Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

i believe in separation of church and state..that science, and our national laws, be kept separate from religion. when the religious begin demanding equal laws for all abominations in the bible to be equally punished i might reconsider my view of their selective reasoning. at least i would understand where they are coming from. right now they are just picking a few issues and that is what undermines their efforts.

those who want to make this a religion-based nation need to go all the way or give up their selective battles because they are just proving to the rest of us that they agree SOME religion points are unrealistic and can be ignored but others are more godly-inspired and must be followed by all..it screws the sincerity of the message.

Markwes wrote:The problem with your logic is that as an athiest, you simply believe any opinion based on religious beliefs should be discarded. And yet I'm assuming you wouldn't believe it would be okay to do research on terminally ill people that hadn't previously been done because of harmful side effects. Why not? Just think of the possible medical breakthoughs working with live people. Point is, what you think is right and wrong is an OPINION.

See what happens when you assume?

Lets not put our friend FF in the middle of the definition of the scientific method. No preconceived observations or opinions held from ANY metaphysical belief system should be included in the scientific method. By nature the scientific method seeks to filter out such preconceived notions and setup a test to confirm or prove the hypothesis.

For example, to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is not a hypothesis that can be tested by the scientific method.

floridafun wrote:i believe in separation of church and state..that science, and our national laws, be kept separate from religion. when the religious begin demanding equal laws for all abominations in the bible to be equally punished i might reconsider my view of their selective reasoning. at least i would understand where they are coming from. right now they are just picking a few issues and that is what undermines their efforts.

those who want to make this a religion-based nation need to go all the way or give up their selective battles because they are just proving to the rest of us that they agree SOME religion points are unrealistic and can be ignored but others are more godly-inspired and must be followed by all..it screws the sincerity of the message.

But FF, these same people who hold these beliefs have just as much right to enter their ideas into the democratic government that we have in place. That's magnificent democracy! There is no law that establishes the scientific method as the only method to prove out "truth" or fact.

Mort wrote:Your talking faith based bullshit Markwes it has no proof at all

Your talking bullshit my friend

What was it you think I am trying to prove? All I said is that it's one opinion versus another.

Actually Mort, you're making my point. There are non-religious people who believe that stem cell research is immoral. There are religious people who don't have a problem with it (you did read my first post in this thread right?). And yet, since the majority of those against it are religious, it becomes a "faith-based" issue in your mind. I look at it as a "moral versus non-moral" issue. The factors in your life that have influenced your morals may be different from mine, but that doesn't mean either are "wrong".

floridafun wrote:i agree mort!

and this is crazy---"And yet I'm assuming you wouldn't believe it would be okay to do research on terminally ill people that hadn't previously been done because of harmful side effects. Why not? Just think of the possible medical breakthoughs working with live people."

why the fuck would i feel it would be ok to do research with likely negative side effects on my relative who is terminally ill???? stupid analogy of post-born human beings versus cells, NOT in a state of survival capability outside a lab or womb, that are doomed to the dumpster anyway if scientists dont take them and use them. better if they are discreetly tossed?

Testy aren't we? I guess because you say it's a stupid analogy, then it must be one. Everything I say goes over your head anyway, so I don't know why I bother.

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:The problem with your logic is that as an athiest, you simply believe any opinion based on religious beliefs should be discarded. And yet I'm assuming you wouldn't believe it would be okay to do research on terminally ill people that hadn't previously been done because of harmful side effects. Why not? Just think of the possible medical breakthoughs working with live people. Point is, what you think is right and wrong is an OPINION.

See what happens when you assume?

Lets not put our friend FF in the middle of the definition of the scientific method. No preconceived observations or opinions held from ANY metaphysical belief system should be included in the scientific method. By nature the scientific method seeks to filter out such preconceived notions and setup a test to confirm or prove the hypothesis.

For example, to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is not a hypothesis that can be tested by the scientific method.

So do you think topics like abortion and stem cell research can only be condemned if you have a metaphysical belief?

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:The problem with your logic is that as an athiest, you simply believe any opinion based on religious beliefs should be discarded. And yet I'm assuming you wouldn't believe it would be okay to do research on terminally ill people that hadn't previously been done because of harmful side effects. Why not? Just think of the possible medical breakthoughs working with live people. Point is, what you think is right and wrong is an OPINION.

See what happens when you assume?

Lets not put our friend FF in the middle of the definition of the scientific method. No preconceived observations or opinions held from ANY metaphysical belief system should be included in the scientific method. By nature the scientific method seeks to filter out such preconceived notions and setup a test to confirm or prove the hypothesis.

For example, to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is not a hypothesis that can be tested by the scientific method.

So do you think topics like abortion and stem cell research can only be condemned if you have a metaphysical belief?

No, I'll try to be a little more clear. I have yet to hear a reason or argument opposed to stem cell research that is not founded in a faith-based opinion about protecting the sanctity of the life of a fetus. So, I have nothing to compare to. Also, I'm saying nothing about the pro-SSR people that are also agnostic or atheist. Seems to me they if don't think God exists, they wouldn't make an argument one way or another expressing the will of any metaphysical higher power.

I don't think I'm alone by saying that I don't completely understand what question you are asking. I understood your point about differences of OPINION. How does the rest of the stuff you said fit into the last few posts you've made?

meta4 wrote:No, I'll try to be a little more clear. I have yet to hear a reason or argument opposed to stem cell research that is not founded in a faith-based opinion about protecting the sanctity of the life of a fetus. So, I have nothing to compare to. Also, I'm saying nothing about the pro-SSR people that are also agnostic or atheist. Seems to me they if don't think God exists, they wouldn't make an argument one way or another expressing the will of any metaphysical higher power.

I don't think I'm alone by saying that I don't completely understand what question you are asking. I understood your point about differences of OPINION. How does the rest of the stuff you said fit into the last few posts you've made?

I think our differences can be summed up pretty well in your referring to the sanctity of life of a fetus as a faith-based opinion. I simply call that an opinion. Now, if the only argument you have ever heard against SSR is "because I belong to such and such religion and they tell me we're opposed to it", then I would say you are right. But isn't it possible that a little kid in public school could be shown a picture of a fetus in the womb and decide for herself that it's an actual human?

I have tried to elude to this before, and it's a hard concept to explain, but I'll try another approach. Based on what I know about you, I would safely say that if you were walking behind some guy on the street and he dropped his wallet, I believe you would tell him about it as opposed to picking it up and taking whatever free stuff he has in it. Why do suppose that is, when you likely get nothing from being honest? Somewhere down the road, you had influences tell you that honesty is best. It might have been parents, teachers, or any number of things. And yes, just about any church would tell you that as well. Certainly you wouldn't refer to honesty as strictly a faith-based quality just because Christians believe it?

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:I don't think I'm alone by saying that I don't completely understand what question you are asking. I understood your point about differences of OPINION. How does the rest of the stuff you said fit into the last few posts you've made?

I think our differences can be summed up pretty well in your referring to the sanctity of life of a fetus as a faith-based opinion. I simply call that an opinion. Now, if the only argument you have ever heard against SSR is "because I belong to such and such religion and they tell me we're opposed to it", then I would say you are right. But isn't it possible that a little kid in public school could be shown a picture of a fetus in the womb and decide for herself that it's an actual human?

I have tried to elude to this before, and it's a hard concept to explain, but I'll try another approach. Based on what I know about you, I would safely say that if you were walking behind some guy on the street and he dropped his wallet, I believe you would tell him about it as opposed to picking it up and taking whatever free stuff he has in it. Why do suppose that is, when you likely get nothing from being honest? Somewhere down the road, you had influences tell you that honesty is best. It might have been parents, teachers, or any number of things. And yes, just about any church would tell you that as well. Certainly you wouldn't refer to honesty as strictly a faith-based quality just because Christians believe it?

Well, there you go... nail on the head.