
Your argument is called Pascal's Wager.
Everything that can be said about it has been, so I'll just link to the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager - MWeather, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2@crimsonalucard
"A man who places all his trust in himself is far wiser than a man who places his faith in the hands of an imaginary god. "
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2@M4NiC5: I think you will find that throughout history, people of faith have been anything but weak. Mother Theresa weak? Not hardly. Martin Luther King, Jr? Strike two. How about Martin Luther? Nope. Read the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2 ... of Acts</a> some time and tell me how weak the early Christians, who were often martyred for their beliefs, were.
Try arguing for an unpopular opinion sometime and tell me how weak you had to be to ignore the naysayers and stand for what you believed in, no matter what it cost you.
Also, easier != better in all circumstances.
- MWeather, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3A wise man believes himself to be a fool.
- Gooba, on 02/06/2009, -5/+45The church can't ignore science because they drive to work every day, sit in air conditioned rooms, and aren't all dead at 30 due to disease. Resistance is futile.
- crimsonalucard, on 02/06/2009, -3/+1We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
- forcedfx, on 02/06/2009, -10/+30Catholicism: The religion I left when I was old enough to realize it was BS. I wasn't the brightest 11 year old either.
- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Great comment! Yes, you matured even at a young age. I was a little behind you at the age of 14. Maybe you will revisit some of it and figure out what can be held on to and what should appropriately be disregarded. Some theology should be tossed out and maybe some preserved?
- Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1 I don't think ANY of it should be preserved.
(Raised as a methodist,quit going to church at 13...Atheist ) - kyookumbah, on 02/07/2009, -0/+0That's okay.. some of us are just a little slower to catch on.
I remember, as a 10 year old in french catholic school, realizing how retarded religion is. I added dirty captions to pictures in the bibles and flipped the cross and our teacher the bird while everyone else was doing their eyes-closed pre-lunch prayer.
Needless to say I did NOT show up for my confirmation in grade 7.
Suppose I've always been an atheist... *finishes eating baby*
- Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1 I don't think ANY of it should be preserved.
- noino1966, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10
12 for me...told the kid next to me that I just don't believe in all this and he called me a devil worshipper...its been uphill ever since.- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -1/+4Yes that tends to happen. That said, some of the philosophical underpinnings of theology are quite compelling. The problem comes when a Church becomes the holder of a particular brand of theology and has the political "power" to enforce and hence persecute. I am glad the Catholic Church does not wield that power any longer.
- bemenaker, on 02/06/2009, -0/+7I was 10 I believe when I seriously doubted that god existed even, and I kept it quiet because I was cast out by kids my age for having such view.
- tgc1, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3They got me until I was 17. I'm kind of a dreamer though, so that sort of plays into it.
- Wargasmic, on 02/06/2009, -0/+214 here, became Atheist by about 15 or 16.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -3/+5Atheist at 15, searching for the truth at 21 (because by then I had doubts about atheism and religion by then) and by 34 no doubt of God's existence whatsoever.
The atheism came as a result of 1) not being wise enough to discern between what in religion was dogma and what was truly faith, and 2) not *wanting* to believe. Explaining what brought me back to faith would take a bit longer (and is quite a bit more personal) than what I want to post on digg. Short story...at 34, I had a very real experience that erased all doubt from my mind, but it came from 13 years of searching for the truth.- JigoroKano, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Why would you not want to believe in heaven, god, angels and all that? I would love for that to be true.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2Honestly? I was brought up in a very legalistic church, with lots of "thou shalt not's." By fifteen, I was tired of it. I listened to heavy metal music (Ozzy, Iron Maiden, Metallica, etc.) and I was tired of hearing people tell me that was "devil music." I was dating, and you can imagine what I wanted that the church said was sinful. Etc., etc. There's a really good book called "Irresistable Revolution" by a dude named Shane Claiborne, and he describes what I felt much better than I can: "They were telling us to give up sex, give up drugs, give up rock and roll, and I was like, 'well, thats pretty much my life...what do I do instead?'" So I decided to chuck it all and do what I felt like.
Also, I wondered what kind of God would create us, give us a bunch of rules, never talk to us again, but condemn us to Hell if we didn't get it all right. I decided that this was not the kind of God I wanted to follow. I was right there (but for the wrong reasons).
Since then, I've figured out that God did give us a bunch of rules, but that following them is more satisfying than breaking them (pleasing yourself is ultimately empty), that God *does* talk to us if we only take the time to listen, and that Hell is *not* what He desires for us...but that He will not force us to love Him, if we don't want to.
And you're right -- as I've gotten older and wiser, I've discovered how wonderful "Heaven, God, angels and all that" really must be. - Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2 No.pleasing yourself is not empty...I don't need to follow the rules written by a bunch of stupid men a thousand years ago to be a decent, moral person.
No god has ever talked to me,or anyone i have ever met.
If hell is not what your imaginary friend desired,he'd not have created it..Not that i think he did,for I believe there is no god,heaven,or hell.
The only reason you are religious is cause your parents drug you to church before the age of reason and you swallowed the BS hook,line and sinker.
I'm sure glad i didn't.U so hated church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y&fea ...
- elementop, on 02/08/2009, -0/+1@Waterrat:
"No.pleasing yourself is not empty..."
I disagree. Even other atheists say it is:
"Sex made me feel alive,
but now I'm bored with mindless passion,
Drugs were somewhere to hide,
But they left me feeling cold and empty"
--Stabbing Westward
"Sometimes I wish I could feel anything..."
--Nine Inch Nails
I could go on, but you get the picture.
"I don't need to follow the rules written by a bunch of stupid men a thousand years ago to be a decent, moral person."
You are using your conclusion to prove your hypothesis, which is, of course, a logical flaw. Since you have already decided there is no God, then the Bible *must* be a creation of men. Since the Bible is a creation of men who believe in some fairly tale man in the sky, they must be foolish. Since they are foolish, I cannot believe anything they say, and therefore there is no God. See the circular reasoning?
"No god has ever talked to me, or anyone i have ever met."
Have you ever honestly LOOKED for him? Or did you choose not to believe, then look for proof that supported your choice? As I said, I've been on both sides of the fence, and have found more reason to believe there IS a God than that there isn't. And contrary to what you said, the reason I came back to faith is not because I was brought up in church and "swallowed the BS..." I rejected everything I had been taught as a kid and started actually looking for the truth, whatever it was. After almost 20 years, I realized that the existence of God made more sense than there not being a God.
You totally missed the point of my comment on Hell. Yes, God created Hell, and He created it the way He wanted it to be. However, He does not desire that *anyone* go there; He wants every human who ever has lived, lives right now or ever will live in the future to be with Him in Heaven. However, if you will not accept Him, then He will not accept you either.
Finally, consider this as a further argument against your statement, "No god has ever talked to me,or anyone i have ever met." In my life I have met several Christians who gave testimonies of being caught in some kind of addiction that they struggled with their entire lives until they came to Christ and were immediately and miraculously healed. I have met several athiests who were able to shake addictions through other methods, and that's great. But I have yet to meet *one single person* who claims to have struggled with any kind of addiction until they became atheist. If you do, then great. I'll match ten Christians who were delivered from addiction through faith for everyone who struggled with addiction until they became atheist that you bring ;)
"...you swallowed the BS hook,line and sinker. I'm sure glad i didn't."
Have you been on both sides of the fence, or are you arguing from the perspective of someone who has been both atheist and Christian and found atheism offered more? Because I have been in both positions and found that faith offered more.
- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Great comment! Yes, you matured even at a young age. I was a little behind you at the age of 14. Maybe you will revisit some of it and figure out what can be held on to and what should appropriately be disregarded. Some theology should be tossed out and maybe some preserved?
- ajb2015, on 02/06/2009, -11/+2Lol - human beings and their 2000 years of ignorance. Modern humans are like, ya know, the only non-stupid people to ever walk to teh planet.
- graywolfz10, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1So what does that make you?
- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -3/+28Funny, my understanding of the issue is that the Church opposes IVF on the grounds that, for every viable embryo that becomes a full-fledged baby, numerous others are created just to be frozen indefinitely, used for experimentation, or outright destroyed. That's MY problem with IVF, at least; I'm a practicing Catholic, but I have gradually drifted from the Church on certain issues concerning sexuality. (Contraception is the big one, but that's not totally relevant in this case so I'll spare you my diatribe.)
- dvnt1, on 02/06/2009, -5/+5I thought the Churches opposition was similar too.
When a woman gets IVF its common practice for the doctor to place multiple fertilized embryos in the woman's uterus because each of them only has a small chance at survival. In other words it's basically assumed that some these fertilized embryos will die which I guess the nutbag Catholics view the same as neglecting your child and letting it die since they feel that a fertilized embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being with consciousness and emotion.- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -1/+2And, as I understand it, if more of those embryos develop than what the doctor and mother intended, extras will be "selectively reduced" - that is, aborted. Which is obviously not Good Catholic Practice.
Anyway, I was going to digg you up before this "nutbag Catholics" thing. - Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+3 They also think the unborn are more important than the born...How screwed up is that?
- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -1/+2And, as I understand it, if more of those embryos develop than what the doctor and mother intended, extras will be "selectively reduced" - that is, aborted. Which is obviously not Good Catholic Practice.
- appleofdischord, on 02/06/2009, -1/+5I'm burying the article as inaccurate, and digging you up. I'm an atheist now, but I was raised Catholic. There's always been a strong concern for unity and procreation as the primary purpose and sole domain of sexual intercourse, but the major reason IVF has been looked down on by the catholic church has been the destruction of embryos.
Unless I missed it, there is no mention of that in the article. It looks like the author is trying to dishonestly pan the Catholic church.- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2And again, this is where science, at least in the form of statistics, should become church leader's friends before they make any rash decisions. More fertilized fetuses are naturally aborted than will be destroyed as part of IVF in a year. FAR, FAR more.
- pw378, on 02/06/2009, -1/+5Your logic is idiotic. More people die from car accidents than shotguns, so murder by shotgun should be legal?
- Topheh, on 02/07/2009, -0/+0Right, agreed. I mean, sure, there is still the sacred union thing, but more important is the extra embryos, which in the eyes of the church are all full human beings being put in cold storage and eventually discarded.
- wonderlane, 22 hr 44 min ago, -0/+1Kublai Khan was buddhist.
- dvnt1, on 02/06/2009, -5/+5I thought the Churches opposition was similar too.
- strutman, on 02/06/2009, -4/+16"Even before IVF was attempted, the Catholic church opposed it with the suggestion, as I understand it, that a baby conceived by this method would not have a soul."
As I understand it? WTF? Use the Google and source your statements. This is how misinformation is spread.- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2The "theology of the soul" leaves a lot to be desired, does it not? There are other complications such as a division of the embryo generating twins. So how does that work? Does the original "soul" also get divided between the twins? A bunch of biomedical scientists and physicians at our school got together and studied a book called "Whatever Happened To The Soul?" by Huston Smith (Catholic theologian but I forgot which theological order). After we completed it most of us concluded that the soul concept is not to useful
- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -1/+2Of course the soul concept is "not too useful" for a group of biomedical scientists and physicians; it's a metaphysical concept, which obviously has no bearing on how PHYSICians (that is, doctors who are concerned with the physical body) do their jobs.
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3KublaiKhan, do you realise you just admitted that the soul is a metaphysical concept, and not physical? In other words, just just admitted the soul doesn't exist.
- cameldung, on 02/06/2009, -2/+5This aclaimed physicist got it wrong. The Catholic Church opposes the dissociation of the sexual act from the procreative act which it has a right to oppose on moral grounds. Any Church or community of people has every right to determine what they deem moral or immoral. The Church also opposes the discarding of embroyos which not only the Church but science sees has human life. Is it not a scientific fact that human life begins at the fusion of sperm and egg? Isn't that the scienctific consensus as to when life begins? Since the Catholic Church is unabashedly pro-life does it not seem reasonable that it would object to IVF and its associated techniques. I don't understand the scientific objection to being pro-life - what does science have to do with that moral stance? I'm not sure if Einstein was the first to say it but I think he repeated it: (something along the lines of): "not all that can be counted counts and not all that matters can be counted". <-- not the exact quote - and i would love to know the exact words and who this is attributed to.
The Catholic Church is not anti-science.- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2I agree with you. The Church certainly has a right to define its theology. On the fusion of the sperm and egg being the beginning of life? Well under a more strict definition sperm and eggs themselves are "alive." The fusion of the two activate the processes necessary to make a whole animal or human being.
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1"The Catholic Church opposes the dissociation of the sexual act from the procreative act which it has a right to oppose on moral grounds."
According to the Humanae Vitae, yes. I'm not sure if this takes the Dignitas Personae into account, I havn't yet read it myself.
"Is it not a scientific fact that human life begins at the fusion of sperm and egg?"
No. It's not. Science doesn't view life that way. Life is a process - you would do as well to ask if you make a new fire when you hold a match up to a piece of paper, or split an existing fire into two.
If all goes well, the fusion of sperm and egg may make a new genetic identity, but not new life. And that identity may produce more than one individual. Or none at all.
Life began long ago, and it's been going on in an unbroken chain ever since.
"I don't understand the scientific objection to being pro-life - what does science have to do with that moral stance?"
This also undermines your previous argument.
- wonderlane, 22 hr 44 min ago, -0/+1great
- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2The "theology of the soul" leaves a lot to be desired, does it not? There are other complications such as a division of the embryo generating twins. So how does that work? Does the original "soul" also get divided between the twins? A bunch of biomedical scientists and physicians at our school got together and studied a book called "Whatever Happened To The Soul?" by Huston Smith (Catholic theologian but I forgot which theological order). After we completed it most of us concluded that the soul concept is not to useful
- else7en, on 02/06/2009, -7/+5the catholic church defends evolution!
what a world- appleofdischord, on 02/06/2009, -0/+7It has for a long time.
- GlitchEnzo, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4That's nothing new. I went to Catholic school for 7 years and I was always taught that, essentially, God created evolution. Oh and that God also created the Big Bang.
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4Yep. Although it took some time to accept evolution, the catholic church has done do. It does impose one condition - it will accept evolution, so long as man is considered a special case. It's ok for humans to evolve, but at some point God has to have gotten involved personally and put the soul and such things in.
- narupo, on 02/06/2009, -1/+9"If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million years." Funny joke yet has so much logic in it.
- Wargasmic, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4Funny thing is, we have millions of years of history to look at and that's why we know he was right...No need for a prediction, it already happened.
- purkel, on 02/06/2009, -6/+6Religion is played out.
- graywolfz10, on 02/06/2009, -6/+3Your clearly so much smarter then the rest of us. If religion doesn't work for you fine, but act so smug when all your doing is fallowing a fad.
I believe in both science and a god, and if you ask me creationist are bat ***** crazy but im not going to let it affect my personal beliefs. Because thats what they are personal, and it shouldn't affect anyone other then myself.- atchon, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2One requires evidence to establish something as true, one relies on faith and states that no real evidence is needed for anything.
So in other words you don't believe in both since that is about the same as stating that a pot is both hot and cold at once. - phphreak, on 02/06/2009, -4/+1no one asked you.
- Wargasmic, on 02/06/2009, -4/+2Science is a method which requires evidence for claims. Your god has no evidence therefore you do not believe in the scientific method.
- graywolfz10, on 02/06/2009, -3/+3@atchon
Science is looking for evidence and establish things as truth, no one can argue with that statement. But the system of scientific study requires a leap of faith every now and then.
when we talk about religion its a question of our selfs and our morals and ill be the first to admit allot of religions are giving you predetermined answers and not asking for questions, but im not talking about them im talking about peoples personal beliefs.
Your last statement is unfairly simple for a argument that is far more complex. your saying people only have two choices (religion or science) that in itself goes against sciences idea of keeping an open mind.
@wargasmic
Im not going to bother retort because its clearly a Regurgitation of a over used statement. At least put forth your own argument. - elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3@atchon and Wargasmic: Wrong.
Science is the study of the physical world around you. Faith is a belief that there is more to reality than what you can perceive with your senses. The two are not mutually contradictory. Your reply is like saying something is either green or is sweet. It is possible to be both, neither or one of the two, but thanks for playing, anyway.
- atchon, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2One requires evidence to establish something as true, one relies on faith and states that no real evidence is needed for anything.
- graywolfz10, on 02/06/2009, -6/+3Your clearly so much smarter then the rest of us. If religion doesn't work for you fine, but act so smug when all your doing is fallowing a fad.
- homercles337, on 02/06/2009, -14/+11I have said this before, but it cant be said enough. Religion and science are diametrically opposed. On one hand you have a philosophy of knowledge gathering that vehemently searches for all information that will contradict a current perspective. On the other, you have a philosophy that vehemently rejects all information that contradicts a current perspective and searches only for information that will support a current position. If this is not diametrical opposition, i dont know what is. If youre religious and claim to also be a scientist you have some serious problems with hypocrisy.
- Crimsoneer, on 02/06/2009, -3/+6I love how you get dugg down, but nobody can bring themselves to present a cogent argument against you...
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1See my reply in the previous thread (directly above, started by purkel).
Neither homercles337's definition of science nor of faith are accurate, and therefore his entire argument is flawed.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1See my reply in the previous thread (directly above, started by purkel).
- graywolfz10, on 02/06/2009, -4/+4Your only taking the most extreme of religions into account and your not counting people that don't follow any one dogma but believe in a god. If your all for gathering knowledge then its really hypocritical to lump everyone together and call them a problem.
I know your talking about religions that press there beliefs on others, and I agree with you 100% that they are only hindering people. But cant you see the parallel in clamming science is the only way and anyone that doesn't think just like you is a moron?
Your creating a new dogma.- homercles337, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3No. Science is the opposite of dogma. Question: If youre religious and "scientific" and youre presented with new information to further your knowledge which philosophy do you use to resolve this internal conflict? The religious one or the empirical one? How do you decide which to use? You can not choose both.
- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -3/+0You're... the contraction of "You" and "are". Learning how to use it will help you communicate more effectively.Here's a simple way to remember.
You = the person
Your = objects that he, she, or it owns or uses
You're = when the person is doing something, such as "You're talking about religion..." - graywolfz10, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3Science by itself is the opposite of dogma but what your doing to science is. Your saying its the only way and anyone that doesn't think that way is blastfamous.
I use my spiritual side for questions about myself and determining personal morals. I use my scientific side to ask questions about the world and things around me. and I use both to see how it effects me and the people around me.
Of Coarse there always going to overlap and blur but thats the way life is, No one thing is simply that black and white. But the thing we all have to remember is what works for you doesn't work for everyone else, so we need to keep our personal moral thoughts to ourself. thats where religion falters and thats where your way of thinking falters. - Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1You mean he is only counting people who take religion seriously, not those who just follow it for tradition's sake?
- graywolfz10, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1@suricou
No I said allot of times before that its people who believe in a god and have there own personal beliefs, not a social group you just made up.
- appleofdischord, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Gregor Mendel would disagree.
- homercles337, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4Mendel has been dead since the late 1800s--a very different time. I would argue that the scientific enlightenment against religion is much younger than that. To embrace atheism in the 1800s was to embrace social ostracization. In reality, Mendel was a confused man, but like many before and after him forgiveness is warranted given the time frame. In this day and age, there is no forgiveness for hypocrisy.
- dizavin, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2I like how all scientists get lumped together as physicists who are perusing the origins of the universe and life, itself.
you can be a perfectly capable geologist, biologist, chemist or mathematician and have robust religious convictions. and there are some.- homercles337, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2You have said nothing to rebut my position. If youre religious and "scientific" enjoy your hypocrisy. If it walks like hypocrisy and talks like hypocrisy, well...there you go.
- Crimsoneer, on 02/06/2009, -3/+6I love how you get dugg down, but nobody can bring themselves to present a cogent argument against you...
- CVL4317, on 02/06/2009, -7/+3instead of opposing science, try to live with it and we will have peace... wait we can't have peace in this world cause we can only have peace after the anti-christ war!!!
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1Science does not promise to bring peace.
It does promise to lead to the technology of war though. So even if it doesn't bring peace, you can at least be content with pieces.
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1Science does not promise to bring peace.
- twertyto, on 02/06/2009, -1/+33I don't get why is he picking on the Catholics. The Catholic Church is probably the most friendly to and accepting of science then any other Christian denomination.
Seems to me it would make more sense to address the young earth Christians.- noino1966, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4When you go for a target, you might as well go for the biggest...its why fat people sue McDonalds and not Harry's Burgers.
- offrdbandit, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1Picking a "target" to "go after" certainly sounds like a legitimate scientific endeavor to me.
I mean, isn't science supposed to be a tool for social, political, and philosophical manipulation of popular opinion?
Who are the real zealots?
- offrdbandit, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1Picking a "target" to "go after" certainly sounds like a legitimate scientific endeavor to me.
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Because they are the largest, and because they have a fully centralised organisation. This makes them by far the most influencial single denomination.
- noino1966, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4When you go for a target, you might as well go for the biggest...its why fat people sue McDonalds and not Harry's Burgers.
- bentaisan, on 02/06/2009, -8/+8What is the purpose of posting this opinion on DIGG?
The scientific know-how to perform IVF is not moral or ethical grounds to do or not do it, and the values statements are outside the scope of the scientific method.
Basically, you have one side saying "Yay!" and the other side saying "Boo!" and both have the same scientific grounds to do so.
Also, the writer seems to not really be arguing for why IVF is moral or ethical, but is just taking a tangential opportunity to attack the Catholic Church and traditional values.- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2What are 'traditional values'? Traditional from which period? Slavery? Arranged marriage? Witch-burning? Segregation? Traditional values is nothing more than a political codeword with no real meaning.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -9/+3As in every post about religion pro or con, I'll chime in in case you haven't heard from me. My name is Jim Sager. I know God is real, Jesus is Lord. Sept 2003, God spoke to me,"Good News" then I was guided divinely to a church where I received a Good News Bible. I never heard the anything of Jesus being referred as the Good News until I had the Good News Bible presented to me.
It is a very cool thing knowing you have eternal life. Thank God for that. Not only is eternal life good, but you get to spend it with God who can do anything. As good as your imagination is, God can make things better than anything you can dream of. All I'm doing on Earth is living to achieve eternal rewards. Letting people know God is real is important and so is helping the poor. If you read the New Testament, you can figure it all out yourself.
I'll engage in discussion with anyone who replies, is rational, and is not hurling insults.- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -3/+4Why is eternal life good?
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -5/+2It is without suffering, and we get to spend time with God who loves us.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2I guess. I just do not see the point in existance for existance sake. I mean unless we are learning and changing the point of just being and existing just seems kind of pointless to me.
- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2Other than by pointing to a passage in some ancient text, how do you know this concept that we live eternally? That the life will be without suffering? That lack of suffering is a good thing? And that God loves us... what does that mean? Because, if I'm a parent, and I love my children, then some suffering is a good thing, it helps them to understand, overcome, and learn to deal with challenges. Why would eternal life be without suffering? Nothing every happens that is a challenge?
- MWeather, on 02/06/2009, -4/+4"It is a very cool thing knowing you have eternal life."
Knowing is great. Faith is for fools.- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1You might want to read noino1966's post below. I couldn't have said it better myself.
- noino1966, on 02/06/2009, -3/+4
The size of the human ego never ceases to amaze me.- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1Well played, sir! You're my new hero :)
- appleofdischord, on 02/06/2009, -3/+26/10
- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -1/+6A rational discussion with a believer? But the very act of "believing," rather than "suspending belief until proven otherwise" is not rational. Human feelings are notorious for being based on things that are not reality. Example: You go to a party and overhear part of a conversation where your name is said, and some pretty harsh things. You feel hurt. And over the next few days, the hurt grows, until you're very angry with the two friends who were talking. You confront them. And they say, "We were talking about Jim in accounting, Jim Betton!" And all of those "feelings" you've had, and the hurt you caused yourself, were all based on fiction.
This illustrates why any rational person takes their feelings with a grain of salt and waits to get them supported by cold, hard fact. And that's where religion falls down. There are no cold, hard facts. It's all faith, belief, etc. Convince yourself and feel better! God may or may not exist. We have no proof either way. If God exists, he may care how we behave. He may not. We may be his children. We may not. Religious leaders may feel they have "talked" to God. Problem is, all the people who talk to God come up with such different messages that either God's lying to them (not perfect), OR they completely misunderstood what he was trying to say (he's a bad communicator?), OR they were deluded on felt that God spoke to them but wanted to add weight to their feelings and so claimed God spoke to them. Either way, there's no proof that God spoke to them.
Cut to the chase, and religion relies on people feeling their way into belief. Science requires you to question, object, try to prove it wrong. A completely different philosophy, and frankly, one that has much more to recommend it than a philosophy that starts with, "I can't prove any of this, but if you just believe hard enough..."- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Did you read my comment?
God proved himself to me. So I know he is real. It is more than belief, it is knowledge. - designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4Yes, God "proved" himself to you in the same fashion that he "proved" himself to Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon Church). Joseph's claims to knowledge, that his belief is more than belief, that it is knowledge is just as valid and real as yours. So what? Claiming you know, and that God proved himself to you is a testimonial, and has little real value in a discussion other than to establish your belief. It presents no testable, verifiable facts, and therefore requires the hearer to just believe you, or have faith.... which is NOT knowledge.
You didn't address the meat of my comment, missing the point that your feelings (where you seem to get your knowledge) aren't a reliable source. If you're talking about actual factual knowledge, as opposed to just a strong belief or hope, then share. Where and when did God prove himself to you? Were there witnesses? Did you get video, photos, take measurements? What does God look like? How does he sound? Did you record the conversation? Can you record one of your conversations? And how do you know the person you're speaking to is the God you claim you know? Maybe it's just a powerful, knowledgeable impersonator? Or fake? Or maybe you're just delusional.
If you asked me to prove my Dad exists, he is my father, I am his son, and he has certain abilities (like being able to breath, walk, talk, procreate), I could. I could offer volumes of proof that you don't have to take on faith. You could test every single piece of evidence yourself. After it was all over, the odds of my Dad not being my father, me his son, and him having those abilities would be proven enough to satisfy any reasonable person. Do you have any piece of factual evidence that God exists, you are his child, and he cares that you believe and proclaim the "Good News" of his message? Anything testable? I'm not talking about deductive reasoning here where you say, "The design in the Universe shows me God exists" because that's a reasoned (not testable) conclusion, and doesn't in fact support any of your other claims.
You asked for a discussion, come ahead. - elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2@designerutah: What do you call a fact? Let me give you an example. I have a wife, her name is Jana. She's absolutely awesome. But you've never met her, you've never seen her, you've never talked to her. Is she real? Is my position -- that my wife is a real person that I know, and whose existence I have experienced -- irrational simply because you have not shared any experiences with her?
On the other hand, like FaithclubDotNet, I have experienced God in my life. Therefore, my "belief" in God is knowledge. It is based upon my experience of God's existence. I can't prove to you that God exists, because you won't accept my testimony, nor that of FaithclubDotNet, nor that of any of the other people who have written of first hand accounts with what they believe was God. Why is it easy to believe that I do, in fact, have a wife but so difficult to accept that maybe -- just *perhaps* -- there is more to reality than what we can see around us? - nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3"Is my position -- that my wife is a real person that I know, and whose existence I have experienced -- irrational simply because you have not shared any experiences with her?"
There is a difference. The existence of your wife doesn't make much difference to us (no offence intended). The claim of a god makes a huge difference to ones perspective on existence. Therefore, claiming that a god exists is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I once saw a man in Santa Monica who dressed his cats in dolls clothes and claimed they were psychic. Should I trust him?
Anecdotal evidence has shown to be incredibly unreliable for many reasons. Anecdotal evidence would have us believe in all religions and deities, ghosts, UFO's, you name it. - designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Present your wife. Let's measure her. Ensure she's human. Look at records of your marriage certificate. Check her signature and yours. Establish that her legal names is Jana. It's not that your position is irrational simply because I've never met your wife. It's irrational because you have no physical evidence that God exists. You COULD produce plenty of physical evidence for the existence of Jana, and that she is indeed a woman and your wife. You can't do the same for God. You have experienced God like I've experienced Satan. Both are just as real and credible... meaning they are opinions, thoughts, etc., but not facts. You have no experience of God. None. Experience isn't the same as fact, knowledge, or proof. I can help you experience something very frightening.. while being in no danger at all. Was your experience real? The emotions were. The danger wasn't. In other words, the experience wasn't knowledge. If you knew you weren't in any danger, the emotions are far less compelling. There have been many studies on this, try looking them up. Read about how we process thoughts and stimulus and what that does to affect our perception of reality. Facts are things that are testable across different people's perceptions. And lastly, I don't have to believe in your wife. You're not trying to push belief in your wife, convert people to belief in your wife, etc. At least with your wife, I COULD see her too if I wanted to. You could arrange to meet me. I could take her blood, shake her hand, all the physical, indisputable ways we have of determining that she is a woman, and your wife. God doesn't measure up in terms of provability.
You like to term your reality as being influenced by God. Assume you're right. Now disprove that they guy who just murdered your wife wasn't a prophet being guided by God to destroy the anti-Christ as he claims. Claiming is easy. Basing belief on feelings, thoughts, and experiences is easy. It's also frequently wrong, else why would we have therapists and marriage counselors? The whole profession exists to help people change their perception and learn better ways to understand, interact, and communicate with others.
I don't accept testimony about your belief because it is a belief. Show me facts. Show me evidence. Because quite frankly, for every testimony you bring, there's someone else who believes just as firmly that God said something contrary to what you're claiming. If you said you had a wife named Jana, and someone else claimed you didn't, how would I know? I could believe one of you. I could even claim I knew. But other people would be just as correct to point out that I have no evidence either way, and therefore should withhold judgment. But, it is testable. If you really have a wife named Jana, you could prove it. With God, that's not true. Even harder is to prove he has a religion, or cares at all how we behave.
Here's an illustration to help you really understand your "experience of God" concept. If I were to make you wear glasses that turn the image your eyes receive upside down, your perception changes, reality does not. You would quickly get used to this new view, consciously adapting your behavior to your changed perception (like faith changes behavior based on perception). Then one morning, you wake and everything looks normal. All of the sudden, you perceive everything as being right-side up. Reality never changed, but your brain grew new neural pathways which make your upside-down glasses now look normal. Now I take the glasses off, and again, everything is upside down. You cope and consciously revise your perception, and your behavior. Then one morning, you wake up, and you perceive everything right-side up again. Your brain grew NEW neural pathways again. Point is, reality didn't change. Your perception did.
If God really exists AND we're really his kids AND he really cares enough about how we behave to have a religious organization designed to promote that behavior, it should be testable to all of us. Just like being able to test reality, to see which way gravitational pull would attract a dropped object. It should be measurable. It shouldn't be just faith, hope, and perception (or experience)! None of those are testable, or reliable. Otherwise, you would buy every great new product with a heartfelt testimonial, right? And when a muslim claims that the Christian God doesn't exist, but Allah forgives, you would believe. Or when a Satanist claims that Christ is really the anti-Christ and .... you get the picture. Claiming experience is a way of trying to support your beliefs without providing any evidence. Without evidence though... it's just a claim.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Did you read my comment?
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -3/+3"I never heard the anything of Jesus being referred as the Good News until I had the Good News Bible presented to me."
Well here's some "Bad News"...your god, in all likelihood, doesn't exist.
"Not only is eternal life good, but you get to spend it with God who can do anything."
What's the point? An eternity of brown-nosing your god? Thanks, but no thanks. - JigoroKano, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3Do you hear voices a lot?
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1No. Just that day.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -3/+4Why is eternal life good?
- cersad, on 02/06/2009, -1/+19This author totally missed another argument that the Catholic Church uses to oppose in-vitro fertilization that doesn't have to do with the "dignity of human life"--abortion. The objection raised is that IVF typically involves fertilizing multiple ova in the Petri dish so that there is a higher chance of implantation of a fertilized zygote and thus greater odds of a successful pregnancy. This method is probably a lot cheaper than fertilizing egg cells one at a time, and certainly makes it easier for average people to afford the surgery. However, the excess zygotes are either discarded or frozen to be preserved at a later date; the majority of these preserved zygotes probably lose their viability after a while.
Now, the Catholic Church believes that any fertilized ovum is a human life--all it takes in their definition of human life, apparently, is a full set of human chromosomes and the totipotency that these fertilized cells possess. When the extra zygotes are discarded, they are more or less "aborted" or murdered according to the idea that they are already a human life. The Church's opposition to IVF consistent with this ideology.
Personally, I'm not as convinced as the Vatican about the whole fertilization = human life thing, but I can't fault them for promoting a consistent doctrine. Leaving this tidbit of information out also shows a bit of the author's own bias, as he spoke wholly about the Vatican's statements about the "dignity of life," which are far easier to disagree with. I wouldn't care if I began in a Petri dish so long as I was alive today, it seems to me.- dizavin, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2that's kind of lame, though. if you are to opposed to IVF because of the zygotes that are discarded.. then you have no choice but to be resentful towards women who naturally have miscarriages. and besides, when a consenting couple decide to undergo IVF, from what I understand, the zygote is created from the eggs and sperm of the parents on a case-by-case basis. not taken from an inventory or something. your argument seems to imply that there's shelves and shelves of zygotes that are created and disposed of, as if they were stock at Best Buy.
and that simply isn't true.
now, if you want to make an agrument that these zygotes are alive? well yes, they technically are. but at the same time, any living thing is really only the sum of it's collective cells. so where do you draw the line? killing groups of cells happens to people every second of every day, inescapably. so can we label a zygote as human life and protect it by its potential to be a full-birth human despite the fact that the only thing that can really separate it from any other grouping of organs and flesh is the intelligence that I will not develop until much later in it's life?
the devil isn't in your details, in this one... the problem is the, mostly religious, drive to label human life as separate and unique from any other form of life in our universe and it's efforts to pinpoint a solid point where this divine spark is introduced into a human, when it's becoming clear that it simply isn't like that.
and that doesn't bode well for the religious.- offrdbandit, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2It's interesting you seem so reluctant to use capitalization unless you are referring to yourself.
That's probably indicative of something.
- offrdbandit, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2It's interesting you seem so reluctant to use capitalization unless you are referring to yourself.
- cersad, on 02/08/2009, -0/+1dizavin, you make a valid point. My goal was to try and elucidate more on the Church's stance and its consistency within itself--it's not really my opinions I was transmitting, since very few people care about my personal opinions over those of the Vatican's :-)
I do want to point out, though, that you mentioned some points that aren't exactly accurate. Although there is certainly no "Best Buy" of zygotes, there *are* multiple zygotes created during IVF, and the clinic cannot ethically destroy them without the consent of the parents who produced these eggs. As I said before, some are just discarded; others are preserved for posterity (eg, failed pregnancy, desire to have more children, etc--look up "snowflake baby" on wikipedia). Implantation success of IVF is also accused of being "too low," since the ova that fail to implant in the mother's uterus are flushed from the body, which is another "abortion" under the mindset that a totipotent zygote is a human life. Now I dislike this argument because we really have no basis of comparison--no data and no easy way of knowing the normal rate of implantation among fertilized ova.
I want to point out the word "totipotent" in describing these zygotes--it's a rather obscure terminology I picked up reading the religiously charged bioethics debate about stem cells. It means that these cells, unlike adult body cells, have the ability to produce the full spectrum of the human body, and it's an excellent way to qualify the cells you refer to when discussing them. This characteristic of the cells is definitely the defining distinction between them and other organs and tissue according to the Vatican and like-minded organizations. You can wax philosophical on what technicality of the pre-birth development you want to focus on, but Obama was spot-on when he quipped that his pay grade wasn't high enough to answer the question of when human life begins. There is a massive amount of complexity in that question, which is unfortunately being watered down by well-meaning people on both sides of the debate.
You might like the book "The Stem Cell Controversy" by Michael Ruse and Christopher Pines. It's a well-balanced collection of articles that discusses a huge variety of philosophies about the nature of these zygotes with the focus on stem cell research. It's closely related to the questions raised about IVF, none of which the author of this article really managed to discuss effectively.
- dizavin, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2that's kind of lame, though. if you are to opposed to IVF because of the zygotes that are discarded.. then you have no choice but to be resentful towards women who naturally have miscarriages. and besides, when a consenting couple decide to undergo IVF, from what I understand, the zygote is created from the eggs and sperm of the parents on a case-by-case basis. not taken from an inventory or something. your argument seems to imply that there's shelves and shelves of zygotes that are created and disposed of, as if they were stock at Best Buy.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -11/+7There is no conflict between science and the Bible that I know of.
- entropysteak, on 02/06/2009, -5/+8hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahah
wait, you're serious?- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -3/+5Yes, he was. Do you have anything worthwhile to rebut his claim with, or are you content to mock without supporting your position?
- Crimsoneer, on 02/06/2009, -8/+7The whole god thing, and the total lack of evidence for his existence?
Also, logical argument suggests that if there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent force, the world would be perfect. It isn't.- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -9/+5"The whole god thing"
You say that as if you made a point.
"and the total lack of evidence for his existence?"
His creation is evidence for His existence
"logical argument suggests that if there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent force, the world would be perfect. It isn't."
It is perfect in that it was made EXACTLY according to His design. - appleofdischord, on 02/06/2009, -3/+6Crimsoneer, you're giving atheists a bad name.
- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3Kelly: Where is "his" creation? Or do you mean the Universe is proof of his existence?
It may be perfect in that it was made exactly according to his design, but if that's the case, then God is either really bad at telling his children how to behave, or he doesn't much care what we do.
Think about it this way. If God knows what we're going to do before we do it, and he has all power, AND he wants us to behave in certain ways, why can't he get a clear message across? Millions of churches, surely God would be able to overwhelm the churches that aren't HIS? - nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -1/+5"His creation is evidence for His existence"
Umm, no. When we look at the universe we see process, not creation. Example: we know how stars and planets form. God doesn't 'create' them. - elementop, on 02/06/2009, -3/+1@designerutah: I recommend Louie Giglio's "Indescribable" video.
@nitsuj: I maintain that we don't "know" anything by science, at least not to the degree of certainty you imply. For an explanation of why, you might want to study the philosophy of Hume. You can find a discussion of Hume's thinking at http://www.radicalacademy.com/phildavidhume2.htm. To sum up, we see causes and we see effects. However, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, and think it through, you realize that we don't *ever* see the mechanism by which causes, well, cause their effects. However, since cause "a" always seems to result in effect "b", we assume that they are related. This approach works well enough in everyday life -- our modern technology is proof of that -- but at the subatomic level, what really happens? Furthermore, our span of observation is not long enough for the degree of certainty you claim. "We know how stars and planets form." Have you ever witnessed the entire process, from start to finish? No? Then we have very good mathematical models that seem to describe to a reasonable degree of accuracy the processes by which stars and planets form, but you are fooling yourself to think that we actually *know* this. - KainDL, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1"Also, logical argument suggests that if there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent force, the world would be perfect. It isn't. "
Just because you don't think the world is perfect, does not make it not perfect. While I personally agree with you, you really shouldn't make blanket statements like this when argueing theology. - nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2"Have you ever witnessed the entire process, from start to finish? No? Then we have very good mathematical models that seem to describe to a reasonable degree of accuracy the processes by which stars and planets form, but you are fooling yourself to think that we actually *know* this."
We "know" something when we have a high degree of certainty. Science doesn't claim to know something 100% ever. That's not the way it works.
I "know" that if I drop a ball it will fall to the ground. But, it is not 100% certain. I may, in a case of strange quantum state, be wrong despite "knowing".
So, I'd say that we can know something whilst there is still a degree of uncertainty regarding the details. And I'd maintain that nothing we currently observe about the universe appears to work via divine intervention. But we do see myriad physical processes at play.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -9/+5"The whole god thing"
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -5/+2dugg
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -4/+6Evolution negates the fall of man. If man did not fall in the garden of eden. Then Jesus does not need to die for our sins. This negates christianity.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2How does the concept of evolution negate the fall of man? I would think the two ideas are mutually exclusive.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3If you assume there was actually an Adam and Eve living in the garden of eden. This goes against the idea of Evolution. With out Adam and Eve there is no fall of man. You could easily say that the whole creation story is just an analogy for the condition of man and is not supposed to be taken literally. But then you can basically interpret the bible any way you would like.
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3Hetman is correct for all those wishing to literally accept the bible. The theory of evolution shows that all life is connected and evolved. The human life line did not begin with a created man and a women somehow taken from his rib.
Without Adam and Eve you don't have the original sin. Without original sin the whole motive behind the Jesus story is wrong. It all comes tumbling down like a house of cards. - FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1@Hetman
How does the Garden of Eden go against Evolution? I see no conflicts at all. God makes all animals and plants which he may have used evolution as a tool. Do you know a day for God does not have to be a strict 24 hour period? God makes man from the soil. Evolution is a process of change of genes which is happening now. But you can't say that Evolution claims to know the origins of life. - nitsuj, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2"God makes man from the soil. "
No, man evolved as a primate from prior lifeforms going all the way back to ocean dwelling animals. That's what evolution theory stipulates and that's what the evidence shows.
Man wasn't spontaneously created and Eve wasn't created from his rib. The bible is wrong.
- JigoroKano, on 02/06/2009, -1/+4Especially the talking serpent, talking bush, flying horses, flying peoples, zombies, ...
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1Those are specific events that God used his power to make happen. That has nothing to do with science. I think you're overstepping yourself to say that just because God set powers in space to go that he cannot change things along the way.
I don't recall there being zombies in the Bible, but there are points when the dead come back to life.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1Those are specific events that God used his power to make happen. That has nothing to do with science. I think you're overstepping yourself to say that just because God set powers in space to go that he cannot change things along the way.
- museamongmen, on 02/07/2009, -1/+1Guys, look at his name. Look! Perhaps that makes more sense now.
- entropysteak, on 02/06/2009, -5/+8hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahah
- Olelefty, on 02/06/2009, -5/+3When the Catholic Church partnered with the Republican Party in 2000, the more conservative clergy were elevated to prominent positions in the Church. This trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. We liberal Catholics - you know, the ones who told the Church to stuff it and voted for Obama in droves - despair of the direction the church is going. This coming Sunday we will treated to a lecture on the rhythm method. How discredited is that?
- VictoriaMaria, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1The lecture is probably about NFP. Natural Family Planning isn't the rhythm method. It's cross-checking signs like temperature and other factors to see when a woman is fertile and not have sex on those days if you can't have a child at the moment.
- plainOldFool, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3Last time I checked both John Kerry and Joe Biden are Catholics.
- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -0/+0Not to mention Nancy Pelosi and others - and they were all scolded by the Church because they support certain political positions that are decidedly anti-Catholic. (Notably, they are all pro-choice.)
My point is, calling yourself a Catholic does not make your a Catholic. I think there are many issues that allow you to stray from the Church line, but abortion is a seminal moral issue for the Church, and there is little leeway for a practicing Catholic to make up his own mind about it. - plainOldFool, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3Disagree 110%! I am Catholic and I am pro-choice. I don't give a hoot about the Vatican's view on when life begins. Being Catholic does not mean that I have to believe life begins at conception. I am against late term abortions because that would occure after when *I* believe life begins (when electrical impulses are transmitted from the fetal brain the rest of the body ... biologically self aware ... I 'think' therefore I am). I couldn't get give a rats ass if Ratzinger agrees or not.
- confuseddesi, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1To be Catholic means to abide by the laws and dogmatic decisions of the Church. If you don't agree with the Church on these issues, switch religions. Seriously. By denying the ability for the Church to dictate tradition, you have denied one of the basic tenets of Cathoicism. Protestants don't agree with that tenet either. Just join one of their churches.
- KublaiKhan, on 02/06/2009, -0/+0Not to mention Nancy Pelosi and others - and they were all scolded by the Church because they support certain political positions that are decidedly anti-Catholic. (Notably, they are all pro-choice.)
- shiftclick, on 02/06/2009, -12/+5Ahhh. the Digg.com MO. Almost forgot: Suck Obama, Bash Religion, Look at this picture that someone else created. Good stuff. Buried.
- methdwman3, on 02/06/2009, -1/+4In my Catholic school days, the big knock on IVF was what happened to the unused embryos. This was about 10-12 years ago, however.
- GlitchEnzo, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1The issue I remember being taught was that they create a certain number of embryos and "inject" them all with the assumption that most will die but one will hopefully manage to survive. Essentially sacrificing several human lives just to produce one.
- Suricou, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2A typical procedure creates six or so. The technician picks the best-looking two based on a visual inspection, and the rest are either discarded, frozen or used for research (The patient gets to choose). The two judged to look healthiest are then put into the woman. Two, because IVF is an expensive and unpleasant procedure, and the chances of one embryo surviving are slim. Using two means a greater chance of at least one making it to term.
- GlitchEnzo, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1The issue I remember being taught was that they create a certain number of embryos and "inject" them all with the assumption that most will die but one will hopefully manage to survive. Essentially sacrificing several human lives just to produce one.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -10/+2The title and summary is so condescending in that it follows the same old atheist party line that the secular world's understanding of science *IS* science and the theistic view is one based on faith.
That's plain nonsense.
The problem with this way of thinking is that those that follow the former viewpoint don't even recognize that the theistic view has equal if not greater scientific evidence that reinforces the Biblical point of view.
Science is not a popularity contest and thus the majority viewpoint does not dictate what is considered scientifically acurate but rather what can be tested and verified when looking at the evidence.
Here are a few scientific resources that regularly publish peer reviewed studies that reinforce information as presented in the Bible:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://bsa-ca.org/
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.icr.org/evidence/- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -2/+8I buried you just for answersingensis.org. That website is completly bogus. Maybe 1% of there articles have been peer reviewed by actual scientists. Stop spreading misinformation about your so called peer reviewed sites like answeringensis.org.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -6/+2"Maybe 1% of there articles have been peer reviewed by actual scientists."
All of their studies have been peer reviewed. The fact that you disagree with their findings doesn't negate them.
For the record, I dugg you down for burying science because you disagree with its findings. Stop trying to call science misinformation. - Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -1/+6I did not bury you. I do not bury people unless they say something ridicilous. They have not been peer reviewed by experts. I have looked through that site many times. I have read many articles from them. They are in disagreement with the majority of the scientific community. I am not saying that this completly negates them. But when the majority of experts in a field agree A certian way and you only have a fringe group of self peer reviewed articles then I am going to go with the experts.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -6/+2"They have not been peer reviewed by experts."
And you know this how? (Don't tell me its because their findings disagree with those whom you agree with.
"I have looked through that site many times. I have read many articles from them."
As have I.
"They are in disagreement with the majority of the scientific community."
Science is not a popularity contest.
"I am not saying that this completly negates them."
It doesn't negate them at all.
"But when the majority of experts in a field agree A certian way and you only have a fringe group of self peer reviewed articles then I am going to go with the experts."
Keep in mind that the majority of experts at one time believed that the world was flat and held up by giant elephants.
Keep in mind that verifiable scientific evidence that has been tested is exactly that and ought not be negated. If there is equal evidence to support both arguments it doesn't matter what the majority accept as it only proves that a greater understanding needs to be considered. In this case, If the majority tends to lean towards one way despite equal evidence for two scientific conclusions then its an indicator of majority's consideration that the social implications of the alternate evidence is not something they are willing to consider.
I.E. if creationism evidence is considered a possibility (as indeed it is when looking at the evidence), then all the other implications (those being God, a moral absolute, heaven and hell etc etc etc) also suddenly are given equal possibility for consideration.
When the evidence is split, man's sinful nature would naturally be more inclined to give more credence to the possibility that there isn't a moral authority. (hence the widespread acceptance of evolution, big bang etc.. despite equal if not greater evidence to the contrary.) This also explains why the scientific majority wont even allow theistic scientific studies to be published in scientific journals that are governed by that same scientific majority. - Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -2/+5The evidence is not split though. There is a side that has more evidence. I really do not care if you accept it or not. Believe what ever makes you happy. Just please try not to legislate your morality and I am fine with what ever you do.
- angelgabe, on 02/06/2009, -2/+5I am a scientist and your websites are bogus. Have you ever even read a peer reviewed scientific journal? We cite other works by doctors and specialists whom perform studies at accredited institutions. The garbage I'm reading on answersingenesis is citing the bible and other "creation scientists" who cite the bible. The articles are not remotely scientific. There are no experiments listed, no methods, no materials, no variables, no hypothesis, no results, no way to recreate anything that is claimed. It's one long abstract. This isn't science, this is preaching. The "peers" that "review" these articles aren't real scientists either, and not because of their beliefs (I wouldn't be so petty as to say you weren't a scientist just because you have faith as well) but because of their methodology. There's nothing to peer review here. This periodical simply puts their stamp of approval on anything that supports their way of thought. This is not remotely scientific.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2@Hetman,
"The evidence is not split though. There is a side that has more evidence."
Actually I believe that to be true, however I get the hunch that you somehow think the majority of the evidence resides on the opposite one the one I claim it to be.
"Believe what ever makes you happy."
Same goes to you.
"Just please try not to legislate your morality and I am fine with what ever you do."
Interesting as I was hoping that people like you would not try to legislate controversial issues based on the idea that there is not a moral absolute. I am fine with what ever you do. - kelly, on 02/06/2009, -3/+2@angelgabe
"I am a scientist and your websites are bogus."
The fact that you assume that the sites solely site the Bible as a reference shows that what is bogus is your opinion of those web sites.
"Have you ever even read a peer reviewed scientific journal?"
Frequently actually.
"We cite other works by doctors and specialists whom perform studies at accredited institutions. The garbage I'm reading on answersingenesis is citing the bible and other "creation scientists" who cite the bible."
Here we go... they are not siting the Bible as evidence. Rather, they are siting the Bible as the reference point to which their scientific evidence is corroborated.
"The articles are not remotely scientific."
If they only sited the Bible, then that statement would be true if you didn't accept the Bible as evidence in and of itself.
"There are no experiments listed, no methods, no materials, no variables, no hypothesis, no results, no way to recreate anything that is claimed."
You're not looking then. The web site is primarily comprised of information resulting from the methods, materials, and variables. As far as a hypothesis is concerned, that would be the corroboration to the Bible you just referenced. I subscribe to their printed quarterly which provides the information you assume is not there.
"It's one long abstract. This isn't science, this is preaching."
No, no and no.
"The "peers" that "review" these articles aren't real scientists either"
And how do you know this?
"and not because of their beliefs (I wouldn't be so petty as to say you weren't a scientist just because you have faith as well) but because of their methodology."
You drew a conclusion without collecting all the evidence or without seeking out evidence beyond what was on the surface. Coincidentally it IS all there. Are you sure you are a scientist or did you come to that conclusion because that's what you had printed on your business card?
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -6/+2"Maybe 1% of there articles have been peer reviewed by actual scientists."
- noisician, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4oh you're funny...
but you forgot your </sarcasm> tag at the end of your post- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -4/+2Thanks, I am I funny guy, and my post didn't need a </sarcasm> tag. If it did I would have added it.
You however forgot to add the <lame> tag to your post.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -4/+2Thanks, I am I funny guy, and my post didn't need a </sarcasm> tag. If it did I would have added it.
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -1/+6Kelly, you don't know the meaning of peer review. Hint: creation fanatics patting each other on the back is not peer review.
There's a reason the information on these sites has failed the scrutiny of the scientific community. And it isn't because of theism - many genuine scientists have theistic beliefs. No, it is because they are bad science.
In particular, the last one is just bible quotes laced with huge wads of fail.- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3"Kelly, you don't know the meaning of peer review."
Perhaps you don't considering the mistaken generalization about what these sites have published.
"Hint: creation fanatics patting each other on the back is not peer review."
Thankfully, their research is so much more extensive.
"There's a reason the information on these sites has failed the scrutiny of the scientific community."
You drew a conclusion without even making a case for it. Hint: it HASN'T failed the scrutiny of the scientific community.
"And it isn't because of theism - many genuine scientists have theistic beliefs. No, it is because they are bad science."
Its becoming obvious that you didn't even read the peer review studies to which you are so quick to discredit.
In particular, the last one is just bible quotes laced with huge wads of fail.
As I referenced to angelgabe, the information you read on the web site is primarily comprised of information resulting from the methods, materials, and variables. As far as a hypothesis is concerned, that would be the corroboration to the Bible you reference. I subscribe to their printed quarterly which provides the information you assume is not there.
- kelly, on 02/06/2009, -2/+3"Kelly, you don't know the meaning of peer review."
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -2/+8I buried you just for answersingensis.org. That website is completly bogus. Maybe 1% of there articles have been peer reviewed by actual scientists. Stop spreading misinformation about your so called peer reviewed sites like answeringensis.org.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 02/06/2009, -7/+4Religion is the anchor of moral society! And as moral society is forced to drag that anchor in it's quest for progress.
- Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2 No it's not..Religion wants you to THINK it's the anchor for moral society.
How moral is this stuff?
"And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it." ) He then burned the complainers alive
After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." 16:41-50
Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14
Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. 24:16
# More plagues and pestilence sent by God. God repeats one of his favorite promises: "your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness." 14:12, 29, 14:32-37
# God punishes the children for the failings of their great-great grandfathers. 14:18
God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor." "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men."
Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3
God "put the plague of leprosy" into the houses of the Canaanites. 14:34
# Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. 20:2-5
# "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9
# Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10
# If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. 20:11
# If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. 20:12
# If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13
# If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14
# If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed. 20:15-16
# People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27
# A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death. 21:9
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Is it just me,or is this god not a real piece of sadistic work?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.htm ...
- Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+2 No it's not..Religion wants you to THINK it's the anchor for moral society.
- doctorf1956, on 02/06/2009, -1/+2Pixelante,
Love the stridency of your comment, but yikes, are you into horror flicks? As a biomedical scientist there are some "unintended" consequences in what we do. Never hurts to consider consequences. Mary Shelley hits on that point when she wrote the epic novel, Frankenstein. - henline, on 02/06/2009, -9/+3***** the Catholics
- amightywynde, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3Would those modern realities include the dismemberment of a child inside a mother's womb?
- Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1 It's not a child,it's a small knot of cells.
- Waterrat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1 It's not a child,it's a small knot of cells.
- bigfeets, on 02/06/2009, -3/+9For those of you who think the Catholic church is opposed to science - you might want to see what this man had to say about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel- kukurio, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4Or this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
- kukurio, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4Or this man:
- datastorageguy, on 02/06/2009, -8/+4Because science doesn't disprove God. If our observable universe is dictated by laws (whether they be classical or relativistic) that are measurable and testable, then it would be presumed that God created these laws.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -0/+4How can you presume that? It is just as likely they are just biproducts of the big bang.
- pmoy, on 02/06/2009, -4/+3How then did the Big Bang come to be? This line of questioning goes nowhere.
- datastorageguy, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1Presumed by the Catholic church and the Christian religion in general. Just stating what is believed.
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -1/+5"How then did the Big Bang come to be?"
Then how did god come to be?
Still, science doesn't disprove god. It certainly makes many of the claims in the bible seem incredibly unlikely.
God himself (itself?) seems to be suspiciously absent though.- datastorageguy, on 02/06/2009, -3/+1You do realize that, before the universe began via the big bang, there was no universe? Time, matter, energy didn't even exist. To ask "how did God come to be" isn't a question that can even be answered by any means we know of, or could know of, in this universe.
- elementop, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1unlikely != false, however.
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -1/+2"Time, matter, energy didn't even exist."
Actually, I don't think that's in line with current understanding. Everything exists close to T=0 but I don't think we've predicted that nothing existed at exactly T=0. It's a singularity which means a total break down of what we can predict.
"To ask "how did God come to be" isn't a question that can even be answered by any means we know of, or could know of, in this universe."
I was actually posing 'pmoy' a question that also goes nowhere. We don't know how the universe came to be and, if you believe in god, then you don't know how he/she/it came to be either.
The difference is that we know for sure that the universe exists.
- crimson117, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Religion is meant to help people cope with the unexplainable.
Once something can be explained, and enough people know it (and thus no longer need to cope), religion moves on to explain other unexplainable things.
It's a constant race:
- Science explains things, first slowly with theories, then later with experiments and hopefully proof.
- Religion tries to coerce scientists to stop trying to explain things, and tries to demonize scientists in the eyes of the religion's followers
- Eventually, the scientific explanation overtakes the religion's explanation in common knowledge
- The religion either fades away as outdated, or adapts to help people cope with the latest unexplainable things
Here are some things that religion used to explain, but science has since overtaken in common knowledge:
- Lights racing across the sky (they're planets and stars, not greek/roman gods)
- People falling ill (they're viruses, not evil spirits)
- How humans came to be (evolution, not insta-creation... though religion is still hanging onto this one)
Here are some things religion should still be there to explain:
- What happens to our consciousness when we die?
- What is "outside" our universe?- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4Religion is ONE method of explaining things that are not understood. Philosophy is another. Spirituality, meditation, etc. are other methods.
Religion, in the end, is emotional comfort food for people who would rather "believe" than know. For the rest of us, reality works just fine.
PS: Religion doesn't actually explain anything. It certainly doesn't explain what happens to our consciousness when we die, or what is "outside" our universe. It offers explanations and people HOPE it's true. But real explanations await science, not religion. Want to know what happens to your consciousness when you die? Just wait, you'll find out soon enough. And "outside" our universe? Today it's a thought experiment, tomorrow travel to another Universe may be a reality. - Cameleopard, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1"Here are some things religion should still be there to explain:"
Why? These questions can be more reasonably addressed through philosophy, based on what we DO know rather than an entirely invented series of sky hooks and pedantry. Religion is not a legitimate authority on anything; its demesne is wholly self-appointed and its motives are quite often self-serving. How does that deserve respect? What makes it more competent at addressing the unknown than philosophy?
- designerutah, on 02/06/2009, -2/+4Religion is ONE method of explaining things that are not understood. Philosophy is another. Spirituality, meditation, etc. are other methods.
- phphreak, on 02/06/2009, -3/+1This article is a joke, and rife with inaccuracies. It's not worth correcting, it's so bad.
- glaz, on 02/06/2009, -1/+0We must do everything that we can. Always.
- phphreak, on 02/06/2009, -8/+1Read a book called "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" and educate yourselves. See you believers in Church this Sunday.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10How about you read how the muslim world saved Western Civlization. Almost every work of all great pre western philisophers like aristotle and plato, were lost during the dark ages. This is due to the christian Church destroying these works. During this time fortunatly the Muslims were the most advanced society on the planet. They saved these works. Eventually they were recovered by Christians during the Crusades. These fundemental works of western society is what caused the beggining of the enlightenment. If not we may still be in the dark ages.
- phphreak, on 02/07/2009, -1/+1This is factually wrong on so many levels. Muslim civilization was expanding until around 1200, after which it faltered horribly compared to the West. Today's radical Muslims hope to get back to those "glory days". The Muslim nations "were" the most advanced society on the planet, but now they are a joke.
- Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10How about you read how the muslim world saved Western Civlization. Almost every work of all great pre western philisophers like aristotle and plato, were lost during the dark ages. This is due to the christian Church destroying these works. During this time fortunatly the Muslims were the most advanced society on the planet. They saved these works. Eventually they were recovered by Christians during the Crusades. These fundemental works of western society is what caused the beggining of the enlightenment. If not we may still be in the dark ages.
- pmoy, on 02/06/2009, -5/+3Science governs the realm of what we can do. Religion and personal morality govern the realm of what we should do. The two intersect when we say to science, no you shouldn't do that. This is why all medical testing has to go through ethical reviews. Sure the science is there, but that doesn't make it right for it to proceed. The objection of IVF by the Catholic Church is mostly about the accompanying abortion of the 'unused' embryos. The Church is not saying it is not possible to do IVF, it is saying that it believes that IVF is not right to do. How you feel about that is your own opinion, but in a pluralistic society people are allowed to hold whatever opinion they want, and often are granted the freedom of speech to say it.
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Personal morality and ethics do not have to be linked with religion at all.
- museamongmen, on 02/07/2009, -1/+1No, but (ideally) they support one another, and given the intents of most religions, the overlap is to be expected.
- nitsuj, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Personal morality and ethics do not have to be linked with religion at all.
- cameldung, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1@doctorf1956 - I understand it to be scientific consensus in the scienctific field of Human Embryology that a distinct human life begins at the moment of sperm-egg fusion. It is at this point that the new distinct human's genes are determined. I am not sure about any arguments as to whether a sperm or egg is "alive" individually - i am only speaking to beginning of a human life.
It is also my understanding that though consensus is found in this field of science that public opinion does not necessarily reflect that of science. Which is to say that there are those with pro-life views that like to draw attention to this scientific view (if they happen to be aware of it) and those with pro-choice views that like to ignore this scientific view (if presented with it). There are also those who are simply aren't aware of this scientific consensus.
If the Catholic Church places value on every human life it is simply being consistant with its view on IVF because its accepts science's definition of when a human life begins. IT appears that Mr. Krauss either has an inconsistant view on human life or does not accpt the consensus on when human life begins - which is his totally right - go freedom of thought! He is simply wrong to suggest that the Church is anti-science for not accepting his view. - ajb2015, on 02/06/2009, -4/+8i'm def smarter then any dumb religious people hahaha, doing science gives me orgasims
- grantmoore3d, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3Dugg for the shear idiocy of your statement.
- kaosethema, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1buahahahaha
there's always one idiot, dugg nonetheless. - museamongmen, on 02/07/2009, -0/+3I will give a churchgoer capable of correct spelling and proper grammar more credit than you considering they haven't exchanged their sanity for belief. Stop making science look bad, please.You will be allowed to use your chemistry set in due time.
- Topheh, on 02/07/2009, -0/+0To make orgasisms?
- gixxer600, on 02/07/2009, -1/+2the part that disturbed me was that they think those ppl dont have " a soul" and no human dignity ......WTF do they want another holocaust cause that's what happens when u devalue human life......good thing IVF.vs regular sex ppl cant be differentiated from .....................yea these religious nuts are really moral saying ppl dont have dignity ...very nice /s
- Yage2006, on 02/07/2009, -3/+6Oh look the pedophile priest nazi brigage wants to teach us bio-ethics lets listen to them.
- TheTorontonian, on 02/07/2009, -1/+1Man, why don't ya all know? The church has ignored it ever since it's immaculate conception!
- globewideweb, on 02/07/2009, -7/+0In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth... -Gen 1:1; thats science.
http://catholic-bulletin.blogspot.com - tehknotte, on 02/08/2009, -0/+1they don't ignore it stop trying to pretend they do
- bentaisan, 4 hr 10 min ago, -0/+1Traditional values are whatever you believe, inverted.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, 3 hr 23 min ago, -0/+1I am glad my error got you to say all that because it is great and I enjoyed it. My error was failure to express sarcasm in text.