Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[Dr Grump]

Of course you dont' have to be religious to be spiritual, even Voltaire didn't believe in Jesus. Anyway, were you being sarcastic about Osama being spiritual?

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. He's very spiritual and believes what he believes. He's a total arsehole/toe rag, too, but that's another story...

 

[Dr Grump]

More to the point why do you guys keep ignoring the point about T. Jefferson? You guys only bring him up in arguments when it's convenient for you to quote him but then try to change the subject when it's shown that he did not protest God in government nor prayers in public. Looks like you're going to have to find a new Founder to support your anti-God viewpoints.

I didn't bring up T Jefferson and I don't need to. There should be separation of religion and govt or you end up with theocracies. Look at what that mixture has done to Islamic countries.

There is no "rub". I've pointed out my reasoning on ESCR based on scientific truth. You ignored my link with the opinions of a real, live, reputable scientist. How that makes me a "Bible-thumping zealot" is beyond me….you are really reaching here.

No, what you did was take a quote from a right-wing Christian site who quoted a scientist from a Washington Post article who said ESCR was a fairy tale (my paraphrase). I then found the original article, where he did indeed say that.....in relation to alzheimers. However, he said the exact opposite re diabetes and Parkinson's.

So if laws reflect the moral principles of both you atheists and us Christians, THEN the law is OK? I thought we lived in a country where the majority ruled?

You ever heard the term Tyranny of the Majority? There are protections around for that exact reason. And I'm not 100% sure what point you are trying to make.

Do you think a Christian in good standing would act like Stalin did? Of course not.

Do you think an athiest of good standing would act like Stalin did? Do you consider Stalin was of good standing?

 

[Dr Grump]

At least Christianity has good intentions. Can't say that for atheism.:teeth:

Christianity does have good intentions, pity some of its adherents don't live up to those intentions.

What are atheims intentions?

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

I didn't bring up T Jefferson and I don't need to. There should be separation of religion and govt or you end up with theocracies. Look at what that mixture has done to Islamic countries.

Silly extremist. I thought you could view most things in shades of grey, guess I was wrong.

Explain Sweden. An offical church and religion. Where's your theocracy now?

No, what you did was take a quote from a right-wing Christian site who quoted a scientist from a Washington Post article who said ESCR was a fairy tale (my paraphrase). I then found the original article, where he did indeed say that.....in relation to alzheimers. However, he said the exact opposite re diabetes and Parkinson's.

Well, if ESCR was so wonderful, it'd be more popular in the private sector, where medical research really thrives. But it's not.

You ever heard the term Tyranny of the Majority? There are protections around for that exact reason. And I'm not 100% sure what point you are trying to make.

Mantra: this is not a pure democracy, there is no mob rule. And that's why you've got the US Constitution, which has no separation of church and state clause to mandate atheism.

 

[Dr Grump]

Silly extremist. I thought you could view most things in shades of grey, guess I was wrong.

Most things...Nothing extremist about it

Explain Sweden. An offical church and religion. Where's your theocracy now?

Are their laws intertwined with their religion like Ireland? And for every Sweden I'll give you an Iran or Saudi Arabia..

Well, if ESCR was so wonderful, it'd be more popular in the private sector, where medical research really thrives. But it's not.

Onedomino has already explained that on a couple of occasions..how many times does it have to be said?

Mantra: this is not a pure democracy, there is no mob rule. And that's why you've got the US Constitution, which has no separation of church and state clause to mandate atheism.

I know there is no mob rule. Is that what you want? There's nothing that mandates religino either...

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Most things...Nothing extremist about it

Hell yeah, it's extremist to think that there's no in between an athiest state and a theocracy.

Are their laws intertwined with their religion like Ireland? And for every Sweden I'll give you an Iran or Saudi Arabia..

Yes, they are in between the extremes of an atheist state and a theocracy.

Onedomino has already explained that on a couple of occasions..how many times does it have to be said?

Pardon? You mean this:

You keep saying no results. How many times must it be pointed out that ESC lines were first isolated in 1998. The R&D will cost billions of dollars and take decades. Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon until 54 years after Robert Goddard's 1915 experiments, but maybe America should have quit rocket R&D back in 1923. Federal R&D projects are associated with a US Constitution that permits the collective pursuit of the "common good." You may disagree what is the common good, and no one will force you to accept any benefits derived from such projects; including cancer and heart research. But you are a citizen and must pay taxes. Anti-Federalist or religious attitudes should not block the rest of us from obtaining the benefits from Federal R&D projects that have been authorized and funded by our elected representatives in the US Congress, such as ESC R&D.

And there's bunches of more experiments that have totally failed, eight years is a long, long time in medical research, and that line that was isolated was funded privately, not by tax dollars for freakish medical experimentation some object to.

A big old difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is the rejection factor. In adult stem cell therapy, one's OWN stem cells are harvested and, therefore, rejection of the tissue is not an issue...and they are just as 'maleable' as ESCs.

It's not neccessary. There is absolutely NO rational, logical, moral or financial reason TO fund the research when a PROVEN form of treatment has already been found.


It's so....utilitrarian. It might cure bone cancer if you kill onedominion and harvest his skin cells. You never know.

I know there is no mob rule. Is that what you want? There's nothing that mandates religino either...

No, something in between mob rule and a pure democracy. Athiest, moderate thyself!

 

[jillian]

Hell yeah, it's extremist to think that there's no in between an athiest state and a theocracy.

A State is not athiest. It has no religious beliefs at all unless there is a state religion (which is prohibited in this country by the first amendment) or is a theocracy.

Yes, they are in between the extremes of an atheist state and a theocracy.

See above.


[/QUOTE]Pardon? You mean this:

And there's bunches of more experiments that have totally failed, eight years is a long, long time in medical research, and that line that was isolated was funded privately, not by tax dollars for freakish medical experimentation some object to.[/QUOTE]

Freakish to save lives? Now THAT'S freakish... There have been a myriad of links to the NIH site and to medical articles which document the promise of ESC Research. You're simply ignoring it because you choose to... just as you are ignoring the reasons stated by onedomino with respect to the need for government payment for this research and the length of time ESC R & D will take.

A big old difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is the rejection factor. In adult stem cell therapy, one's OWN stem cells are harvested and, therefore, rejection of the tissue is not an issue...and they are just as 'maleable' as ESCs.

No. All reliable evidence is that your statement is totally incorrect. I'd direct you to earlier posts on this subject.

It's not neccessary. There is absolutely NO rational, logical, moral or financial reason TO fund the research when a PROVEN form of treatment has already been found.

Proven form of treatment for what? Parkinsons? Paralysis? Diabetes?

You're being disingenuous.

It's so....utilitrarian. It might cure bone cancer if you kill onedominion and harvest his skin cells. You never know.

Kinda strange analogy going there, buddy.

No, something in between mob rule and a pure democracy. Athiest, moderate thyself!

Missing the boat there, too. You want "something in between", go live someplace with a state sanctioned religion where they aren't governed by a First Amendment or Constitution which protects the minority from the majority.

 

[Stephanie]

But it's OK for the minority to run all over the majority, with their idiotic ideas, wants and demands.....

Don't ya know......

 

[jillian]

But it's OK for the minority to run all over the majority, with their idiotic ideas, wants and demands.....

Don't ya know......

Idiotic ideas like science? And fairness? And freedom for everyone to worship or not worship as they please?

Yeah... must really suck being you. Tell us again what you're not allowed to do, other than genuflect in a state building.....

What church can't you attend?

Oh right... there isn't one.

 

[onedomino]

eight years is a long, long time in medical research

Absurd. The clinical trials alone would take years and that is after the years that the R&D itself would take. The US has federally funded cancer and heart research for decades and yet associated disease rates are increasing. Maybe we should just give up because a highly qualified molecular biologist on this message board thinks that "eight years is a long, long time in medical research."

 

[onedomino]

It might cure bone cancer if you kill onedominion and harvest his skin cells. You never know.

What a thoughtful suggestion. Is your complete lack of civility something you worked to achieve or are you just naturally gifted?

 

[dilloduck]

Osama is very spiritual. What i do get is I don't get to decide who is spiritual and who isn't. I leave that to the egomanical fundie Christians/Muslims. I'll buy a clue for you Dillo: You don't have to be religious to be spiritual, and if you think you do, see sentences two and three in this post.

I thought I made that perfectly clear---religious doesn't mean spiritual and who gives a rats ass who decides. If you dont buy into anything larger than yourself, the only thing to fall back on is your own ego. The constitution says there should be no state religion--there isnt one. It doesn't say that religious people should be excluded from government, however.

 

[dilloduck]

Idiotic ideas like science? And fairness? And freedom for everyone to worship or not worship as they please?

Yeah... must really suck being you. Tell us again what you're not allowed to do, other than genuflect in a state building.....

What church can't you attend?

Oh right... there isn't one.

Ahhhh science---the ones who brought us cool things like frontal lobotomies !:teeth:

 

[Dr Grump]

I thought I made that perfectly clear.

Obviously not.

religious doesn't mean spiritual and who gives a rats ass who decides.

Now you have made yourself clear.

If you dont buy into anything larger than yourself, the only thing to fall back on is your own ego.

Why? How about they just don't believe and that's it. As for egos, non-believers aren't the ones that think themselves so important that there is life after death, or that in the grand scheme of things this is only part of "life".

It doesn't say that religious people should be excluded from government, however.

I don't see anybody saying that. However, those people trying to enact laws that support their religion is another thing...

 

[dilloduck]

Obviously not.



Now you have made yourself clear.



Why? How about they just don't believe and that's it. As for egos, non-believers aren't the ones that think themselves so important that there is life after death, or that in the grand scheme of things this is only part of "life".



I don't see anybody saying that. However, those people trying to enact laws that support their religion is another thing...

Theoretically, legislators try to enact laws according to what they believe to be the good. Would you prefer they use a different standard? Like I said--secularists will never understand thier admiration of and faith in the ego.

 

[Dr Grump]

Theoretically, legislators try to enact laws according to what they believe to be the good. Would you prefer they use a different standard? Like I said--secularists will never understand thier admiration of and faith in the ego.

No re the different standard. You don't have to have religion to know what is good and bad.

This non-believer understands when somebody is blaming the ego and is trying to belittle them and think of them as selfish just because they don't believe in a diety...

 

[dilloduck]

No re the different standard. You don't have to have religion to know what is good and bad.

This non-believer understands when somebody is blaming the ego and is trying to belittle them and think of them as selfish just because they don't believe in a diety...

I said nothing of religion----is it so wrong for a legislator to use what his spirituality tells him when he crafts or votes for legislation? I'm not trying to belittle you--just stating facts. I know ego has a negative connotation. Would you prefer the word "self" ? Your so busy condemning spirituality that you still are not offering your views of what guides an individual should use to act.

 

[Dr Grump]

I said nothing of religion----is it so wrong for a legislator to use what his spirituality tells him when he crafts or votes for legislation? I'm not trying to belittle you--just stating facts. I know ego has a negative connotation. Would you prefer the word "self" ? Your so busy condemning spirituality that you still are not offering your views of what guides an individual should use to act.

But I did mention religion and that is what we were talking about. Spirituality is associated with religion in the context we were talking. Where you are going is being a bit disingenuous IMO. Ego or self, why do you think it is even an issue. I rarely think in those terms when it comes to my beliefs. I don't sit there thinking "Oh, my belief or non belief is all about me". If you think that, you could say that about any belief - Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism. And I was not condemning spirituality at all. If that is what floats your boat, more power to you. I won't try and legislate that you DON'T believe, and you do the same for me. Deal? Most people these days have their own moral compass. A society's mores/morals usually guide them. Religion, too. There are many facets in that regard.

 

[dilloduck]

But I did mention religion and that is what we were talking about. Spirituality is associated with religion in the context we were talking. Where you are going is being a bit disingenuous IMO. Ego or self, why do you think it is even an issue. I rarely think in those terms when it comes to my beliefs. I don't sit there thinking "Oh, my belief or non belief is all about me". If you think that, you could say that about any belief - Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism. And I was not condemning spirituality at all. If that is what floats your boat, more power to you. I won't try and legislate that you DON'T believe, and you do the same for me. Deal? Most people these days have their own moral compass. A society's mores/morals usually guide them. Religion, too. There are many facets in that regard.

Let me try to make it simpler---We all try to to get things to be the way we want them. Do you buy that?

 

[Dr Grump]

Let me try to make it simpler---We all try to to get things to be the way we want them. Do you buy that?

Of course they do....