NationStates Jolt Archive

First off I'd like to show what my basis for this is, in a few minutes, with a simple video. It mentions how respect for faith contributes to people being opposed to embryonic stem cell research...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U

As someone with type 1 diabetes, my health is being damaged by a disease embryonic stem cell research has potential to cure, and yet with churches' unjust authority in the world, people see it as "murderous" for destroying embryos. First off, with regards to cloning human embryos, if people are going to regard that as "cloning human beings" then they're giving embryos status as human beings; in which case, to have abortions, or even the morning-after pill, be treated like anything other than murder, would be inconsistent; I've heard of opposition to abortion be associated with sexism, why isn't "bigotry against the disabled" applied equally so to opposition to embryonic stem cell research? Let me guess, being a diabetic isn't as common as being a woman. Of course, there's plenty of other diseases that embryonic stem cell research has potential to cure as well, but since I'm talking about how I don't respect faith, what it's done to others might not be as relevant... and yes I know there's other issues about what religion does too but those can't be as directly attributed to religion as opposition to embryonic stem cell research; I used to think religion caused homophobia until I found a rather homophobic atheist on youtube, and with regards to violence religion motivates people towards, that can be argued to be contradictory to religion in the first place... but such does not apply to opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

However, I'll make myself clear that I'm not actually against abortion; I was in favour of both abortion and embryonic stem cell research, long before I was even diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, simply because of my views on embryos; I'm more so making a point about consistency, but more importantly, about to anyone who would ever ask "what has religion ever done to you?" this topic is my answer. We should abandon such "respect for faith" I myself an am example of the damage it's done.

"Faith" encompasses a lot more than the strict worldview of a group of Christians, and even within Christianity it is hardly a consensus that stem cell research is immoral. The enemy you are looking for is not faith, it is the people that use faith to their own ends.

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?

in short: you shouldn't, just don't try to disrespect the faithfull to much.

too big a brush really, you do know there are nice priests who only ever talk about the county raffle and drink tea with 1 sugar right?

religion gives some obsessive people something to do its like pokemon only some folk are not just after your Charizard

"Faith" encompasses a lot more than the strict worldview of a group of Christians, and even within Christianity it is hardly a consensus that stem cell research is immoral. The enemy you are looking for is not faith, it is the people that use faith to their own ends.

When it comes down to it, the problem is people. So, basically, this thread is about certain people who are, for a lack of a better term, 'bad'.

Though I guess that is what everything comes down to.

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?

You shouldn't. I don't. It isn't respectable for grown people to believe in magical beings.

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?

You shouldn't. I don't. It isn't respectable for grown people to believe in magical beings.

Don't mind him, he's Swedish.

It isn't respectable for grown people to believe in magical beings.

isn't it like believing in Santa Clause then?

religion gives some obsessive people something to do its like pokemon only some folk are not just after your Charizard

That was awesome.

On that note, its not the religion you should disrespect, its the people. Once someone gives you a reason to lose your respect, then its Ok, but not before. Using this, we can all go away happy. Except the ass who tries to convert you while walking to the grocery store.

it is the people that use faith to their own ends.

Do any people of faith do differently?

If some do... why do you think their conclusions will be much better?

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?

You shouldn't. I don't. It isn't respectable for grown people to believe in magical beings.

You got deleted again?

-snip-

Faith is an odd target. We all need faith; faith in others, faith in our own ability, yadda yadda.

If you're attacking religion, then please don't tar us all with the same brush, lest we do the same to you.

Perhaps you should respect the faith of others, to the same degree that they respect your beliefs and let you get on with your life.

I have no problem with others having faith, be it in Father Christmas, pokemons or some supernatural big hoodah. Just so long as they don't try to use their faith to tell me, or anyone else, how to live their lives.

I am a Cristian, i support stem cell research, thats all

We should abandon such "respect for faith" I myself an am example of the damage it's done.

One man's suffering does not equate to the workings of the world.

Do any people of faith do differently?

If some do... why do you think their conclusions will be much better?

No, some people use faith for the benefit of everyone.

Have you even done research on stem cells ? If so you'd know embrionic stem cell research is not THE ONE AND ONLY possible cure for all of these diseases. There are others with equal or more potential (simply because more research has been done in those fields)

No, some people use faith for the benefit of everyone.

"Because my faith tells me that 'stem cell research' amounts to the destruction of innocent life, in accordance with supporting benefit for everyone I oppose it."

"Because my faith tells me that homosexuality destroys the social fabric and ruptures the natural order of sexual and romantic relations, in accordance with supporting benefit for everyone I oppose it."

What's wrong with saying either of those things?

I oppose stem cell research. I am not Christian, so this is not because of religious beliefs. I believe that the moment a child is conceived, it is a human life, and to destroy it would be immoral, at least to me. This is also why I oppose most Democratic ideas. They say they're pro-choice, yet they destroy the lives of children. To put it bluntly, to cure a disease you would be killing an innocent child.

As I said before, these are my beliefs and I will probably not be in this topic again, so please just read my opinion, debate it if you wish, but please do not direct it towards me. If you really wish to, then send a telegram to Anarchadria.

"Faith" encompasses a lot more than the strict worldview of a group of Christians, and even within Christianity it is hardly a consensus that stem cell research is immoral. The enemy you are looking for is not faith, it is the people that use faith to their own ends.

Amen.

Faith has not harmed you in any way. Certain people acting in their interpretation of faith, have. When you learn that subtle difference, you learn much.

Have you even done research on stem cells ? If so you'd know embrionic stem cell research is not THE ONE AND ONLY possible cure for all of these diseases. There are others with equal or more potential (simply because more research has been done in those fields)

Ah, so all avenues must be abandoned because there's another avenue? Stem cells aren't the one and only, that's true. It's just the one with the most potential for success and therapies and even cures.

"Because my faith tells me that 'stem cell research' amounts to the destruction of innocent life, in accordance with supporting benefit for everyone I oppose it."

"Because my faith tells me that homosexuality destroys the social fabric and ruptures the natural order of sexual and romantic relations, in accordance with supporting benefit for everyone I oppose it."

What's wrong with saying either of those things?

Nothing, so long as saying them doesn't make law for anyone but the one speaking.

Speaking of "potential"...

I oppose stem cell research. I am not Christian, so this is not because of religious beliefs. I believe that the moment a child is conceived, it is a human life, and to destroy it would be immoral, at least to me. This is also why I oppose most Democratic ideas. They say they're pro-choice, yet they destroy the lives of children. To put it bluntly, to cure a disease you would be killing an innocent child.

As I said before, these are my beliefs and I will probably not be in this topic again, so please just read my opinion, debate it if you wish, but please do not direct it towards me. If you really wish to, then send a telegram to Anarchadria.

This poster clearly did not listen to the OP's link. The notion of when a soul is present is so incredibly vague as to not be relevant, especially given the notion of split embryos and fused embryos (whence came or went the extra soul?). What is 150 cells compared to the 100,000 in the brain of a fly? Is the difference that the 150 are a potential human being? Then what of all the extra embryos created for those involved in fertilization clinics trying to conceive when God Himself has declared someone barren?

When I see a line of pro-life conservative women lining up to have those extras implanted instead of having them destroyed and wasted without being studied for the POTENTIAL reduction of human misery (something of which religion is supposed to be all in favor), then I might start thinking that the people opposed to stem cell research are more than just paper lions loving the sound of their own roar.

isn't it like believing in Santa Clause then?

It is as stupid, yes. And kids are fucking stupid as it is - it only gets stupider in adults.

Nothing, so long as saying them doesn't make law for anyone but the one speaking.

And what would be wrong with that?

It hardly amounts to manipulating faith for one's own ends... which, Vetalia stated (and hardly only him), is the real problem. If my faith leads me to conclude that, say, permitting gay marriage would result in horrific social catastrophe, why on Earth shouldn't I fight as hard as I can against it?

To the OP: You're in Canada... last I heard, stem cell research was fine and dandy here.

I believe that the moment a child is conceived, it is a human life, and to destroy it would be immoral, at least to me.
Yes, which is why we shouldn't use stem cells from embryos that are headed to the trash bin. Because clearly, they serve some higher purpose that way instead of being used for research purposes.

This is also why I oppose most Democratic ideas.
What does the electing one's leaders have to do with stem cell research or anything like this?

They say they're pro-choice, yet they destroy the lives of children.
Democracy destroys the lives of children? Well, I suppose if someone got in who didn't want to fund public schools or give healthcare to children this would make their lives rather difficult.

To put it bluntly, to cure a disease you would be killing an innocent child.
You should really look up the definition of a child.

However, I'll make myself clear that I'm not actually against abortion; I was in favour of both abortion and embryonic stem cell research, long before I was even diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, simply because of my views on embryos; I'm more so making a point about consistency, but more importantly, about to anyone who would ever ask "what has religion ever done to you?" this topic is my answer. We should abandon such "respect for faith" I myself an am example of the damage it's done.

Faith didn't do anything to you. Only power hungry morons does.

Let me elaborate on that, the Bible did not talk about abortion/stem cell research. Anyone who attempts to justify their point of view on those two topics base on the Bible are bullshit artists. Assholes use quotes like "thy shall not kill" as their backbone for their claims. Or garbage like "oh God made us this way" claim. I mean have they even read the bible to make claims like that? Do they even realize that Jesus was curing illnesses throughout the entire New Testament?

There are plenty of Christian Doctors out there who support stem cell research as a way of saving lives. Of course you will never heard about those Christians because they don't dedicate their whole life trying to dominate and control over other people.

So, you're blaming other people for something you haven't stepped up to try to combat? That's the message I'm getting from your little rants.

"You know what? I have a problem. You solve it."
That, and you've apparently got the impression that there is a Just-Add-Water solution to everything out there.
You're talking about DNA. There might not be a solution.

I'm for embryonic stem cell research in certain situations, and abortion on a rare occasion, but adult stem-cell research is quite promising too, maybe not quite as promising. I'm a Southern Baptist. My mother has Type 2 diabetes. I might not feel your pain fully, but get real.

And I love how everyone claims the church wants money, but wants to give it to no-one but themselves. You know what you can do? Research it! Turn off your liberal-media TV and go to a church. Televangelists? I don't like'em, I've seen maybe one that wasn't out for your money. I've seen absolutely no other church groups that were money hungry.
Yes, big churches like the one I go to collect offerings. Yes, we spend that money, but we, like many churches that get big offerings each week, give financial reports on where it goes.


Life happens. Deal with it, don't make others deal with your complaints unless you're dealing with them as well. Don't complain unless you're going to do something about your problem.
People have beliefs that oppose yours. It's life. It's society. It's going to happen. Deal.

P.S. Fun fact: There have been over 40 million abortions in the USA, which is several million more than all of Canada's population. Just depends on whether you call a fetus a person. Human DNA? Detectable beating heart at 3 weeks? Dreams? Need of oxygen? That qualifies, I'd say.

P.P.S. I'm a little divided on the issue. My conscience says, "It's a life, embryonic stem-cell research is bad." My logic says, "But it could amount to saving more lives than killing." Other parts of my brain argue that only the conscience actually has anything solid in it's argument.

Have you even done research on stem cells ? If so you'd know embrionic stem cell research is not THE ONE AND ONLY possible cure for all of these diseases. There are others with equal or more potential (simply because more research has been done in those fields)

I have. I've done research both with embryonic stem cells and with bone marrow derived adult stem cells. There are areas of research for which embryonic stem cells are best suited. There are areas for which various types of adult stem cells are best suited. There are cell types that can be easily obtained using adult stem cells and cell types that we can't seem to derive that way (but that we can get from ESCs). Some such research is into therapies, some is developmental, some is related to cancer, some is simply basic science, and so on...


There are plenty of Christian Doctors out there who support stem cell research as a way of saving lives. Of course you will never heard about those Christians because they don't dedicate their whole life trying to dominate and control over other people.

Or Christian grad students working on stem cell research.

*raises hand*

I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'faith doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

Faith is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the people who express that faith. Without the faith to believe in this overbearing creator, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

The faith that my view of life is better than yours is a construct of the faith in something higher. If we all simply followed man-made laws, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the faith that allows for such superstitious nonsense.

I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'faith doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

Faith is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the people who express that faith. Without the faith to believe in this overbearing creator, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

The faith that my view of life is better than yours is a construct of the faith in something higher. If we all simply followed man-made laws, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the faith that allows for such superstitious nonsense.

So can any other ideas such as democracy, freedom, liberty, or human rights if advertised the right way. Your point?

I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'faith doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

Considering that some people use faith to go out and help others and some use it for harm, it seems fairly obvious that it is the person who determines it, not the faith itself. There are assholes of all ideologies, religions, etc.

Faith is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the people who express that faith. Without the faith to believe in this overbearing creator, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

There's no justification for rules without a creator in the mix? Is that why all atheists are anarchists?

The faith that my view of life is better than yours is a construct of the faith in something higher.

Hardly. There are plenty of people who believe their view of life is better than others and don't have faith in something "higher".

If we all simply followed man-made laws, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the faith that allows for such superstitious nonsense.

If all we followed were man-made laws, there wouldn't be much individual variation in behavior and the world would be a boring place. I can certainly follow my own moral dictates without expecting you to do so, while agreeing on laws that protect us both. What's wrong with that?

I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'faith doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

Faith is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the people who express that faith. Without the faith to believe in this overbearing creator, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

The faith that my view of life is better than yours is a construct of the faith in something higher. If we all simply followed man-made laws, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the faith that allows for such superstitious nonsense.
What if the general consensus is to embark upon fruitless and meaningless Crusades? It was in the 1200s.

As to the actual question: I can't really think of a reason to respect faith, but I don't think opposition to stem cell research is a reason to not respect it. First, as others have said only a fraction of people of faith are opposed. Second, you're beef is with the faithful. To quote Orwell, "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." That doesn't apply specifically to what you're complaining about, but you can replace "Socialism" with any other set of beliefs.

I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'faith doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

Faith is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the people who express that faith. Without the faith to believe in this overbearing creator, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

The faith that my view of life is better than yours is a construct of the faith in something higher. If we all simply followed man-made laws, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the faith that allows for such superstitious nonsense.

So can any other ideas such as democracy, freedom, liberty, or human rights if advertised the right way. Your point?

example
I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'human rights doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

The idea of human rights is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the major institutes of the western world who is in power to define what human right means. Without the culture to believe in this superior forward thinking ideology, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

The ideals that suggest my view of human rights are better than yours is a construct of their lifestyle in something superior. If we all simply allow people to make their own laws for their countries, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the western ideals in human right that allows for such imperialistic nonsense.

Don't mind him, he's Swedish.
Nope, just trollish. I know many Swedes. None are quite like this individual.

*snip*

*snippy*

*snippety snip*

What I disagree with is the idea that some people 'use' faith for bad ends - it's not some conscious decision - 'ah ha, all these naive fools believe in god so I'm going to use it to my own ends, w00t!'.

The very essence of faith is a belief outside of logical thought, it's not that it isn't useful in some respects, I may need an element of faith to leap a ravine, but that it allows for decisions, made wholeheartedly, based on very little evidence.

I'd rather a thought out decision to go to war based on economic need or response to threat than one based on 'infidels' - or a policy towards genetics based on use rather than 'oh my god, life is created by god and must not be touched'.

Faith allows that, and as much as it allows for good - well, good people are good people but faith can make good people do bad things.

Perhaps people like the original poster wouldn't mind faith so much if the faithful didn't use their religions as a spring-board to launch inane and archaic ideas that can only hurt others? Thousands of stem-cells are sitting in freezers and going to waste when they could be used to cure illnesses.So great going, faithful. I'm sure this "life" appreciates your endeavor in cryogenics, but it's a real pity nobody else does.

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?

Why would you respect it before?

Why do people see credulity as a virtue?

Faith allows that, and as much as it allows for good - well, good people are good people but faith can make good people do bad things.

I've heard this before. Do you have any evidence that someone who was "good" did something "bad" because of his faith?

I've heard this before. Do you have any evidence that someone who was "good" did something "bad" because of his faith?

Yeah, the Pope, he banned condoms.

Faith allows that, and as much as it allows for good - well, good people are good people but faith can make good people do bad things.

So can money. And love. And necessity. And desperation. And politics. And pretty much every single thing on this planet.

Yeah, the Pope, he banned condoms.

Present evidence that the Pope is good in the first place.

Yeah, the Pope, he banned condoms.

I know plenty of people have done bad things in the name of faith, but how can you prove they did it because they believed it? Maybe the Pope would be anti-contraception even if he weren't Catholic.

Yeah, the Pope, he banned condoms.

But isn't that kinna ripping his word out of context? If I am not mistaken he didn't say "don't use condoms". He said "don't use condoms, use abstinence instead". If you have no intention to practice abstinence and fuck someone new ever other day obvious his advise wouldn't work, I thought that's obvious.

Yeah, the Pope, he banned condoms.

He asked for a good person.

Why should I respect faith?You dont have to respect "faith".
but you have to respect me.. to the same degree you want me to respect you.

So can money. And love. And necessity. And desperation. And politics. And pretty much every single thing on this planet.

Absolutely, love makes us do stupid things as well and we recognise that and make laws expressly to deal with the fact that we can be irrational based on love, and money, and necessity, and my misuse of commas.

So we should for faith.

Instead we make laws actually based purely on faith.

He asked for a good person.

Totally :) That guy looks like evil incarnate - I mean, seriously, Ratzenburger - if ever a name was made for evil, that's it.

To the point about ripping context from the Pope - I'm not quoting the guy, I'm pointing to bad policy based purely on faith.

Yes, big churches like the one I go to collect offerings. Yes, we spend that money, but we, like many churches that get big offerings each week, give financial reports on where it goes.

Let me guess. You use a big chunk of it to send your most affluent and senior parishoners on paid vacations around the world. You call the trips "missions."

Totally :) That guy looks like evil incarnate - I mean, seriously, Ratzenburger - if ever a name was made for evil, that's it.

To the point about ripping context from the Pope - I'm not quoting the guy, I'm pointing to bad policy based purely on faith.

except it's not a policy, it's half a policy. If you take the whole policy it will work. Don't blame the guy if you are going to follow half his advice. It's like saying.

Have a good night sleep, and study.

obviously doing nothing but sleep isn't going to help you pass a test if you take out the study part.

I should be a little clearer here before we get sidetracked.

Simple faith - the actual word - well it's just a word to describe an action we undertake and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yet we're talking of the effects of a specific faith in a higher being, regardless of religion, that causes certain effects or rules that govern our lives.

I'm against laws and rules based on faith, and that's not just about people, it's because of that specific faith.

Name me a law that is based purely on religious faith that has any inherent good about it.

Do not kill is not really an example of a religious law because it has context outside of religion.

Frowning on the use of condoms, or genetic manipulation purely because of faith is wrong, and little good comes of it. Any good that might come from it is not due to the faith itself but because the law has beneficial effects.

What I don't agree with is the idea that bad people use faith - I'm not saying they don't but good people make bad decisions based on faith as well - it's the faith that is wrong, not the person.

But isn't that kinna ripping his word out of context? If I am not mistaken he didn't say "don't use condoms". He said "don't use condoms, use abstinence instead". If you have no intention to practice abstinence and fuck someone new ever other day obvious his advise wouldn't work, I thought that's obvious.

In Africa, churches (sponsored by The Vatican) actively teach people that condoms are wrong, and that you should practice abstinence at all times (except when married). Problem is that telling people about abstinence does not work. Period. These people and the way they use their faith (note that the bible says nothing about condoms) are part of the reason why HIV/AIDS is spreading across the world.

Absolutely, love makes us do stupid things as well and we recognise that and make laws expressly to deal with the fact that we can be irrational based on love, and money, and necessity, and my misuse of commas.

Actually, no, we don't. The closest we come is with necessity, and only in two cases.

Actually, no, we don't. The closest we come is with necessity, and only in two cases.

No we do, we don't excuse murder, as an extreme example, because of wild love because it's love-based whereas we make all sorts of excuses for actions that are faith-based.

I should be a little clearer here before we get sidetracked.

Simple faith - the actual word - well it's just a word to describe an action we undertake and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yet we're talking of the effects of a specific faith in a higher being, regardless of religion, that causes certain effects or rules that govern our lives.

I'm against laws and rules based on faith, and that's not just about people, it's because of that specific faith.

Name me a law that is based purely on religious faith that has any inherent good about it.

Do not kill is not really an example of a religious law because it has context outside of religion.

Frowning on the use of condoms, or genetic manipulation purely because of faith is wrong, and little good comes of it. Any good that might come from it is not due to the faith itself but because the law has beneficial effects.

What I don't agree with is the idea that bad people use faith - I'm not saying they don't but good people make bad decisions based on faith as well - it's the faith that is wrong, not the person.

I already made the same argument before using human right. Are we to say that human right is wrong because Iraqi Freedom lead to death? How good people supported the war and lead to bad things happening? Should the whole idea of human right be thrown away because of this?

No we do, we don't excuse murder, as an extreme example, because of wild love because it's love-based
Which contradicts your statement that there are laws about them.

whereas we make all sorts of excuses for actions that are faith-based.
Not legal ones. People make non-legal excuses, but they do that for every other thing I mentioned.

except it's not a policy, it's half a policy. If you take the whole policy it will work. Don't blame the guy if you are going to follow half his advice. It's like saying.

Have a good night sleep, and study.

obviously doing nothing but sleep isn't going to help you pass a test if you take out the study part.

Well then abstinence based on faith then - that's even worse really - we should be abstinent to be closer to god - what's that about, the fact that it leads to all sorts of bizarre rulings from that initial faith is simply a quibble over my example.

Which contradicts your statement that there are laws about them.


Not legal ones. People make non-legal excuses, but they do that for every other thing I mentioned.

My point is that the debate over genetic manipulation or stem-cell research is based purely on an argument over whether god exists or not - that is not a good way to argue policy - admittedly in my own book since I don't believe - I can't think of a good example for the rest that doesn't work according to logic based on humans.

I admit I'm arguing poorly through a lack of serious thought about this but them's the breaks.

Yet my point remains in regard to the OP - faith-based laws are of little use and it's the faith, not the people that create those parameters.

The Pope doesn't condone abstinence through a careful weighing up of the rights and wrongs, he condones it because his faith tells him to.

In Africa, churches (sponsored by The Vatican) actively teach people that condoms are wrong, and that you should practice abstinence at all times (except when married). Problem is that telling people about abstinence does not work. Period. These people and the way they use their faith (note that the bible says nothing about condoms) are part of the reason why HIV/AIDS is spreading across the world.

The problem is that the advice as a whole isn't a problem. If people are not faithful enough to follow through the hard part, how can you blame faith for people to follow just the easy part that so happens to go with their culture and tradition to begin with? How much faith do they have if they choose not using a condom but not practice abstinence? Are we looking at a case of "faith goes wrong"? Or not so faithful people actively looking for a reason to justify their own actions?

The problem is that the advice as a whole isn't a problem. If people are not faithful enough to follow through the hard part, how can you blame faith for people to follow just the easy part that so happens to go with their culture and tradition to begin with? How much faith do they have if they choose not using a condom but not practice abstinence? Are we looking at a case of "faith goes wrong"? Or not so faithful people actively looking for a reason to justify their own actions?

Are you really arguing that abstinence is a good thing?

The only reason you might argue that is because you have faith in your particular god because there's no other logical reason for having that opinion.

It's not that you yourself are a bad person, I'm sure you're not, but your faith is resulting in illogical effects.

The problem is that the advice as a whole isn't a problem. If people are not faithful enough to follow through the hard part, how can you blame faith for people to follow just the easy part that so happens to go with their culture and tradition to begin with? How much faith do they have if they choose not using a condom but not practice abstinence? Are we looking at a case of "faith goes wrong"? Or not so faithful people actively looking for a reason to justify their own actions?

The problem is that teaching abstinence does not work. Period. But teaching people not to use condoms does. And it leads to an increase in HIV/AIDS rates. If these churches truly cared for the people, they would open their eyes and see this simple fact. Stop trying to muddy the waters.

Are you really arguing that abstinence is a good thing?

The only reason you might argue that is because you have faith in your particular god because there's no other logical reason for having that opinion.

It's not that you yourself are a bad person, I'm sure you're not, but your faith is resulting in illogical effects.

No, I am saying that people should be responsible for screwing themselves over by taking half an advice in any given situation. Faith is not at fault for people not faithful enough to follow through. By blaming faith we are taking away personal responsibility to protect oneself from STD.

Yes I believe it's the person's own fault for contracting STD if they don't use a condom or use abstinence. You either listen to the science community and wear the damn thing or follow through faith and practice that abstinence. If they choose to follow neither then it's their own fault.

No, I am saying that people should be responsible for screwing themselves over by taking half an advice in any given situation. Faith is not at fault for people not faithful enough to follow through. By blaming faith we are taking away personal responsibility to protect oneself from STD.

Yes I believe it's the person's own fault for contracting STD if they don't use a condom or use abstinence. You either listen to the science community and wear the damn thing or follow through faith and practice that abstinence. If they choose to follow neither then it's their own fault.

Where did STDs come into this?

If I thought the Pope had made a considered decision on abstinence based on STDs, I might have a modicum of respect - but he doesn't, his decision is based entirely on his belief in his own god.

People aren't Catholic because of its position of abstinence, their position on abstinence is based on their faith.

The Bush administration is not looking into stem-cell research based on benefits, they're against it because their faith tells them so.

Hence, faith does no good over and above what we'd rationally work out for ourselves - if nothing else, it works as an impediment to making good decisions in many cases.

It's the faith, not the person.

You do not have to respect faith. It is an individual choice. I myself am a christian and sincerly hope you will and do become one. BUT you do not HAVE to respect faith at all God gave us free will and if you do not want to respect it, that is your choice.

You do not have to respect faith at all. I am a christian and I hope you personally accept Jesus as your lord. But God gave us free will and because of that you do not have to respect faith at all. In fact, you can hate us to death although i hope you don't. My point is that it is your choice not "ours" so why are you asking us this?

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?
You shouldn't respect superstitious "faith" anyhow. Even if it's never done anything at all to you.

You should respect other peoples' right to believe as they want, PROVIDED that they are not violating your right to do the same.

The people who are blocking stem cell research are ignorant and/or assholes. They are killing other humans because of their personal superstitions and misconceptions. It is revolting to me that anybody would remain ignorant on a life-or-death subject and yet still presume to pass laws about it.

People who support a blanket ban on all stem cell research are being complete jackasses. Either they're ignorant and too lazy to inform themselves, or they're informed and they want their fellow humans to suffer and to die preventable deaths. Either way, jackassery. Don't worry about "respecting" their beliefs.

God gave us free will and if you do not want to respect it, that is your choice.

Aside from the fact that you've somehow related atheism with lack of free will (WTF?), if God did indeed give humans free will how is he omniscient and all-knowing, since he wouldn't know how we will act?

The problem is that the advice as a whole isn't a problem. If people are not faithful enough to follow through the hard part, how can you blame faith for people to follow just the easy part that so happens to go with their culture and tradition to begin with? How much faith do they have if they choose not using a condom but not practice abstinence? Are we looking at a case of "faith goes wrong"? Or not so faithful people actively looking for a reason to justify their own actions?
Wow, talk about blaming the victims.

Let's clear something up right now.

The Catholic Church loves to travel around telling people not to fuck, and that they have to abstain from sex. However, the places they're traveling to tend to be places where half the human population has fuckall choice in the matter...and the Church is cool with that. They tell women to submit to their husbands, to be the subservient little doves that God wants them to be, and they do essentially nothing to ensure that woman gain the educational, economic, and social equality that is REQUIRED if women are going to be actually allowed to choose when, how, and with whom they have sex.

So the Church basically waltzes in and says, "Don't fuck," but they're not prepared to do ANY of what is necessary to make it possible for women to say, "Thanks, but I'd rather not fuck right now." Instead, women's groups and the evil, evil reproductive rights organizations are the ones fighting to make it more possible for women to choose when/if they have sex.

If the Church actually did care about protecting people, they wouldn't do this half-assed slut shaming crap and call it "promoting abstinence."

Hmm. Faith doesn't really equal religion.. Don't know if that's been pointed out but thought I would chuck that out there.
As for all the Pope bashing? Pretty boring really. Kinda goes back to my first point.
Bottle kinda sumed it up when You should respect other peoples' right to believe as they want, PROVIDED that they are not violating your right to do the same...
Yeah, fan of that.

Aside from the fact that you've somehow related atheism with lack of free will (WTF?), if God did indeed give humans free will how is he omniscient and all-knowing, since he wouldn't know how we will act?

Huh how do these words:

'God gave us free will and if you do not want to respect it(religion), that is your choice'

Suggest that Atheism is equated with a lack of free will?

Wow, talk about blaming the victims.

Let's clear something up right now.

The Catholic Church loves to travel around telling people not to fuck, and that they have to abstain from sex. However, the places they're traveling to tend to be places where half the human population has fuckall choice in the matter...and the Church is cool with that. They tell women to submit to their husbands, to be the subservient little doves that God wants them to be, and they do essentially nothing to ensure that woman gain the educational, economic, and social equality that is REQUIRED if women are going to be actually allowed to choose when, how, and with whom they have sex.

So the Church basically waltzes in and says, "Don't fuck," but they're not prepared to do ANY of what is necessary to make it possible for women to say, "Thanks, but I'd rather not fuck right now." Instead, women's groups and the evil, evil reproductive rights organizations are the ones fighting to make it more possible for women to choose when/if they have sex.

If the Church actually did care about protecting people, they wouldn't do this half-assed slut shaming crap and call it "promoting abstinence."

Heh that's quite ironic as the Biblical God said 'go fuck'!

Where did STDs come into this?

If I thought the Pope had made a considered decision on abstinence based on STDs, I might have a modicum of respect - but he doesn't, his decision is based entirely on his belief in his own god.

People aren't Catholic because of its position of abstinence, their position on abstinence is based on their faith.

The Bush administration is not looking into stem-cell research based on benefits, they're against it because their faith tells them so.

Hence, faith does no good over and above what we'd rationally work out for ourselves - if nothing else, it works as an impediment to making good decisions in many cases.

It's the faith, not the person.

I think the STD part got mix in because I was responding to 2 people at a time, and someone mention the HIV/AIDS as one of the primary harm to not using a condom.

What does the Bush administration has to do with this? Are we suggesting that politicians do things out of faith instead of public appeals now?

There are Christians who believe either way. Faith itself can't tell people what to do in stem-cell research, especially when it's outside of the bible. When people put their own spin to the topic then it's not really faith, but rather a form of propaganda. If you can't see that people in power are trying to control others by using faith as a mean to an end, if you truly believe that Bush does everything out of faith rather than advertising to his target audience, I have nothing to say.

Don't mind him, he's Swedish.

And a notorious low-quality troll.

Wow, talk about blaming the victims.

Let's clear something up right now.

The Catholic Church loves to travel around telling people not to fuck, and that they have to abstain from sex. However, the places they're traveling to tend to be places where half the human population has fuckall choice in the matter...and the Church is cool with that. They tell women to submit to their husbands, to be the subservient little doves that God wants them to be, and they do essentially nothing to ensure that woman gain the educational, economic, and social equality that is REQUIRED if women are going to be actually allowed to choose when, how, and with whom they have sex.

So the Church basically waltzes in and says, "Don't fuck," but they're not prepared to do ANY of what is necessary to make it possible for women to say, "Thanks, but I'd rather not fuck right now." Instead, women's groups and the evil, evil reproductive rights organizations are the ones fighting to make it more possible for women to choose when/if they have sex.

If the Church actually did care about protecting people, they wouldn't do this half-assed slut shaming crap and call it "promoting abstinence."

I agree that what they do isn't practical. But you can't blame faith for a problem when people completely ignored faith and do the opposite of what the bible said. The bible clearly tells men not to commit adultery, they obviously didn't care. I don't understand why people think that church have such a great impact on promoting what they are doing. If people really take in the teachings of the church they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. There's a much deeper culture root to how women are treated in those part of the world that is beyond what the church is teaching them.

In another word, men who choose to commit adultery and not wear a condom at the same time are not doing it out of faith. Women become victims of such situation, but faith have little to do with the perpetrators actions to begin with.

But that being said, I agree that people who are actually in Africa, see what's happening around them, and still try to promote the condom bad/abstinence good campaign are idiots.

I agree that what they do isn't practical.

It's not just that it's not practical, my friend, it's that what they do MAKES THINGS WORSE.

It's that what they are doing accomplishes the OPPOSITE of their supposed goals.

That tells you one of two things:

Either they're so stupid that they accomplish the opposite of what they're trying to do, or they're lying to you about what they're trying to accomplish in the first place.


But you can't blame faith for a problem when people completely ignored faith and do the opposite of what the bible said.

I blame faith for the problems faith creates. In this case, faith is the device used to spread lies that maim and kill human beings.


The bible clearly tells men not to commit adultery, they obviously didn't care.

Because only men who commit adultery get STDs?

Stop getting your sex ed from nuns.


I don't understand why people think that church have such a great impact on promoting what they are doing.

Because the Church deliberately and intentionally seeks out locations where the people don't have access to other information and resources. They deliberately and intentionally seek out vulnerable populations and exploit them. They have a huge impact because they are intentionally seeking out the places where they can have the most control.


If people really take in the teachings of the church they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Sure they would. Plenty of devout, profoundly dedicated religious folks get STDs. Hell, there have been plenty of Popes who fucked like weasels.


There's a much deeper culture root to how women are treated in those part of the world that is beyond what the church is teaching them.

You're missing the point. The abuse and repression of women is exactly in line with what the Church is teaching. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they are actively encouraging women to submit to the very treatment that puts them at HIGHER risk for STDs and makes them far less able to abstain from sex.

You know what the fastest growing demographic of new HIV+ patients is? Married, monogamous heterosexual women. They do everything the Church tells them to do, and they get a deadly disease for their troubles.

In other words, the Church helps to actively ensure that women and girls cannot choose to abstain from sex, further ensures that they do not have access to any means of protecting themselves against STDs, and then the Church additionally blames the women and girls when they get STDs.


But that being said, I agree that people who are actually in Africa, see what's happening around them, and still try to promote the condom bad/abstinence good campaign are idiots.
They're not idiots. They're very smart, and they know exactly what they're doing. They want to hurt and kill people to get their way. Please stop kidding yourself about this. They are actively helping to spread a deadly disease because they want to force other people to embrace their religious beliefs. And every time you blame the victims for what these assholes are doing, you are helping the assholes.

It's not just that it's not practical, my friend, it's that what they do MAKES THINGS WORSE.

It's that what they are doing accomplishes the OPPOSITE of their supposed goals.

That tells you one of two things:

Either they're so stupid that they accomplish the opposite of what they're trying to do, or they're lying to you about what they're trying to accomplish in the first place.


I blame faith for the problems faith creates. In this case, faith is the device used to spread lies that maim and kill human beings.


Because only men who commit adultery get STDs?

Stop getting your sex ed from nuns.


Because the Church deliberately and intentionally seeks out locations where the people don't have access to other information and resources. They deliberately and intentionally seek out vulnerable populations and exploit them. They have a huge impact because they are intentionally seeking out the places where they can have the most control.


Sure they would. Plenty of devout, profoundly dedicated religious folks get STDs. Hell, there have been plenty of Popes who fucked like weasels.


You're missing the point. The abuse and repression of women is exactly in line with what the Church is teaching. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they are actively encouraging women to submit to the very treatment that puts them at HIGHER risk for STDs and makes them far less able to abstain from sex.

You know what the fastest growing demographic of new HIV+ patients is? Married, monogamous heterosexual women. They do everything the Church tells them to do, and they get a deadly disease for their troubles.

In other words, the Church helps to actively ensure that women and girls cannot choose to abstain from sex, further ensures that they do not have access to any means of protecting themselves against STDs, and then the Church additionally blames the women and girls when they get STDs.


They're not idiots. They're very smart, and they know exactly what they're doing. They want to hurt and kill people to get their way. Please stop kidding yourself about this. They are actively helping to spread a deadly disease because they want to force other people to embrace their religious beliefs. And every time you blame the victims for what these assholes are doing, you are helping the assholes.

So you are suggesting that "the church" as one group of individuals, are actively out there trying to kill uneducated people just to prove a point?

To make it more clear, you saying that

Church help spread STD
Church gain support as the result of people dying from STD

I think you have to elaborate on how the second part works. How the spreading of the disease is increasing their legitimacy and support in any way.

So you are suggesting that "the church" as one group of individuals, are actively out there trying to kill uneducated people just to prove a point?

I'm suggesting that the Catholic Church is an organization, with a clearly-stated official position on issues like contraception, sex, and STDs. I'm saying that the Catholic leadership has officially and clearly endorsed the policies I'm talking about, and they instruct their members and employees to carry out these practices.


To make it more clear, you saying that

Church help spread STD
Church gain support as the result of people dying from STD

No, I'm not.


I think you have to elaborate on how the second part works. How the spreading of the disease is increasing their legitimacy and support in any way.
I think you're going to have to read through my post and find where the hell I claimed that.

Or, alternatively, you could actually read what I did write and address the real points I brought up, instead of messing about with these feeble diversions.

I'm suggesting that the Catholic Church is an organization, with a clearly-stated official position on issues like contraception, sex, and STDs. I'm saying that the Catholic leadership has officially and clearly endorsed the policies I'm talking about, and they instruct their members and employees to carry out these practices.


No, I'm not.


I think you're going to have to read through my post and find where the hell I claimed that.

Or, alternatively, you could actually read what I did write and address the real points I brought up, instead of trying feeble diversions to avoid confronting reality.

In your own words
They are actively helping to spread a deadly disease because they want to force other people to embrace their religious beliefs.

so what exactly does that translates to?

Like you said

Either they're so stupid that they accomplish the opposite of what they're trying to do, or they're lying to you about what they're trying to accomplish in the first place.

I said they are just idiots. And it's pretty obvious you support the "lying" in the first place. So yes I want to see how them lying and spreading STD is increasing their support and legitimacy and how it help them spread their faith.

In your own words


so what exactly does that translates to?

It translates to, the Church wants its way, and if people have to get sick and die for them to get their way then that's fine. It's only brown heathens, anyhow.


I said they are just idiots. And it's pretty obvious you support the "lying" in the first place. So yes I want to see how them lying and spreading STD is increasing their support and legitimacy and how it help them spread their faith.
You need to remember that most of the people they are lying to will never find out they're being lied to. That's the entire point. That's where you're getting confused.

The Church specifically seeks out places where they will have exclusive power. They do this because when they're up against real information and sound medical advice, they lose. They know this, because they see it happen all over the developed world. People who understand reality don't buy what the Church is selling about contraception and sex.

The lie the Church tells to people like you and me is that they're trying to help the poor third-world folks by denying them access to contraception. They try to portray their efforts as sincere and helpful.

Of course, people like you and me have access to real information, and we can spot that bunk for what it is. We can do the actual research and learn that what the Church is doing is killing people. We can read about how the Church continues to promote blatant lies (for instance, that latex condoms have "pores" in their fabric which allow HIV to pass through) even after these lies have been completely and totally debunked. We can learn about how the Church tells women not to use condoms with their HIV+ husbands, ensuring that the women--and any of their children--will get to contract a deadly disease that could be prevented.

You and I can do all of this, because we have access to information.

Unless, of course, one of us were to have some vested interest in ignoring difficult little truths like these. Then we might do everything in our power to spin the situation in a positive way. We might try to convince ourselves that the Church really is trying to help, and it's just that faithless people refuse to obey the Bible and make themselves sick. We might even go out of our way to ignore the fact that never, in the history of human civilization, has the Church's approach EVER worked.

It translates to, the Church wants its way, and if people have to get sick and die for them to get their way then that's fine. It's only brown heathens, anyhow.


You need to remember that most of the people they are lying to will never find out they're being lied to. That's the entire point. That's where you're getting confused.

The Church specifically seeks out places where they will have exclusive power. They do this because when they're up against real information and sound medical advice, they lose. They know this, because they see it happen all over the developed world. People who understand reality don't buy what the Church is selling about contraception and sex.

The lie the Church tells to people like you and me is that they're trying to help the poor third-world folks by denying them access to contraception. They try to portray their efforts as sincere and helpful.

Of course, people like you and me have access to real information, and we can spot that bunk for what it is. We can do the actual research and learn that what the Church is doing is killing people. We can read about how the Church continues to promote blatant lies (for instance, that latex condoms have "pores" in their fabric which allow HIV to pass through) even after these lies have been completely and totally debunked. We can learn about how the Church tells women not to use condoms with their HIV+ husbands, ensuring that the women--and any of their children--will get to contract a deadly disease that could be prevented.

You and I can do all of this, because we have access to information.

Unless, of course, one of us were to have some vested interest in ignoring difficult little truths like these. Then we might do everything in our power to spin the situation in a positive way. We might try to convince ourselves that the Church really is trying to help, and it's just that faithless people refuse to obey the Bible and make themselves sick. We might even go out of our way to ignore the fact that never, in the history of human civilization, has the Church's approach EVER worked.

So you are saying that the church is out there to teach their teachings in uneducated areas, knowing it might end up hurting others. That they are doing this in disregard to the consequences. Okay I can accept that.

I just want to point back to my very first post.

Faith didn't do anything to you. Only power hungry morons does.

Let me elaborate on that, the Bible did not talk about abortion/stem cell research. Anyone who attempts to justify their point of view on those two topics base on the Bible are bullshit artists. Assholes use quotes like "thy shall not kill" as their backbone for their claims. Or garbage like "oh God made us this way" claim. I mean have they even read the bible to make claims like that? Do they even realize that Jesus was curing illnesses throughout the entire New Testament?

There are plenty of Christian Doctors out there who support stem cell research as a way of saving lives. Of course you will never heard about those Christians because they don't dedicate their whole life trying to dominate and control over other people.

I think the only difference between our point of views are that, while you suggest the idea of faith itself is the root of the problem, I am saying that the problem are from those power hungry people who use faith as a mean of propaganda and control.

I treat "faith" and "catholic church ideology" as 2 different thing. When I said faith didn't cause something, I mean just that. The idea of the bible did not lead to a problem, people who choose to interpret it a certain way as a mean for self gain is the root of the problem.

That being said, I am not even Christian, I just don't enjoy blaming an idea rather than looking at the people who are involve with screwing things up.

First off I'd like to show what my basis for this is, in a few minutes, with a simple video. It mentions how respect for faith contributes to people being opposed to embryonic stem cell research...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U

As someone with type 1 diabetes, my health is being damaged by a disease embryonic stem cell research has potential to cure, and yet with churches' unjust authority in the world, people see it as "murderous" for destroying embryos. First off, with regards to cloning human embryos, if people are going to regard that as "cloning human beings" then they're giving embryos status as human beings; in which case, to have abortions, or even the morning-after pill, be treated like anything other than murder, would be inconsistent; I've heard of opposition to abortion be associated with sexism, why isn't "bigotry against the disabled" applied equally so to opposition to embryonic stem cell research? Let me guess, being a diabetic isn't as common as being a woman. Of course, there's plenty of other diseases that embryonic stem cell research has potential to cure as well, but since I'm talking about how I don't respect faith, what it's done to others might not be as relevant... and yes I know there's other issues about what religion does too but those can't be as directly attributed to religion as opposition to embryonic stem cell research; I used to think religion caused homophobia until I found a rather homophobic atheist on youtube, and with regards to violence religion motivates people towards, that can be argued to be contradictory to religion in the first place... but such does not apply to opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

However, I'll make myself clear that I'm not actually against abortion; I was in favour of both abortion and embryonic stem cell research, long before I was even diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, simply because of my views on embryos; I'm more so making a point about consistency, but more importantly, about to anyone who would ever ask "what has religion ever done to you?" this topic is my answer. We should abandon such "respect for faith" I myself an am example of the damage it's done.

What people fail to realize is that embryo aren't even technically considered "alive" until they're born and breath on their own. I agree, faith has to often stepped in the way of progress and slowed it down to a crawl. (The dark ages and the inquisition) embryo research could hold potential cures for many ailments of man, and it wouldn't even be close to people harvesting. (Like the church suggests)

Why should I respect faith after what it's done to me?

You shouldn't. I don't. It isn't respectable for grown people to believe in magical beings.

You're saying I shouldn't beleive in you Fass?

I'm against laws and rules based on faith, and that's not just about people, it's because of that specific faith.

There are many people of faith equally opposed to laws and rules based on faith - at least to such laws and rules being imposed on others.

What I don't agree with is the idea that bad people use faith - I'm not saying they don't but good people make bad decisions based on faith as well - it's the faith that is wrong, not the person.

You are making the assumption that nobody ever actually thinks about something that they have faith in - that they never question it. This is not the case. Thus, your premise is wrong.

There are those who don't question what their preacher tells them. However, these are the same people who wouldn't question what any figure of authority told them. They want to be told, rather than to figure it out. That isn't a property of having faith - it is a property of the person in question.

Faith is an odd target. We all need faith; faith in others, faith in our own ability, yadda yadda.
What are you talking about? How is that comparable to the social expectation that faith is somehow something to respect? If your idea is supposed to be like one I read earlier on this site (I don't know why I didn't rebutall it then and there, it was said to someone else than me though) something along the lines of "but following your own moral code requires faith that your reasoning isn't prone to fallacy"; where there is fallacy, it is up to others to point it out.

If you're attacking religion, then please don't tar us all with the same brush, lest we do the same to you.
You already did; atheists are a widely mistrusted minority, associated with Stalin just because he was atheist, etc... if anything we're just fighting back. Well, actually I'm probably more agnostic but nonetheless anti-religion...

Perhaps you should respect the faith of others, to the same degree that they respect your beliefs and let you get on with your life.

I have no problem with others having faith, be it in Father Christmas, pokemons or some supernatural big hoodah. Just so long as they don't try to use their faith to tell me, or anyone else, how to live their lives.
Trouble is, faith motivatives people to be opposed to things they might not have been opposed to otherwise, which does harm me.

One man's suffering does not equate to the workings of the world.
AND I NEVER CLAIMED THAT IT DOES.

I made that clear enough with statements like "since I'm talking about how I don't respect faith, what it's done to others might not be as relevant" and explanations of how others' arguments about the crusades might be argued to not be based on "true religion" and the same does not apply to embryonic stem cell research; so whatever you're trying to make me look like, back off...

Have you even done research on stem cells ? If so you'd know embrionic stem cell research is not THE ONE AND ONLY possible cure for all of these diseases. There are others with equal or more potential (simply because more research has been done in those fields)
I never said I was against other forms of medical research, just that this one has a lot of potential and is being supressed for religious reasons.

As for your comment about more research having been done in other fields giving it more potential, I doubt that would qualify as potential in itself so much as progress, and the way to balance that out is to support more research within this one...

EDIT: And what do you mean, "research on stem cells"; are you asking how educated I am about them or about whether or not I actually did some of the medical research I'm talking about? If the former, I remember doing an assignment about them in grade 12 Biology, and if the latter, of course not, I'm only in my first year of university, it's going to take years for me to have the specialization to be involved in that, and actually I'm aiming for going into cryonics research myself...

To the OP: You're in Canada... last I heard, stem cell research was fine and dandy here.
...hmm? I don't know about the status of ESCR here (don't bother looking for links though, I can probably find some people at MUN to ask tomorrow) but that's not really relevant; it doesn't matter what country the ESCR is done in, it should be done in as many countries as possible, a cure is a cure, even if it's discovered in a foreign country.

So, you're blaming other people for something you haven't stepped up to try to combat?
What are you talking about? Haven't stepped up to try to combat opposition to ESCR? What do you think I'm doing now?

Turn off your liberal-media TV and go to a church.
And get brainwashed? Forget it. I came close enough when I was a little kid in sunday school when they were giving out books that refuted doubts like "what about other religions, couldn't they be right as well?" with blatant scare-tactic propaganda like "these are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with" obviously trying to stop people from questioning, I'm glad I saw through their BS.

And what's with your random use of that ideology label "liberal"? It associates way too many separate opinions on separate issues with each other at the same time to make sense, all sorts of different kinds of sets of opinions would have the same word used to describe them with those kinds of labels.

Life happens. Deal with it
Easy for you to say, it's not like YOU'RE the one with diabetes.

Don't complain unless you're going to do something about your problem.
Just what the hell are you saying you expect me to do? You repeatedly make those kinds of statements and yet you seem to be unable to give an example.

beating heart at 3 weeks?
I doubt the cells are taken from the embryo at 3 WEEKS, remember, the guy in the video was talking about 3-day-old embryos, and I recall from my grade 12 biology assignment about how the very benefit of ESRC over others is that the embryonic stem cells are from before cell specialization, others from after, such benefit might not apply as much so at 3 weeks...

Dreams?
How the hell can an embryo without a brain have a dream? Not sure if you ever took psychology but a brain is required for dreaming.

My conscience says, "It's a life, embryonic stem-cell research is bad."
And yet what the video refutes is the idea that it's a life, and you don't seem to be very directly refuting the video...

My logic says, "But it could amount to saving more lives than killing."
... scratch that one, it's not an issue of the numbers of people, it's more so about how the idea that an embryo early in development qualifies as a human being is questionable at best.

No, some people use faith for the benefit of everyone.

How do I benefit from people telepathically communicating to their invisible friend in the sky?

So can any other ideas such as democracy, freedom, liberty, or human rights if advertised the right way. Your point?

example
I utterly disagree with this fashionable mantra that 'human rights doesn't kill people, people kill people'.

The idea of human rights is completely intertwined with people, it is defined by the major institutes of the western world who is in power to define what human right means. Without the culture to believe in this superior forward thinking ideology, we would not have the justification to make all the rules that affect our lives.

The ideals that suggest my view of human rights are better than yours is a construct of their lifestyle in something superior. If we all simply allow people to make their own laws for their countries, agreed upon by general consensus then I suspect we'd be far better off - it's the western ideals in human right that allows for such imperialistic nonsense.
But those are far more reasonable ideas than faith.

Trouble is, faith motivatives people to be opposed to things they might not have been opposed to otherwise, which does harm me.

I really don't think this is often true. It might make them less motivated to research it, as they might trust their religious leaders to provide them with accurate information, but I don't think it motivates them to actually oppose something they wouldn't already, given the same amount of information they already have. It is education that changes minds, not a lack of faith.

I've seen plenty of people of faith, once they become more educated on the matter, change their views on embryonic stem cell research.

I doubt the cells are taken from the embryo at 3 WEEKS, remember, the guy in the video was talking about 3-day-old embryos, and I recall from my grade 12 biology assignment about how the very benefit of ESRC over others is that the embryonic stem cells are from before cell specialization, others from after, such benefit might not apply as much so at 3 weeks...


Embryonic stem cells are derived from pre-implantation embryos at the blastocyst stage. In other words, if the embryo were in a woman, she would not even yet be pregnant - as the embryo would not yet have attached to the uterine wall. This stage is reached at about 4-5 days and the latest I've ever heard in talks on ESCs was about 8 days.

But those are far more reasonable ideas than faith.

That is your personal opinion.

First off I'd like to show what my basis for this is, in a few minutes, with a simple video. It mentions how respect for faith contributes to people being opposed to embryonic stem cell research...

First I need to point out that I do have faith, however I'm not going to use it in my argument. Lack of faith does not mean one needs to use bad science and embryonic stem cell research is in effect bad science. There are a number of reasons for this but they all boil down to the same reasons why you can't just take any old organ and throw it in your body.

Adult stem cell research has already produced cures; right here and right now. Still embryonic stem cell research is easier for people who are more interested in obtaining research grants than actually curing people.

People want to make this a moral argument alone, so they can set up a strawman and burn it down before a cheering crowd. This allows them to avoid the inconvient truth that embryonic stem cell research is the 21st century equivalent of snake oil.

IT WILL CURE YOU.
ONLY THEY STOP US FROM CURING YOU.

Do not fall for the lie.

Do not tar all people of faith with the same brush. My opinion on religion & stem cell research goes something like this:

May the Lord G-d bless the stem cell researchers. May He lend them of His wisdom, and aid them to find cures for many diseases which afflict man. May He ensure that they are not bereft of funding, supplies, lab space, or caffeine. And let us say: Amen.

*snip*

Please tell me you're a troll. It's really the only explanation for this BS that I can possibly see.

Guess what? The same people who research embryonic stem cells are often researching various types of adult stem cells as well. The goal, as always, is to increase understanding and work towards therapies.

Do not tar all people of faith with the same brush. My opinion on religion & stem cell research goes something like this:

May the Lord G-d bless the stem cell researchers. May He lend them of His wisdom, and aid them to find cures for many diseases which afflict man. May He ensure that they are not bereft of funding, supplies, lab space, or caffeine. And let us say: Amen.

Woot! Can we get that caffeine as a white mocha with whipped cream? =)

First I need to point out that I do have faith, however I'm not going to use it in my argument. Lack of faith does not mean one needs to use bad science and embryonic stem cell research is in effect bad science. There are a number of reasons for this but they all boil down to the same reasons why you can't just take any old organ and throw it in your body.

Adult stem cell research has already produced cures; right here and right now. Still embryonic stem cell research is easier for people who are more interested in obtaining research grants than actually curing people.

People want to make this a moral argument alone, so they can set up a strawman and burn it down before a cheering crowd. This allows them to avoid the inconvient truth that embryonic stem cell research is the 21st century equivalent of snake oil.

IT WILL CURE YOU.
ONLY THEY STOP US FROM CURING YOU.

Do not fall for the lie.
Actually, no, not sure if you took Biology in high school, but embryonic stem cell research actually has MORE potential for cures because embryonic stem cells are from before cell specialization. Adult stem cell research having produced cures might have a bit more to do with it having had decades more time to deliver its results and embryonic being a relatively new science.

Where do you get your "info"?

Actually, no, not sure if you took Biology in high school, but embryonic stem cell research actually has MORE potential for cures because embryonic stem cells are from before cell specialization. Adult stem cell research having produced cures might have a bit more to do with it having had decades more time to deliver its results and embryonic being a relatively new science.

Where do you get your "info"?

To be fair, it probably wouldn't be correct at this juncture to say that either have more potential for cures. We simply don't know until we start getting to those cures. It might be that embryonic stem cells will provide us with a better understanding of cell development that then leads to more uses of adult stem cells - which are sometimes easier to obtain. In the end, neither type of research should be carried out to the exclusion of the other. We're looking for routes to improve medical science wherever we can.

It is also important to note that not all embryonic stem cell research is geared specifically towards cures. A lot of it is developmental biology - understanding early embryonic development and disease processes that occur during it. ESCs are really the best source we have for studying these processes in human beings, because it would be horribly unethical to experiment on pregnant women and take timed samples and the like.

For instance, one of my coworkers is researching the effects of alcohol on ESCs and developing neurons in order to try and understand the mechanism of fetal alcohol syndrome. It might eventually lead to treatment for those with FAS, but probably not a cell-based treatment. Some researchers have received grants to create ESC lines from gametes of carriers of genetic disorders in order to study the developmental defects these disorders cause. Again, this research could lead to treatments, but wouldn't necessarily be a cell treatment. It would be a treatment that grew out of a better understanding of the disease process itself.

To be fair, it probably wouldn't be correct at this juncture to say that either have more potential for cures. We simply don't know until we start getting to those cures. It might be that embryonic stem cells will provide us with a better understanding of cell development that then leads to more uses of adult stem cells - which are sometimes easier to obtain. In the end, neither type of research should be carried out to the exclusion of the other. We're looking for routes to improve medical science wherever we can.

It is also important to note that not all embryonic stem cell research is geared specifically towards cures. A lot of it is developmental biology - understanding early embryonic development and disease processes that occur during it. ESCs are really the best source we have for studying these processes in human beings, because it would be horribly unethical to experiment on pregnant women and take timed samples and the like.

For instance, one of my coworkers is researching the effects of alcohol on ESCs and developing neurons in order to try and understand the mechanism of fetal alcohol syndrome. It might eventually lead to treatment for those with FAS, but probably not a cell-based treatment. Some researchers have received grants to create ESC lines from gametes of carriers of genetic disorders in order to study the developmental defects these disorders cause. Again, this research could lead to treatments, but wouldn't necessarily be a cell treatment. It would be a treatment that grew out of a better understanding of the disease process itself.
Well, we couldn't really know for SURE, but at least according to theory it would make more sense that embryonic has more potential for cures because those cells are from before specialization and as such give us a better understanding of cell development. I certainly didn't say we should carry out one to the exclusion of the other; I believe I MYSELF said we should look to improve medical science wherever we can. As for what you said about the SUPPLIES of embryonic vs. adult stem cells, again, if not for faith we could increase the supply by cloning the embryos...

Anyway, though, I was more so responding to the other person's horse shit about ESCR being "bad science"...