science (in)tolerance

[Ceridwen018]

The sad part is, so many are quick to recognise this intolerance in religious people and fail to see it in those who reject religion.

So it looks like we're ALL guilty of a little bigotry now and again.

I will always respect everyone's beliefs and opinions, because it is their right to have them. However, I will never respect willful ignorance. Much of the "religious intolerance" towards religion is based on just that. Many of America's great scientific minds have already moved overseas to do their research on account of because their areas of study have been outlawed in the US. Well let me tell you--if stem cell research and double egg embryos are offensive to Christians and other religious people, their intolerance for scientific progression is offensive to me.

In my opinion, science should never meddle in religion, neither should religion meddle in science. They are two different animals.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We were discussing intolerance and you have provided a fine example! The insight you missed:

because you seem more bent on making me mad than actually taking me seriously.

That does appear to be your MO and also the MO of many a scientist, who portray theists as intolerant while missing their own intolerance.

In all fairness, there are plenty of scientists who realise the limits of science and who refuse to assign theists to being merely superstitious fools!

 

[Scuba Pete]

So it looks like we're ALL guilty of a little bigotry now and again.

I fully agree!

In my opinion, science should never meddle in religion, neither should religion meddle in science. They are two different animals.

Probably the best statement in this entire thread!

 

[michel]

So it looks like we're ALL guilty of a little bigotry now and again.

I will always respect everyone's beliefs and opinions, because it is their right to have them. However, I will never respect willful ignorance. Much of the "religious intolerance" towards religion is based on just that. Many of America's great scientific minds have already moved overseas to do their research on account of because their areas of study have been outlawed in the US. Well let me tell you--if stem cell research and double egg embryos are offensive to Christians and other religious people, their intolerance for scientific progression is offensive to me.

In my opinion, science should never meddle in religion, neither should religion meddle in science. They are two different animals.

One of the best posts on this thread.:clap

 

[Quiddity]

So it looks like we're ALL guilty of a little bigotry now and again.

I will always respect everyone's beliefs and opinions, because it is their right to have them. However, I will never respect willful ignorance. Much of the "religious intolerance" towards religion is based on just that. Many of America's great scientific minds have already moved overseas to do their research on account of because their areas of study have been outlawed in the US. Well let me tell you--if stem cell research and double egg embryos are offensive to Christians and other religious people, their intolerance for scientific progression is offensive to me.

In my opinion, science should never meddle in religion, neither should religion meddle in science. They are two different animals.

And an embryo is not meddling with religion? If not, according to whom?

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Thanks for defending me, NetDoc. Jerry's reply to you confirms my suspicions of him witch-hunting me. I'll be sure to watch out for people like Jerry in the future.

Poor little persecuted you. It's interesting how you define "offers a supported argument against my postition" as "witchhunt".

We were discussing intolerance and you have provided a fine example! The insight you missed:

Really? I'm not the one who dropped an ongoing debate out of an intolerance of having my opinions questioned.

because you seem more bent on making me mad than actually taking me seriously.

That's a complaint on imagined motive. That has nothing to do with my methodology nor my arugment (BTW, I noticed that you have no refutation for my argument either... you are forced to create this aside-topic about me. THat's just pitiful.)

That does appear to be your MO and also the MO of many a scientist, who portray theists as intolerant while missing their own intolerance.

When did I say I was tolerant? On the other hand, where's the example of me being intolerant. It's obvious that you two are intolerant of an actual debate of your beliefs, or we would be discussing those beliefs rather than discussing me.

Both of you have abandoned dicsussions of actual fact in favor of these red-herrings.

In all fairness, there are plenty of scientists who realise the limits of science and who refuse to assign theists to being merely superstitious fools!

Not all theists are. You are, as you've proven in your dicussions here; but I know many who are not. But hey, don't let me interfere with your persecution complex.

 

[Ceridwen018]

And an embryo is not meddling with religion? If not, according to whom?

According to the United States Constitution, thank you very much. In this country, we have a distinct separation of Church and State, which means that although the Church is allowed to have a religious opinion on embryos and other things, they cannot influence the country's opinion on them. Embryos are biological, not religious.

The Church can make its own laws, such as, "Anyone who accepts any sort of embryonic stem-cell treatment will be automatically excommunicated," however they cannot make laws which affect the entire country, such as "Anyone who accepts any sort of embryonic stem-cell treatment will be prosecuted."

 

[Quiddity]

According to the United States Constitution, thank you very much.

I had no idea the Constitution defined when life starts. You got a link?

~Victor

 

[Ceridwen018]

I had no idea the Constitution defined when life starts. You got a link?

I explained how the Constitution is relevent. Please keep the word games to yourself from now on.

If embryos ever gain rights, it will be at the hands of medical science, not religion, as you seem to be aluding.

 

[Quiddity]

I explained how the Constitution is relevent. Please keep the word games to yourself from now on.

If embryos ever gain rights, it will be at the hands of medical science, not religion, as you seem to be aluding.

Let me know when science comes up with a definitive answer. :areyoucra
Until then, I will take the Church's word for it. :bounce

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree with Ceridwen... biology will determine when an embryo becomes a human. In fact, I think it already has!

 

[Quiddity]

I agree with Ceridwen... biology will determine when an embryo becomes a human. In fact, I think it already has!

Which time?

PS-Becoming human and when life begins start at the same time in your opinion?


~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

If I remember my biology correctly, the embryo has the same DNA as the adult. Of course, I could be wrong!

 

[Ceridwen018]

I could be wrong!

And you are! Well, sort of...

At the time of fertilization, the sperm enters the egg and two nuclei form. One nucleus contains the mother's DNA, and the other the father's. At this point, the fertilized egg is considered to be human, obviously, but it is not yet "living." About 12 hours later or so, the two haploid cells within the fetilized egg combine to form a single diploid cell called a zygote. The new DNA that is created is unique to the zygote, and it will become the baby's DNA, assuming all goes well. At this point, the zygote is still human, but it is still not yet living.

About a day to a day and a half later, the zygote will have completed its journey down through the fallopian tube and into the uterus. Once it implants into the uterus, the single cell begins to divide, and eventually forms a blastocyst. Once the embryo begins dividing, (after implantation), it is biologically considered to be living. Before then, it was simply an inactive single celled organism that was being manipulated by enzymes.

One could argue, (on religious terms, of course), that "life begins" when the fertilized egg forms a zygote, because it is then that the baby's unique DNA is made. However, I do not understand the reasoning behind the idea that, "life begins at fertilization." Until the fertilized egg forms a zygote, the baby's DNA does not even exist yet, and therefore the baby does not exist yet.

I remember hearing in Theology class a while back that some Pope declared that the baby should be considered living when the mother is able to feel it moving inside of her. I'm not sure which Pope it was, (a little help, Scott?), but I'm planning on asking my Theology teacher next time I see her.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sorry for the confusion...

I meant the embryo has the same DNA that it will have as an adult.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Sorry for the confusion...

I meant the embryo has the same DNA that it will have as an adult.

Who cares even if true?

 

[Ceridwen018]

I meant the embryo has the same DNA that it will have as an adult.

Lol, well then--right you are!

 

[Ceridwen018]

Who cares even if true?

Why do you think people shouldn't care?

 

[Sunstone]

Who cares even if true?

I agree. There's just no sense in allowing facts to inform one's opinions.

 

[Quiddity]

I remember hearing in Theology class a while back that some Pope declared that the baby should be considered living when the mother is able to feel it moving inside of her. I'm not sure which Pope it was, (a little help, Scott?), but I'm planning on asking my Theology teacher next time I see her.

Me either..
If you find out let me know please.

~Victor