If religious people don't believe in science, should they stand to benefit from it?

[SSSnail]

OK, before I start, please do not post any flaming materials. I couldn't care less what your religious views are, just address the question posted which is the title of the thread.

Now, let's say the religious oppose stem cell research, amongst other things, when the technology is available should they use it? If you're religious, do you have any moral conflict should you require this new technology to save your life, your love one's life?

Well, that's all for now, there are many more questions and answers that I hope you guys will fill in. Remember, no flames or I'll sssnail-trail your car.

 

[Joemonkey]

sounds like the "christian scientists" and others that don't believe i healing a broken bone or blood transfusions because "god" will take care of you

 

[Baked]

Except there are a lot of religion funded hospitals in the world.

 

[Freshgeardude]

I r jewish and believe in science

 

[RightIsWrong]

I have a friend that was a pretty devout Jehovah's Witness back in the day and he said that they actually carried cards stating that they were not to receive blood transfusions under any circumstances.

 

[Freshgeardude]

I believe they are against woman getting pregnant just for the stem cells. because its like killing a life to some.

 

[coldmeat]

If they truly don't believe in it, they will refuse it, so it's not really an issue. Unless they were refusing treatment for someone who is not capable of making that decision themselves, in which case I don't know what to think.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yes.

 

[Queasy]

First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Queasy
First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

I thought most if not all of the embryonic researches done on embryos are from dead ones? It's not like they're looking for women to get pregnant to take the fetus. 😕

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Queasy
First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

I thought most if not all of the embryonic researches done on embryos are from dead ones? It's not like they're looking for women to get pregnant to take the fetus. 😕

It is the slippery slope argument. Women have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo. Do you end up generating a research industry where women get pregnant (ie the creation of life) only to have that human embryo/life destroyed solely for this research? There are not only religious but sticky ethical questions with this.

However, as I said in the other thread, this controversy has almost been made moot but advances in non-embryonic stem cell research that have produced results and treatments that were promised from embryonic stem cell research and it can be done without the sticky religious and ethical issues.

 

[Jeff7]

"We accepted the products of science; we rejected its methods." - Carl Sagan

 

[mozirry]

I think you forget that 90% of christian / religious people are just religious to be social. Most of our mega hospitals are faith based anyway

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It's funny, people who think God is the answer to their problems always manage to dial 911 when the shit hits the fan. They claim they believe in prayer, but when it's their own life on the line they believe in the men in the red trucks a whole lot more. It's the same with any science. The true believers claim they don't want it, they oppose pretty much any scientific advancement because that helps puncture the fairy tales. But as soon as science wins and makes progress that can save their lives the most vocal opponents line up for treatment.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: mozirry
I think you forget that 90% of christian / religious people are just religious to be social. Most of our mega hospitals are faith based anyway

To be honest, that can be said about 90% of popular movements out there. Such is humanity.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: mozirry
I think you forget that 90% of christian / religious people are just religious to be social. Most of our mega hospitals are faith based anyway

To be honest, that can be said about 90% of popular movements out there. Such is humanity.

I would add that many of the remaining 10% go there just for the insurance policy.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Queasy
First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

I thought most if not all of the embryonic researches done on embryos are from dead ones? It's not like they're looking for women to get pregnant to take the fetus. 😕

It is the slippery slope argument. Women have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo. Do you end up generating a research industry where women get pregnant (ie the creation of life) only to have that human embryo/life destroyed solely for this research? There are not only religious but sticky ethical questions with this.

However, as I said in the other thread, this controversy has almost been made moot but advances in non-embryonic stem cell research that have produced results and treatments that were promised from embryonic stem cell research and it can be done without the sticky religious and ethical issues.

Women don't have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo, thanks to the magic of science! (embryonic stem cells)

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Queasy
First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

I thought most if not all of the embryonic researches done on embryos are from dead ones? It's not like they're looking for women to get pregnant to take the fetus. 😕

It is the slippery slope argument. Women have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo. Do you end up generating a research industry where women get pregnant (ie the creation of life) only to have that human embryo/life destroyed solely for this research? There are not only religious but sticky ethical questions with this.

However, as I said in the other thread, this controversy has almost been made moot but advances in non-embryonic stem cell research that have produced results and treatments that were promised from embryonic stem cell research and it can be done without the sticky religious and ethical issues.

Maybe we just need to spend more money on single-cell biopsy research.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
It's funny, people who think God is the answer to their problems always manage to dial 911 when the shit hits the fan. They claim they believe in prayer, but when it's their own life on the line they believe in the men in the red trucks a whole lot more. It's the same with any science. The true believers claim they don't want it, they oppose pretty much any scientific advancement because that helps puncture the fairy tales. But as soon as science wins and makes progress that can save their lives the most vocal opponents line up for treatment.

Oh, give me a f'n break. Having religious views does not preclude one from dialing 911 or taking advantage of scientific advancements. That's about as ludicrous of a strawman as you can get.

 

[BoomerD]

Nope. They should all be forced to live in colonies like the Amish...maybe walled in to prevent the spread of their disease.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Baked
Except there are a lot of religion funded hospitals in the world.

Yup, most of the hospitals in the US in fact.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Queasy
First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

I thought most if not all of the embryonic researches done on embryos are from dead ones? It's not like they're looking for women to get pregnant to take the fetus. 😕

It is the slippery slope argument. Women have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo. Do you end up generating a research industry where women get pregnant (ie the creation of life) only to have that human embryo/life destroyed solely for this research? There are not only religious but sticky ethical questions with this.

However, as I said in the other thread, this controversy has almost been made moot but advances in non-embryonic stem cell research that have produced results and treatments that were promised from embryonic stem cell research and it can be done without the sticky religious and ethical issues.

Women don't have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo, thanks to the magic of science! (embryonic stem cells)

Fertilizing an egg in vitro, you are still talking about taking the first step of creating a human life and then destroying it for the purpose of research.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Queasy
First, your argument is flawed. "Religious people" don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose embryonic stem cell research. And it is not just "Religious people" but non-religious people too who have ethical concerns over the practice.

The stem cells used in the thread that inspired your question actually came from bone marrow so there would be no religious objection to that.

Now, there are some extreme religious types that refuse any type of medical treatment but those are extremely rare.

I thought most if not all of the embryonic researches done on embryos are from dead ones? It's not like they're looking for women to get pregnant to take the fetus. 😕

It is the slippery slope argument. Women have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo. Do you end up generating a research industry where women get pregnant (ie the creation of life) only to have that human embryo/life destroyed solely for this research? There are not only religious but sticky ethical questions with this.

However, as I said in the other thread, this controversy has almost been made moot but advances in non-embryonic stem cell research that have produced results and treatments that were promised from embryonic stem cell research and it can be done without the sticky religious and ethical issues.

Women don't have to get pregnant in order to generate an embryo, thanks to the magic of science! (embryonic stem cells)

Fertilizing an egg in vitro, you are still talking about taking the first step of creating a human life and then destroying it for the purpose of research.

Nonsense! Man cannot create life!

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
It's funny, people who think God is the answer to their problems always manage to dial 911 when the shit hits the fan. They claim they believe in prayer, but when it's their own life on the line they believe in the men in the red trucks a whole lot more. It's the same with any science. The true believers claim they don't want it, they oppose pretty much any scientific advancement because that helps puncture the fairy tales. But as soon as science wins and makes progress that can save their lives the most vocal opponents line up for treatment.

Oh, give me a f'n break. Having religious views does not preclude one from dialing 911 or taking advantage of scientific advancements. That's about as ludicrous of a strawman as you can get.

Why not? If you put your faith in the invisible man in the sky why not truly put your faith in him? Can't he heal diseases? Can't he put out fires? Can't he stop a heart attack? Why do people who claim to have faith that he can do all those things not have faith that he will do those things? Why do people that claim to have faith in heavenly help rely on mundane earthly help?

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
It's funny, people who think God is the answer to their problems always manage to dial 911 when the shit hits the fan. They claim they believe in prayer, but when it's their own life on the line they believe in the men in the red trucks a whole lot more. It's the same with any science. The true believers claim they don't want it, they oppose pretty much any scientific advancement because that helps puncture the fairy tales. But as soon as science wins and makes progress that can save their lives the most vocal opponents line up for treatment.

Oh, give me a f'n break. Having religious views does not preclude one from dialing 911 or taking advantage of scientific advancements. That's about as ludicrous of a strawman as you can get.

Why not? If you put your faith in the invisible man in the sky why not truly put your faith in him? Can't he heal diseases? Can't he put out fires? Can't he stop a heart attack? Why do people who claim to have faith that he can do all those things not have faith that he will do those things? Why do people that claim to have faith in heavenly help rely on mundane earthly help?

Because God usually works through people.