Religion/Technology

[CZroe]

Is it the least arbitrary for the Woman?

It seems that you do not understand "arbitrary."

All that may be true, but if you really belief that life starts at conception, you still have a few problems. First, not every fertilized egg gets implanted. Untold millions get flushed every year. Then there is the issue of IUDs, one of the most reliable forms of conception that works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

And after that you still need to deal with the woman's privacy rights.

Objectively, unimplanted fertilized eggs are no different than SIDS, stillborn, or miscarriages from that perspective: Naturally tragic.

You're going to ruin lives either way. Plenty of women have abortions and regret it. Others use it as a form of birth control. But if you really want to fuck somebody up, have them be raised by a parent or parents that never really wanted them to begin with.

It's not like there aren't alternatives to that.

 

[Ichinisan]

You make it sound as if women are thinking along the lines of "Oh, you don't have a condom? Hahah, that's fine, that's fine. I'll just have my womb cut open and the kid yanked out, no biggie."

Jesus christ, dude.

More along the lines of, "we'll have sex later then...because neither of us has a condom."

Maybe they would take birth control pills more regularly.

When guys start missing out, you can bet more of them would start carrying condoms.

 

[CZroe]

You make it sound as if women are thinking along the lines of "Oh, you don't have a condom? Hahah, that's fine, that's fine. I'll just have my womb cut open and the kid yanked out, no biggie."

Jesus christ, dude.

So, if you don't have a condom you have NO CHOICE but the have sex without it? 😵

You are TOTALLY missing the point.

 

[sandorski]

It seems that you do not understand "arbitrary."



....

Oh really? Interesting.

So we should give a fertilized Ovum the same Rights as the mature Woman it inhabits who has her own Thoughts, Concerns, Responsibilities, and Life to lead?

What utter nonsense.

 

[MongGrel]

The whole subject is pretty skewed religion vs science to begin with.

I was baptized a Lutheran, though I do not go to church, the wife was Catholic, she stopped in her youth from the money pandering.

I'm not a fan of the Catholic church obviously, and have always considered myself somewhat of a free thinker, but the Catholic church has embraced Science on a much larger scale than many Protestant religions in the US for a long time now.

A lot of the Protestant church leanings in the US for decades is bordering on complete lunacy.

 

[biostud]

Beer brewing in the monestaries. 🙂 probably also knowledge of healing.

 

[CZroe]

Oh really? Interesting.

So we should give a fertilized Ovum the same Rights as the mature Woman it inhabits who has her own Thoughts, Concerns, Responsibilities, and Life to lead?

What utter nonsense.

Go on behaving like "fertilized ovum" is the only state of development in question here, but understand that the more you do the more it's clear that you are either deliberately failing to address the contended issue or it is going right over your head.

Once again, the question is WHEN they receive those rights. Is it OK to terminate at 6 years? 6 months? 6 weeks? 6 minutes after birth? At birth? 6 minutes before birth? 6 weeks before birth? Does the location (in or out) on the day of birth really change the rights or the responsibility of either? What logical difference does it make to grant a legal right to live only after passing through a flap of skin?

At what point is termination equal to murder? Just know that there is nothing religious about choosing to recognize conception as the point to grant those rights. It's simply the least arbitrary point to apply them. Logic. Once again, I do not think conception is where such rights should be conferred to the offspring, but I have no more logical suggestion/alternative as anything else would just be varying degrees of arbitrary distinctions. When the difference between getting the time right and wrong is murder, I can see why some choose conception (safest place to distinguish; err on the side of caution).

 

[sportage]

Good thread.
If one were religious, more so follow Christianity, then believing in THE RPTURE would be part of that Christian ideology.
The big questions everyone ask about THE RAPTURE are, WHEN? HOW? YEAR? HOUR? MINUTE? WHOM? SIGNS?
And with every major catastrophe, political shock, natural disaster, global disaster, famine, war, blood colored moon, people will always ask and wonder IS THIS THE SIGN?
And people wondering has been the case for centuries. Decades. Generations.

I have a simple thought for those raptured wannabe folk.
For those rapture itching antsy Christians that forever look to the heavens and constantly ask, ON COME ON ALREADY... LETS GET POPPING...

I believe if there were to be a rapture of some sorts, technology will have everything to do with it.
A biblical clue you ask?
Well, I seem to remember one place in the bible, I don't remember the actual scripture or quote, but it states something about when people fail to seek him or no longer praise him, that God will call the very stones to cry out in praise.
I assume that meant God would have the stones cry out in praise if mankind should fail God.

So going by that, a possible clue, I would think the rapture would only happen when mankind no longer needs God, or has the need for any God.
And I can only envision that day ever happening when and if technology becomes so advanced, so all encompassing, so all empowering, that mankind itself would no longer have the need to call out to God. No longer have any need to seek God.

If all illness were cured thru technology, the need for war eliminated thru technology, to end all suffering thru technology, all the worlds hunger and thirst eliminated thru technology.
On that day when everything we desire including immortality could be provided thru technology, on that day I could imagine The Rapture from God.

If no one hungered, suffered, became ill, or were in need then what use would there be for God?
For what reason would humanity have to cry out to God? To praise God? To believe in God?
How far might technology go, evolve, advance to the point everything we desire fulfilled by and thru technology?
Technology could bring all of mankind to the brink of immortality.
And go even further by providing mankind the ability to roam the entire universe.
So then, why God?
If all were controlled by technology with providing mankind that biblical garden of eden, then why God?

I think religion would become moot, unnecessary, and completely pointless the day technology catches up to mankind hopes, dreams, and desires we seek out of technology.
That day in the future. 100 years? 1000 years? 5000 years?
If there is a God out there, somewhere, you can believe when that day of technology perfection arrives to the salvation of all mankind, that will be the day God either raptures the few remaining believers, or simply ends it all with a BIG BANG!
The day when technology catches up to religion.
Spooky?

Ps. Could that next iPhone be a "sign"?
Holy mankind, that's some weed.
😉

 

[William Gaatjes]

Architecture perhaps? The design and scale of churches have historically been far more elaborate and sturdy compared to the typical structure throughout the ages.

Was it not the Freemasons who build the churches ?

 

[MongGrel]

Was it not the Freemasons who build the churches ?

Just stop, or you'll look worse.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Just stop, or you'll look worse.

It was just a joke.

 

[sandorski]

Go on behaving like "fertilized ovum" is the only state of development in question here, but understand that the more you do the more it's clear that you are either deliberately failing to address the contended issue or it is going right over your head.

Once again, the question is WHEN they receive those rights. Is it OK to terminate at 6 years? 6 months? 6 weeks? 6 minutes after birth? At birth? 6 minutes before birth? 6 weeks before birth? Does the location (in or out) on the day of birth really change the rights or the responsibility of either? What logical difference does it make to grant a legal right to live only after passing through a flap of skin?

At what point is termination equal to murder? Just know that there is nothing religious about choosing to recognize conception as the point to grant those rights. It's simply the least arbitrary point to apply them. Logic. Once again, I do not think conception is where such rights should be conferred to the offspring, but I have no more logical suggestion/alternative as anything else would just be varying degrees of arbitrary distinctions. When the difference between getting the time right and wrong is murder, I can see why some choose conception (safest place to distinguish; err on the side of caution).

At what point is a Woman no longer required to sustain it?

 

[William Gaatjes]

At what point is a Woman no longer required to sustain it?

Personally ,i find the idea of abortion not easy. The idea of killing my offspring disgusts me and the thought alone haunts me. And that while i am still pro abortion. I can imagine that women exists who do an abortion and feel guilty all their life. As such, it should never be used lightly.
To prevent abortions, prevention of pregnancy and proper sex education at a young age is a must. That way, young girls do not have to go through an abortion or unwanted pregnancy.
Abortion is a heavy subject and should be treated as such.
It should only be used in rape cases were the victim will always suffer psychological problems or when the developing fetus has unsolvable birth defects or life threatening birth defects. Of course, in combination with proper sex education for the young and pregnancy prevention.

 

[Ichinisan]

At what point is a Woman no longer required to sustain it?

After creating it, 9 months + 18 years?

Easier to just not create it.

 

[John Connor]

Throughout history its clear that religion has roadblocked technology in one way or another.
Stem cells, astrological bodies ect.

Is there any examples of religion adding to the advancement of technology?
Would we be more advanced from a technological standpoint without religion? Mildly so? Exponentially so?

I often hear this, and to me seems to come from the secular Liberal bunch.

Has religion set back technology? I don't think so. Man invetend a hell of a lot of tools for war in the name of religion and out of those wars many technological breakthroughs have happened. I mean, what was World War II about? Jews. Hitler was an occultist. Think of all the amazing shit that came from that fiasco. Jet propelled aircraft, rockets, nylon and radar to name a very few.

If there is any indication that religion set technology behind it is that of the Catholic church. One of the most fucked up religions if I seen any. Well, Islam would be number one, but Catholicism would rank number 2. Just look at its role with Galileo and the Spanish inquisition. Then you have the Opus Dei weirdos.

Now does religion hinder technological growth in this day and age? Absolutely NOT! Look at Moore's Law. Look at NASA. Look at Cyberspace. Religion is NOT hindering any of this.


Eppur si muove

in vino veritas

 

[John Connor]

Architecture perhaps? The design and scale of churches have historically been far more elaborate and sturdy compared to the typical structure throughout the ages.

The Egyptians and other ancient civilations had their religions and many of their great accomplishments can be attributed to their beliefs. Just look at some Greek philosophers. I can't remember who but he made some astounding mechanical contraptions that made people believe they were talking to the Gods.

 

[Rakehellion]

I've noticed the less religious scientists are, the more likely they are to hide the truth.

Real scientific there. Care you cite your sources?

 

[zinfamous]

Why would the research need to be federally funded?

Is there a specific stem cell advancement that was prevented by "religion?"

He blocked the creation of new stem cell lines. That is and was huge. The available lines were old and wrecked, essentially useless at that time. IT isn't simply "funding."

Also, roughly 80-90% of research is federally funded.

That's like asking: why does everyone need to drink water?

derp.

 

[zinfamous]

Bush only banned government funded baby killing.

lolno.

Bush made it so that millions of fertilized embryos got tossed directly into the incinerator.

 

[Charmonium]

The Egyptians and other ancient civilations had their religions and many of their great accomplishments can be attributed to their beliefs. Just look at some Greek philosophers. I can't remember who but he made some astounding mechanical contraptions that made people believe they were talking to the Gods.

Those were basically elaborate cons though. The people building them knew what they were doing and why. It was all in pursuit of the almighty Drachma. :\

 

[disappoint]

The whole subject is pretty skewed religion vs science to begin with.

I was baptized a Lutheran, though I do not go to church, the wife was Catholic, she stopped in her youth from the money pandering.

I'm not a fan of the Catholic church obviously, and have always considered myself somewhat of a free thinker, but the Catholic church has embraced Science on a much larger scale than many Protestant religions in the US for a long time now.

A lot of the Protestant church leanings in the US for decades is bordering on complete lunacy.

I'm not familiar with what the Protestant Church has done that is any worse than other denominations. Care to elaborate?

 

[CZroe]

I'm not familiar with what the Protestant Church has done that is any worse than other denominations. Care to elaborate?

The Catholic Church can speak with one voice such that when individuals within the Catholic Church deviate from the official Church positions which reflect poorly on them, it does not reflect poorly on the Church itself. Protestant denominations, OTOH, do not typically have leaders with dictated positions. When a few people get together to picket a soldier's funeral to say that "God Hates Fags" or whatever, some people hold Christians or Protestant Christians in general responsible for that attitude.

He seems to be one of those people.