|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2006 : 10:13:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Dave:
quote:
Do you consider monozygotic twins to be a single individual, also?
Why would I?
Well, you seemed to be advancing the position that all a person will be as an adult comes packaged with them at conception. Therefore, one might say that genetic clones (like monozygotic twins) actually are the same person.quote:
If an individual is created at conception - then later splits - creating two or more new individuals, that doesn't somehow negate the fact that it was an individual before it split, does it?
No, but given the idea that all a person will be is "set" at conception, then perhaps we could just kill off one twin with no loss of "individual life," since you seem to be defining it by a set of genes (which would continue to "live" within the other twin). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 12:08:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is difficult for us to imagine an existence that lacks the unique, irreplaceable 'Me.'
quote:
(bill) Maybe so for some. My whole point is that the unique, irreplaceable you is left to contemplate the ultimate meaninglessness of his/her very existence when pondering on the naturalistic universe as in the end, nothing will even matter. No wonder all the ultimate despair for those who have no eternal hope. That is why we see the rock star, actor, sport hero throw it all away on vice. They have been to the top, they have had the best that the world had to offer, and yet they have found all this to be meaningless, a chase after the wind. What do you do when you have reached the top of that the world and experienced the best it could offer and you still find meaninglessness? Many of them turn to medicating themselves to escape the reality they now know to be true. The poor still have the hope that money and fame can solve all their troubles, while the rich know better.
A pretty phrase, but as we are all individuals; this is a meaningless generalization. If you are going to use these examples, such as rock stars, and so forth, you will need to include statistics.
Further, it in no way answers the question of: why must the universe have meaning?
quote:
We have difficulty accepting that we are all going to die,
quote:
(bill) I have no difficulty knowing I am going to die. I have eternity to look forward to. An eternal existence that infinitely transcends my earthly existence.
Good luck with that....
quote:
therefore our -- call it: 'Essence' -- must carry on somewhere, somehow.
quote:
(bill) Unless you subscribe to the naturalistic universe, in which case your essence ceases to exist at the point of death to your body, leaving the life that you lead and the choices that you made, meaningless.
I see that you are beginning to understand.
quote:
Therefore, we have always invented these afterlives with no factual basis in nature.
quote:
(bill) That is your speculative conclusion, while billions come to a very different conclusion based on their observations of the world around them.
True, but you are using an Argument from Popularity, and therefore a logical fallacy. What observations have these billions made and their conclusions were reached based upon what empirical evidence?
quote:
It is and will be, until the demise of our species,
quote:
(bill) Agreed. There will always be those who say that "God did it" and there always be those that say "he did not", long after our discussions end.
Which makes the discussion rather meaningless, does it not? 
quote:
which will come long before the demise of the universe,
quote:
(bill) Speculation.
Based upon cosmological studies. The universe is considered to be somewhere between 13 and 15 BYO (I'm sure that those numbers have been since narrowed down). The earth is some 4.5 BYO. We, as a species are about 100 TYO. The dinosaurs were on earth for a mere 65 MY. Now, mull those numbers and then tell me: do you really think that our species will see the end of the universe short of getting reservations for dinner at Milliway's?
quote:
the lore that keeps religions going and their adherents believing in whatever merciful or ferocious deity they espouse.
quote:
(bill) If your trying to say that my hope for eternal life in the presence of my creator is what keeps me going then I would say, yes, many times that is what sustains me when faced when some of the many challenges of life that we all face.
I too have a crutch, as do we all.
quote:
It is the curse of sapience...
quote:
(bill) Your arbitrary conclusion not mine...
Said tongue in cheek, but really, do you have a better one?
quote:
What is wrong with simply the peace of oblivion, where at last, all things are equal?
quote:
(bill) You first have to have an essence before you can experience peace. With no essence you will not even experience, in oblivion, the peace that eluded you in this life, as in death you will lose your essence. So not even oblivion can bring peace to those who subscribe to a meaninglessness naturalistic universe.
One does not 'experience' oblivion, and that is the beauty of it. Do you expect to be entertained forever?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/17/2006 12:32:05 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 13:29:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
It is difficult for us to imagine an existence that lacks the unique, irreplaceable 'Me.'
quote:
(bill) Maybe so for some. My whole point is that the unique, irreplaceable you is left to contemplate the ultimate meaninglessness of his/her very existence when pondering on the naturalistic universe as in the end, nothing will even matter. No wonder all the ultimate despair for those who have no eternal hope. That is why we see the rock star, actor, sport hero throw it all away on vice. They have been to the top, they have had the best that the world had to offer, and yet they have found all this to be meaningless, a chase after the wind. What do you do when you have reached the top of that the world and experienced the best it could offer and you still find meaninglessness? Many of them turn to medicating themselves to escape the reality they now know to be true. The poor still have the hope that money and fame can solve all their troubles, while the rich know better.
A pretty phrase, but as we are all individuals; this is a meaningless generalization. If you are going to use these examples, such as rock stars, and so forth, you will need to include statistics.
Further, it in no way answers the question of: why must the universe have meaning?
quote:
We have difficulty accepting that we are all going to die,
quote:
(bill) I have no difficulty knowing I am going to die. I have eternity to look forward to. An eternal existence that infinitely transcends my earthly existence.
Good luck with that....
quote:
therefore our -- call it: 'Essence' -- must carry on somewhere, somehow.
quote:
(bill) Unless you subscribe to the naturalistic universe, in which case your essence ceases to exist at the point of death to your body, leaving the life that you lead and the choices that you made, meaningless.
I see that you are beginning to understand.
quote:
Therefore, we have always invented these afterlives with no factual basis in nature.
quote:
(bill) That is your speculative conclusion, while billions come to a very different conclusion based on their observations of the world around them.
True, but you are using an Argument from Popularity, and therefore a logical fallacy. What observations have these billions made and their conclusions were reached based upon what empirical evidence?
quote:
It is and will be, until the demise of our species,
quote:
(bill) Agreed. There will always be those who say that "God did it" and there always be those that say "he did not", long after our discussions end.
Which makes the discussion rather meaningless, does it not?
quote:
which will come long before the demise of the universe,
quote:
(bill) Speculation.
Based upon cosmological studies. The universe is considered to be somewhere between 13 and 15 BYO (I'm sure that those numbers have been since narrowed down). The earth is some 4.5 BYO. We, as a species are about 100 TYO. The dinosaurs were on earth for a mere 65 MY. Now, mull those numbers and then tell me: do you really think that our species will see the end of the universe short of getting reservations for dinner at Milliway's?
quote:
the lore that keeps religions going and their adherents believing in whatever merciful or ferocious deity they espouse.
quote:
(bill) If your trying to say that my hope for eternal life in the presence of my creator is what keeps me going then I would say, yes, many times that is what sustains me when faced when some of the many challenges of life that we all face.
I too have a crutch, as do we all.
quote:
It is the curse of sapience...
quote:
(bill) Your arbitrary conclusion not mine...
Said tongue in cheek, but really, do you have a better one?
quote:
What is wrong with simply the peace of oblivion, where at last, all things are equal?
quote:
(bill) You first have to have an essence before you can experience peace. With no essence you will not even experience, in oblivion, the peace that eluded you in this life, as in death you will lose your essence. So not even oblivion can bring peace to those who subscribe to a meaninglessness naturalistic universe.
One does not 'experience' ob |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 14:28:49 [Permalink]
|
I have not the faintest idea of why I am continuing with this. It is obviously an excersize in futility.
But ok, let's cut through the bullshit, or at least try to:
For my curiosity, what percentage of rock stars, professional athletes, and otherwise poor folks that became hideously wealthy in a short time, including lottery winners, screwed up their lives with idiocy; and yes, I too can think of at least 10 and many more, including Fatty Arbuckle, Mercury Morris, and everybody's current favorite: Michael Jackson. But out of how many? Good statistics, you might find, will nicely put to rest that straw man.
Which God(s) do you follow so devoutly and why? What evidences, acceptable in any peer-reviewed, scientific journal, can you present in favor of the existence of such. That one is not fair, I admit: such evidences have yet to be found. But perhaps you know of some that I don't.
Why, if this entity under discussion is all-powerful, do all of the religions, past and present, tell a different story?
And finally: you have yet to state which one of the above is the one that you are devoted to. Are you a Christian? A Muslim with 72 virgins breathlessly awaiting your death? A Buddhist -- I think Buddhists are kinda neat. A god of your own invention? What?
I think that you ought to open a new thread for this. I don't mind a little hijacking -- been known to do it myself, and shamelessly -- but it is tiresome to others.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/17/2006 14:34:34 |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 15:52:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Dave:
quote:
Do you consider monozygotic twins to be a single individual, also?
Why would I?
Well, you seemed to be advancing the position that all a person will be as an adult comes packaged with them at conception. Therefore, one might say that genetic clones (like monozygotic twins) actually are the same person.
What do you mean by "all?"
When I said "Even though its traits have not yet been expressed, the exist as much as they ever will.", I obviously meant those traits which are purely genetic. That might seem too obvious to have been stated at all, but it was meant to refute the suggestion that if we consider a fertilized egg a "person," then why not the sperm? Or the egg?
All I am saying is that biologically, at conception an organism is created that is a human, not that will become a human.
Before conception, nothing exists that is or will become a person. At conception, the sperm and egg are effectively dead; a new organism has been created, and I have no reason to believe this should be considered anything other than a person - because it will develop - with no fundamental changes - into something we all agree is a person.
quote:
quote:
If an individual is created at conception - then later splits - creating two or more new individuals, that doesn't somehow negate the fact that it was an individual before it split, does it?
No, but given the idea that all a person will be is "set" at conception, then perhaps we could just kill off one twin with no loss of "individual life," since you seem to be defining it by a set of genes (which would continue to "live" within the other twin).
Obviously more than genes factor into a "person" (otherwise monozygotic twins would have identical personalities). But I can't accept those factors as basis for determining "personhood" because they are all dependant on purely subjective analysis, or even worse, they depend on current the state of medicine.
Starman:
quote:
I can respect that you think and abortion is wrong but equating a fetus with a viable conscious human is in my opinion absurd.
quote:
These discussions have demonstrated one thing perfectly clearly: humans can rationalize anything.
Like equating a human with a fetus and giving them the same worth.
Feel free to back that up. I have shared my rational. Your post is curiously void of it.
marfknox:
quote:
...if they have not yet deve |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 16:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Even though its traits have not yet been expressed, the exist as much as they ever will.
quote:
All I am saying is that biologically, at conception an organism is created that is a human, not that will become a human.
No, a fetus becomes a person. It isn't one yet in exactly the same way a caterpillar isn't a butterfly. "Not yet expressed" is just another way of saying "is not."
quote:
Before conception, nothing exists that is or will become a person. At conception, the sperm and egg are effectively dead; a new organism has been created, and I have no reason to believe this should be considered anything other than a person - because it will develop - with no fundamental changes - into something we all agree is a person.
With no fundamental changes! Are you insane? At one point the zygote will have no heartbeat or brain activity. At another point in the fetus' development it will have gill slits and a tail. All through its development it absorbs all its nutrition from a host and never once takes a breath of air. No fundamental changes? Who do you think you're kidding.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/17/2006 16:26:30 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 16:48:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Where, I wonder, is the legislation to ban in vitro fertilization?
Indeed, this is a good question!
Logically, this should be the first step for the pro-lifers: without any statistics, I would place a bet fertilization clinics dispose of more "human beings" than abortions annually.
Banning invitro-fertilization clinics would be much easier to sell to the (pro-choice) public as a first step toward the theocratic society that is obviously the end game.
The pro-lifers arguments for sanctity of life is just a blatant appeal to emotion reinforced by gory details. But it does sell in religious circles where people are encouranged to "feel" (for the "poor human being murdered") and not think.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 16:57:20 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
quote:
No, a fetus becomes a person. It isn't one yet in exactly the same way a caterpillar isn't a butterfly. "Not yet expressed" is just another way of saying "is not."
To compare the metamorphosis of a butterfly to the development of a fetus demonstrates complete ignorance of one or both processes.
quote:
With no fundamental changes! Are you insane? At one point the zygote will have no heartbeat or brain activity. At another point in the fetus' development it will have gill slits and a tail. All through its development it absorbs all its nutrition from a host and never once takes a breath of air. No fundamental changes? Who do you think you're kidding.
Gill slits?
Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
edit: spelling |
| Edited by - verso on 03/17/2006 16:59:11 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 17:25:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
It is the curse of sapience...
(bill) Your arbitrary conclusion not mine...
Said tongue in cheek, but really, do you have a better one?
(bill) I don't see the gift of eternal life as a curse, but rather reality and just that, a gift.
This is where we have a core argument: "but rather reality"
You have no evidence that eternal life is a reality. That's why many of us are amused by your strict adherence to what we perceive as religious dogma.
I don't deny the possibility of a deity, that's why I think of myself as agnostic. Science is the method used to discover objective reality. That is why I trust science more than any religious texts.
Scientific knowledge is revised and adjusted as new evidence is discovered.
Religious texts remains inflexible. If they are found wrong, what happens then? The faithful either abandons their faith, or starts denying facts and aspects of reality.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 22:13:36 [Permalink]
|
verso said:
quote:
Yes, I do believe any action putting the life of the fetus at risk should be treated the same as any activity putting a 2-year old at risk.
So, you think in vitro fertilization is the same as murder.
So answer my question: Did you and your wife ever "adopt" an extra embryo from an invitro clinic?
Because, by your logic, flushing an embryo is the same as flushing a 2y/o child.
(thought expiriment)
If you were confronted with the decision to take a 2y/o or stand by and watch it be flushed(no time for other options to be considered, you take the kid or it dies right now), what would your decision be?
Because you have to make the same decision for an embryo, if you really consider them the same as a 2y/o child.
There are, afterall, aprox 400,000 frozen embryos in the US, and several ways in which you can adopt one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 22:46:59 [Permalink]
|
verso said:
quote:
Gill slits?
Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
Human fetuses do, at one stage of developement, have pharyngeal pouches. In our aquatic chordate cousins they are called gill pouches and eventually some of them become gill slits (among other things).
In humans they develope into dozens of things, from yor ears to your thyroid glands.
When the pouches are present in the human embryo they have the same appearance as those in all other vertibrate embryos. (strong evidence for evolution, fyi, but that is a bit ot for this thread).
The pharyngeal pouches in human embryos are commonly referred to as "gill slits", even though it is technically incorrect.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 23:01:02 [Permalink]
|
Mab said:
quote:
without any statistics, I would place a bet fertilization clinics dispose of more "human beings" than abortions annually.
I recall reading abortions at something like 800K a year, I can't find any stats on how many in vitro procedures are done in the US in a year.
The aprox 400K frozen embryo number is from (I think) 2004, and it is the total number in cold storage, not the number for just one year. (no idea how many get created for each procedure or how many people elect to have the remainder destroyed) But 4 embryos are used in each in vitro attempt, with a 30% success rate to become pregnant.
Anyway you look at it alot of embryo "murder" is going on in those in vitro clinics!
But the number of "murdered" embryos via in vitro fertilization is probably less than for annual abortions, just guessing though since I can't find any overall stats on in vitro.
But with overall abortion rates on a steady decline since the mid 90's and in vitro use going up by those older high risk patients....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 23:58:49 [Permalink]
|
| Here's a thought exercise for the in vitro clinics. They implant multiple embryos knowing the survival rate is low. So should they just keep those little babies frozen until the technology improves or keep sending them out knowing half will perish under current conditions? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 03:14:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
While you and yours have come to your conclusions, billions have come to a very different conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Filthy
Another Argument from Popularity and therefore nonsense. The majority might rule, but that does not automatically mean that they are right.
I am not arguing. Both sides come to their conclusion based on speculative evidence. I simply pointed out that while you come to one conclusion others come to a very different one.
It's not even a very good argument from popularity. The billions (a dubious figure anyway) have hardly come to the same conclusion. How many flavours of christianity alone are there, let alone the various other major and minor religions? The bickering between religious types, each certain of their beliefs have been responsible for more than the odd bit of conflict and suffering, for both their own and those who would otherwise care less.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Filthy
Do you expect to be entertained forever?
(bill) By God? No. Do I expect to be awed forever by God? Absolutely. This is the agent who brings into existence that which did not exist before. This is the agent who can cause life to exist where life did exist before. Man, in all his glory, has never been able to come close to duplicating these feats. Nor has he even come close to figuring out how it was done. I very much look forward to meeting this one who gave to me the breath of life and spending eternity in his presence is just where I would want to be.
Why would you be "awed" by someone/something that has done something which, by any definition I've ever heard, is a trivial task for him/her/it? I would hope to earn the love and respect of my children, to expect it just because I brought them into the world would be arrogant in the extreme.
Science may never be able to say conclusively exactly what the ultimate cause of life on Earth was, but there are already numerous plausable abiogenetic theories, and I dare say that it certainly not ludicrous to think that at some time in the future we may not be able to re-enact these early life generating stages on demand. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
