Will Christian Evangelists forego promising treatment derived from embryonic stem cell research?

Sam Harris had a great arguement against christian fundamentalists regarding this matter. From a scientific and rational perspective the arguement against stem cell research is as rediculous as believing disease and sickness is induced by malevolent spirits. lol

This is but a short wiki quote of what was in the book "The End of Faith"

On stem-cell research
Our present policy on human stem cells has been shaped by beliefs that are divorced from every reasonable intuition we might form about the possible experience of living systems.

The point at which we fully acquire our humanity, and our capacity to suffer, remains an open question . . .
. . . but anyone who would dogmatically insist that these traits must arise coincident with the moment of conception has nothing to contribute, apart from his ignorance, to this debate.

Those opposed to therapeutic stem-cell research on religious grounds constitute the biological and ethical equivalent of a flat-earth society.

In this area of public policy alone, the accommodations that we have made to faith will do nothing but enshrine a perfect immensity of human suffering for decades to come.

The moral truth here is obvious: anyone who feels that the interests of a blastocyst just might supercede the interests of a child with a spinal cord injury has had his moral sense blinded by religious metaphysics.

 

The only thing stronger than an evangelist's faith is their hypocrisy.

 

Nice bated title.!
No where in the article does it state anything about religion...

Hmmm, has someone not been taking their meds again? <_< :lol: :lol:

 

at least some faiths seem to see suffering as character-building and good in the eyes of their god. my mom is proud to suffer with her disease... i'm 100% baffled but it's her choice after all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 27 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]502679[/snapback]</div>

Oh look... Burrito's has started another "I hate religion" thread.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, Burritos. However, as a Fundamentalist Agnostic ("I don't know and you don't, either), I'm just saying that to people who don't subscribe to your worldview, Evangelical Atheists are just as annoying as Evangelical Christians.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 27 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]502731[/snapback]</div>

:lol: that's the best quote i've read in a long time

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 27 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]502731[/snapback]</div>

The problem is that it's not the atheists that are in charge of the country or hold such momumental sway. So as a former agnostic turned atheist, I say the balance of power is too heavily piled up in the corner of the christians and as such atheists MUST push back or else succumb to the will of someone elses worldview. Trust me when I say I struggled to become more vocal about my anti-religion because I usually try to avoid conflicts but the more I learned the more I came to abhor religion. Isn't that what happens to most people when they become more educated in facts and science? lol

So while Burritos may seem antogonistic, he is simply more visible than many of the hidden agendas pushed by christians all over the country. I'll head of to work now and end with this other great quote:

"People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power." ~ Sam Harris

 

Burritos, F8L, you and I are about as militantly anti-religious as extreme fundamentalists are militantly evangelical. But we would do well to heed this latest missive from Michael Shermer, his
Open Letter to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris & Dennett, published in the latest Scientific American.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 27 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]502731[/snapback]</div>

Yes indeedy, as the tens of millions of my bible belt evangelical Christian friends were recently limiting my own family's reproductive options, denying my gay friends their desires to form families, and reducing potential cures for my future ailments, I caught myself thinking...............wow.............this is exactly no more and no less annoying than Fred, my evangelical atheist colleage who sometimes interrupts my lunch to rant.

 

Count me in with the confirmed atheists. Shermer, as usual, makes some thoughtful and relevant points. Now I need to reconcile this latest article with his earlier statement that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.'

 

um...I thought this was a Toyota Prius site???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(derk @ 2007 Aug 27 11:06 AM) [snapback]502794[/snapback]</div>

It is, and it isn't. We don't have to talk about cars all the time, do we? This is a forum for the 'off topic' topics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mparrish @ Aug 27 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]502787[/snapback]</div>

this is gonna happen anytime there's an imbalance in power. you think if this country was ruled by atheists there wouldn't be some that go too far and limit some people's freedoms in other ways? there are always some that go too far, no matter what group you're talking about.

again, we're talking about personal decisions of leaders in our country who happen to be motivated by religion. i'm not all for religion, i'm firmly agnostic myself, but let's keep in mind people have free will and can choose what they believe based on whatever they want. it doesn't have to make sense to you. that's freedom for ya, it's a founding principle of our country.

when important scientific advances that can benefit large numbers of people are hindered, i agree, it's time to take action. and in that case, we stand up and fight for the evidence. we educate, we explain so that the lofty and oftentimes scary scientific words translate to what regular people can understand. those of us who are scientifically literate have a duty to those who are not. and those who do not want to understand? it's their choice to live in the dark and addressing them like idiots will only put them on the defensive and make them less open to understanding...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mparrish @ Aug 27 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]502787[/snapback]</div>

If preaching to the choir (non-preaching to the non-choir?) is what he wants, fine, let Fred rant away. If he wants to get his message across and actually change things, I don't know, maybe a little tact might help.

 

"a little tact might help."

I've tried to convince Burritos of that in the past also.
It's useless. His enjoyment of trolling for overly-defensive christians, overwieghs his desire to "enlighten".
Then again we get the same lack of tact from our resident neocon posters too.

Fred's HOP, is a self professed rant zone for all.