quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
It is very plain from the postings on this site that the stance of atheists is something along the lines of "We're too intelligent and trained in the ways of science to believe in God"...

Pay attention now, this is a straw man.
You have mis-represented the position of others and are now arguing against that mis-representation.

quote:

Which is exactly how the Bible 2,000 years ago foretold that men would react.

Which is entirely irrelevant as your characterisation is false.
Myself and, as far as I have seen, your caricature applies to no atheist posting here.
I would explain my position as "I have been trained to evaluated evidence, and see absolutely nothing that supports a premise of an all powerful deity and so I reject it as un-evidence. Should the evidence change, I an prepared to re-evalute my position".

quote:

Two guys standing there, one says "The way in which I live my life is sinful and unworthy"
The other guy says something like:
"No, I don't do anything wrong: I can look the world in the eye: I know what's right and what's wrong..etc"

Which one is taking the position of moral arbiter?

Oh we are doing well tonight - A false dichotomy.
Sort of logical fallacy 101.
Most christians that I know, and certainly the outspoken ones in the media, may accept that they are sinners, but also believe that an old book arbitrarily defines right and wrong in absolute terms including, for example, the rightness of eating prawns.
As such, xians are the ones the 'know' what is right and wrong.

Secular humanists, in my experience, are just as likely to accept their shortcomings, they just don't call them 'sin'. They are also far less likely to consider right and wrong as absolutes.

And what is that "debating" technique called, where you give an answer which doesn't apply to the question which was being asked?

You know, like wot you just did.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
And what is that "debating" technique called, where you give an answer which doesn't apply to the question which was being asked?

You know, like wot you just did.

I said it before. Debating with you is like pushing on a string. It is a waste of time.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
And what is that "debating" technique called, where you give an answer which doesn't apply to the question which was being asked?

You know, like wot you just did.

A false dichotomy invalidates the question.
Your options also gave insufficient information to make the assessment you were asking for.
Your question is no more valid than:
Two guys standing there, one says "I think Chelsea are great"
The other guy says:
"I support Manchester United"

Which one is taking the position of moral arbiter?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
And what is that "debating" technique called, where you give an answer which doesn't apply to the question which was being asked?

You know, like wot you just did.

A false dichotomy invalidates the question.
Your options also gave insufficient information to make the assessment you were asking for.
Your question is no more valid than:
Two guys standing there, one says "I think Chelsea are great"
The other guy says:
"I support Manchester United"

Which one is taking the position of moral arbiter?

Well, excuse me, but I think that it's very evident in your example that the guy from Chelsea is setting himself up as moral arbiter!

The other guy is merely stating which team he supports, without any claim to that team's superiority.

I hereby declare myself the moral arbiter. My logic is infallible so don't bother contending with my decisions.

Questions?

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:


Questions?

at what precise point does a clump of embryonic cells aquire a soul?

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:

Questions?

Boxers or briefs?

Kalvinisn Klein

Is religion/belief/faith about the self?

People looking for meaning are invariably searching for answers about themselves.

Its an ego thing. We believe we have a purpose, we are special and we need to find a way to confirm it. Organised religion peddles the notion that we are special in the eyes of god.

When we have a spiritual moment it is because we need to have spiritual moments otherwise religion is not delivering. We convince ourselfs that we are connected, because we badly want to be connected.

Evangelicals prey on people by hyping the experience into a frenzy. The worshippers lose control and start talking in "tongues" because they convince themselves that it is real. The ordinary church goer does the same thing but on a more subdued scale.

Relgion and faith sells ego, because we need to be special.

quote:

Originally posted by Chairman Al:
Is religion/belief/faith about the self?

People looking for meaning are invariably searching for answers about themselves.

Its an ego thing. We believe we have a purpose, we are special and we need to find a way to confirm it. Organised religion peddles the notion that we are special in the eyes of god.

When we have a spiritual moment it is because we need to have spiritual moments otherwise religion is not delivering. We convince ourselfs that we are connected, because we badly want to be connected.

Evangelicals prey on people by hyping the experience into a frenzy. The worshippers lose control and start talking in "tongues" because they convince themselves that it is real. The ordinary church goer does the same thing but on a more subdued scale.

Relgion and faith sells ego, because we need to be special.

Nice one, Al:
It only took you five weeks to work that one out.

Whether someone believes that the cow has a soul depends on the belief system.

From a Christian perspective the general assumption seems to be that animals do not have a soul. But you will generally get mixed opinions about it I've found.

Personally speaking I'd say it does have a soul, as do all animals.

I heard that shoes have souls.

quote:

Originally posted by Venutius:
Whether someone believes that the cow has a soul depends on the belief system.

From a Christian perspective the general assumption seems to be that animals do not have a soul. But you will generally get mixed opinions about it I've found.

Personally speaking I'd say it does have a soul, as do all animals.

What about ants?

Personally, I think there is spirit in all things. Maybe I'm a bit Shinto.

I think you're just silly.

Aren't we all?

No

Does 'being silly' make humans special?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
Just because they are using the same technique does not mean this process has even the slightest chance of producing a living organism.
If you were a scientist, did some research or knew what you were talking about, you would know this. It is exactly this un-informed scaremongering that the church is doing.

But it is a living organism. It is an organised whole that is alive.

Whether it is "human" is open to debate but not knowing is an argument against not an argument for. If you came across a 10 ft high wire fence in the middle of nowhere stretching off into the distance and you didn't know what it was there for - not knowing what it was there for is a reason for not taking the fence down - not a reason for taking it down.

Human DNA implanted into a cow egg and then the egg tricked into thinking it has just been fertilized to trigger subdivision.

The human DNA molecule contains the code for the life of the human organism. THere is some cow mitochondrial DNA knocking around as well but I don't see how this effects the general objection.

All your concerned about from a scientific point of view is what a thing can do and whether it is viable. But let's be honest here. Just because something is not viable today does not mean some new technology wont come along that will make it viable tomorrow.

YOu are concerned with what a thing can do or whether is has a future. I (and many others) are concerned about what a thing is and whether it has an inalianable value in itself. THe "Just a bunch of cells" argument won't wash. THe natural fusing of two gametes or the artificial application of cloning techniques creates something new - a new organism, a uinified whole. To deny this is irrational

If everything is pre-ordained by god it is inconsistent to think that humans are responsible for sin when the capacity to sin was created by god. You reap what you sow.

If we are part of god, we are born of god. Our capacity to create life from cells is god capacity. If we have a moral dilemma then that moral dilemma was created and allowed to happen by god.

If you believe in god, everything is done for a purpose and seems to me that if God exists then the human pawns in the game are of little concern, it’s the game itself that is important. It is as if the God, as described by the contorted minds of worshippers, is playing himself at chess or possibly patience.

quote:

Originally posted by Chairman Al:
If everything is pre-ordained by god it is inconsistent to think that humans are responsible for sin when the capacity to sin was created by god. You reap what you sow.

If we are part of god, we are born of god. Our capacity to create life from cells is god capacity. If we have a moral dilemma then that moral dilemma was created and allowed to happen by god.

If you believe in god, everything is done for a purpose and seems to me that if God exists then the human pawns in the game are of little concern, it’s the game itself that is important. It is as if the God, as described by the contorted minds of worshippers, is playing himself at chess or possibly patience.

So you don't think that some other being or agency might have been responsible for all of the sinful stuff?
Someone like Satan, for instance?

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:
But it is a living organism. It is an organised whole that is alive.

Oh good, you've obviously come up with a sound & coherent definition of "life". Well, let's hear it then...

quote:

Whether it is "human" is open to debate but not knowing is an argument against not an argument for. If you came across a 10 ft high wire fence in the middle of nowhere stretching off into the distance and you didn't know what it was there for - not knowing what it was there for is a reason for not taking the fence down - not a reason for taking it down.

So if there were loads of people on the other side of the fence all shouting "Help me! Help me!" would you leave it up?

Or the Berlin Wall? That was there to protect the citizens of Eastern Berlin from all the nasty capitalists on the other side, should it have been left up?

The argument that we don't now what will happen if... just doesn't cut it. When steam engines were first used, someone thought that people wouldn't be able to breathe if they travelled too fast & everyone on the trains would suffocate. Yet strangely, people still got on them.

quote:

Human DNA implanted into a cow egg and then the egg tricked into thinking it has just been fertilized to trigger subdivision.

A single cell, that can't just think, but can be tricked as well... blimey, we really HAVE been misunderestimating them.
Try "Human DNA implanted into a cow egg and then - stimulated - to trigger subdivision."

quote:

All your concerned about from a scientific point of view is what a thing can do and whether it is viable. But let's be honest here. Just because something is not viable today does not mean some new technology wont come along that will make it viable tomorrow.

Which is why the legislation has safeguards in it...what part of

quote:

Posted by free_thinker
It is exactly this un-informed scaremongering that the church is doing.

didn't you understand? Or have you read the legislation (try Clause 4 line 36 for starters) and would like to suggest some improvements?

quote:

THe natural fusing of two gametes or the artificial application of cloning techniques creates something new - a new organism, a uinified whole. To deny this is irrational

Fusing gametes/ cloning techniques do produce a new cell (/organism). Further division then creates a bunch of cells(/organism). Correct, but this statement doesn't get anyone beyond whether or not we now have a bunch of cells (which we clearly do). But it's probably there to draw attention away from the weakness of your argument that preceded it which was

quote:

YOu are concerned with what a thing can do or whether is has a future. I (and many others) are concerned about what a thing is and whether it has an inalianable value in itself. THe "Just a bunch of cells" argument won't wash.

I'm going to quote Richard Harries (former Bishop of London) on this one "I am sure the Roman Catholic bishops are intelligent, rational people, but their starting point on embryo research is mistaken. They believe that the newly fertilised egg, the tiny bundle of multiplying cells smaller than a pin head, has the same right to life as an adult. But more than two-thirds of fertilised eggs are lost in nature anyway. If each of these really is a person, that is, an eternal soul, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that heaven is mainly populated by people who have never been born." From this letter exchange in The Guardian

So, It's Just A Bunch Of Cells does wash. They DO have a future, helping REAL LIFE people with terrible diseases. What better future could Cowman wish for?