Thread Options 
|
#584407 - 07/20/06 03:00 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584408 - 07/20/06 03:15 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
if you think it bothers me, you don't know me very well.
i realized who you asked, by why may i not answer the question, too? i didn't say it was a suggestion either. i said your question suggested what i originally responded to.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584409 - 07/20/06 03:34 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
if you think it bothers me, you don't know me very well.
i realized who you asked, by why may i not answer the question, too? i didn't say it was a suggestion either. i said your question suggested what i originally responded to.
I think there are moral absolutes, but that individuals, societies, tribes, and governments sometimes:
1) don't get it right;
2) don't care; and
3) know what's moral, but as sinful humans just fail to do it or intentionally don't do it.
I did not think it would bother you, but others might, so I thought I'd clear that up. BTW: Are you Ron Popeil of Ronco fame?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584410 - 07/20/06 03:40 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584411 - 07/20/06 03:48 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
if you think it bothers me, you don't know me very well.
i realized who you asked, by why may i not answer the question, too? i didn't say it was a suggestion either. i said your question suggested what i originally responded to.
I think there are moral absolutes, but that individuals, societies, tribes, and governments sometimes:
1) don't get it right;
2) don't care; and
3) know what's moral, but as sinful humans just fail to do it or intentionally don't do it.
I did not think it would bother you, but others might, so I thought I'd clear that up. BTW: Are you Ron Popeil of Ronco fame?
that sounds like a religious-based interpretation of things. from a conservative christian perspective, i think you are correct. from a secular perspective that is informed by christianity, i think morality "changes" or adapts as more is known. you know, what faith once "explained" is now made clearer by science.
and maybe i "set it and forget it" and maybe i don't 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584412 - 07/20/06 03:54 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
i disagree. morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible. your opinion and the president's suggest no tolerance. do they allow crack dealers to keep their crack because they already have it?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584413 - 07/20/06 03:54 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584414 - 07/20/06 04:03 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something.
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584415 - 07/20/06 04:10 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
New Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no lon what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something. we know
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
 Ohhhh brooooooooooother!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584416 - 07/20/06 04:12 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no lon what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something. we know
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
Ohhhh brooooooooooother!
sorry mr fallwell.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584417 - 07/20/06 04:19 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no lon what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something. we know
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
Ohhhh brooooooooooother!
sorry mr fallwell.
Ron, that's unfair. Your comments are ridiculous and it has nothing to do with Jerry Falwell. Science CANNOT prove something moral or immoral or shed light on a subject so that we can hone in our moral judgment. Who is to say what is or isn't moral? You could find a homosexual gene, but that has nothing to do with morals. If that gene were found, it might seem logical to you that then it must be moral, but who is to say what is and isn't moral. Who is to say what morals are to be based on? If we find that scientifically Andrea Yates could not prevent killing her children because of her dementia, then was the killing moral? Science has no room for morals and shed no light on it.
Science if for measuring an ordered universe, not for informing us how to order our morals.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584418 - 07/20/06 04:23 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
We should not profit from the embryos destruction. That is what has been argued. But because the embryos are dead already, it is ok?
What if the freezer fails for some of the embryos? Can we experiment on those then because they are already dead?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584419 - 07/20/06 04:31 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Who is to say what is or isn't moral?
apparently you are.
the whole point of this exercise is to make us dig a bit deeper instead of declaring something black-or-white immoral. i say do the calculus; use science and the metaphysical/"natural law or morality" together to combine to decide right and wrong as a law for all citizens. instead, W decided that he wanted to go black-or-white. is morality as a metaphysical concept given by our creator supposed to be our law (like in Islam) or should it simply inform our lawmaking? after all, that is where the rubber meets the road.
and i am sorry if i was unfair. i was just calling a spade a spade though. how should i respond to someone who enters the fray with a closed mind about the subject?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584420 - 07/20/06 04:35 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
We should not profit from the embryos destruction. That is what has been argued. But because the embryos are dead already, it is ok?
What if the freezer fails for some of the embryos? Can we experiment on those then because they are already dead?
i think the bigger issue here, straw, is why no push to stop our "God-playing" in the realm of in vitro fertilization in the first place? that's right, the religious right decides where it wants to draw the line. (at least BF has been consistent-ish on the in vitro point as it pertains to what happens to the in vitro-created embryoes)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584421 - 07/20/06 04:40 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
Quote:
As we become more enlightened, our morality/ethics, etc adjust to that enlightenment. That enlightenment can come from science, religion, whatever the source, but according to you, these things have always been immoral.
According to me, what is immoral always has been. As we become more enlightened, our beliefs may change. Also, as we become more depraved, our beliefs may change.
Quote:
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
At the time, while I understood the thinking behind it, I believed it would ultimately lead to more problems.
Quote:
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
I did not actively support or oppose it. I do not believe that the President believes that it is the equivalent of murder. He appears to believe that it is activity which does not respect the dignity of human life, and I agree with him.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584422 - 07/20/06 04:51 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
i disagree. morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible. your opinion and the president's suggest no tolerance. do they allow crack dealers to keep their crack because they already have it?
Of course not, because having the crack is the crime. Killing the embryo is the morally reprehensible act, not using the stem cells for research. The president has been extremely clear on this. He was the first president to allow federal funding for the already existing lines. He stated he will not fund new lines. If you cannot see the distinction between using stem cell lines already there versus creating more, you should seek help.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584423 - 07/20/06 04:52 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Not even the most foolish of scientists claims there is nothing in the universe but matter. Go back to school.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584424 - 07/20/06 04:59 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
If we deem it moral? Isn't that akin to saying someone isn't in love, they only thought they were in love. If you thought you were in love, weren't you in love?
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
I didn't ask if their action was immoral; I asked if they were immoral. Since we based our system on their values, if they were immoral by being slave owners, doesn't that make our system immoral?
Quote:
At the time, while I understood the thinking behind it, I believed it would ultimately lead to more problems.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not actively support or oppose it. I do not believe that the President believes that it is the equivalent of murder. He appears to believe that it is activity which does not respect the dignity of human life, and I agree with him.
Could you enlighten as to what the thinking was? It seemed like a poor compromise then; if the premise is sound that it disrespects human dignity, that premise holds for these embyonic lines as well for new ones does it not?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584425 - 07/20/06 05:29 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Not even the most foolish of scientists claims there is nothing in the universe but matter. Go back to school.
OK, you caught me, but the point still remains. Even if you add forces and energy to the list of things, my point remains valid, fool.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584426 - 07/20/06 05:56 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Killing the embryo is the morally reprehensible act, not using the stem cells for research.
then why did the president authorize the use of the existing lines? is killing those less or, more accurately, non-reprehensible logically?
you should seek friends.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584427 - 07/20/06 06:19 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
i disagree. morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible. your opinion and the president's suggest no tolerance. do they allow crack dealers to keep their crack because they already have it?
Of course not, because having the crack is the crime. Killing the embryo is the morally reprehensible act, not using the stem cells for research. The president has been extremely clear on this. He was the first president to allow federal funding for the already existing lines. He stated he will not fund new lines. If you cannot see the distinction between using stem cell lines already there versus creating more, you should seek help.
Well I don't see the distinction and I will not seek help. I think I have been very courteous and this discussion has gone well, but there is no need for that comment. You have a tendancy to get fed up with quesitons that ask you to probe your beliefs a little deeper. Don;t be afraid to do so. You may find that the probing only strengthens your beliefs, rather than erodes them.
Yes, the embryonic destrucion is the immorality, so why engage in any conduct that may lead to further immorality.
J has argued that. What if the embryos die naturally? Your premise is it is okay to do this. So, if the scientists pull the plug on the freezers containing the embryos, then it would be ok to exeriment on them.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584428 - 07/20/06 06:26 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
If we deem it moral? Isn't that akin to saying someone isn't in love, they only thought they were in love. If you thought you were in love, weren't you in love?
Straw, come on. This is rather silly. Love is an action, not a feeling. Feelings of affection come and go, just like cultural feelings about what is right and wrong come and go.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
I didn't ask if their action was immoral; I asked if they were immoral. Since we based our system on their values, if they were immoral by being slave owners, doesn't that make our system immoral?
Whether they were good or bad people is hardly for me to judge. I can tell that you that a specific action was immoral, no more.
And what is this flailing about trying to prove that if they were immoral, then America must be, too? This is not typical of you, Straw; your posts are generally better thought out than this.
Quote:
Quote:
At the time, while I understood the thinking behind it, I believed it would ultimately lead to more problems.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not actively support or oppose it. I do not believe that the President believes that it is the equivalent of murder. He appears to believe that it is activity which does not respect the dignity of human life, and I agree with him.
Could you enlighten as to what the thinking was? It seemed like a poor compromise then; if the premise is sound that it disrespects human dignity, that premise holds for these embyonic lines as well for new ones does it not?
You can make the same fruit of the poison tree argument about the funding of research on existing lines if you like. I didn't like the decision because I knew that once that line was crossed with federal dollars, another was sure to come. But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
Do we really want to go into that, though? Isn't the more important question the one that we have already been discussing?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584429 - 07/20/06 06:44 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
politically yes. logically no. the president made a moral decision and his previous decision inconsistent and therefore hypocritical. and don't give me the BF "distinction" mularkey.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584430 - 07/20/06 08:01 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
politically yes. logically no. the president made a moral decision and his previous decision inconsistent and therefore hypocritical. and don't give me the BF "distinction" mularkey.
Ron, you can keep telling yourself that all day long. But if your side wants to keep using the "they're going to be tossed out anyway" defense, it is certainly no more odd to use the "a limited number of embryos have already been destroyed and the stem cells are available defense".
Again, it wasn't my decision, it's not a decision I supported, and I'm not interested in defending it. But I can see how it was arrived at.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#584431 - 07/20/06 08:07 PM
Re: Faith and Ignorance
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
------------------------------------ So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we deem it moral? Isn't that akin to saying someone isn't in love, they only thought they were in love. If you thought you were in love, weren't you in love? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Straw, come on. This is rather silly. Love is an action, not a feeling. Feelings of affection come and go, just like cultural feelings about what is right and wrong come and go.
So we can all feel that we are moral and even if it is something that we all unanimously agree is moral i.e. marriage, but there could be a moral truth out there that says marriage is immoral and therefore we have been immoral, even though mankind unanimously agrees the action is moral.
Quote:
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ask if their action was immoral; I asked if they were immoral. Since we based our system on their values, if they were immoral by being slave owners, doesn't that make our system immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether they were good or bad people is hardly for me to judge. I can tell that you that a specific action was immoral, no more.
And what is this flailing about trying to prove that if they were immoral, then America must be, too? This is not typical of you, Straw; your posts are generally better thought out than this.
Well I find it disconcerting that you think over half of those who helped found this great country in their vision were immoralists. If they were immoral in something so basic, maybe their very values were immoral as well.
Also, that means part of the Constitution is immoral based on this universal morality constant.
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
I am sorry I just don't find this logical and I don't think you can logically defend it with your believed premises.
No one has answered the hypothetical that since we are researching these lines already created because the embryos were already destroyed, why couldn't we research new lines on embryos that expire naturally?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index