Why do the religious right bother to take medications?

It's an inconvenient truth that religion has become a vehicle for hypocrisy on all levels in every day life. Slowly, those in need of belief in a higher power are coming to understand personal spirituality and leaving their brethren behind to be ruled by self-proclaimed, money grubbing hypocrites.

 

I don't think there's a major consistency when it comes to interpretations of God's Will. Some people will claim God makes puppies but doesn't kill them.

God made you sick. Then you have to decide if God will cure you directly, or indirectly through medicine etc. Wait too long for the final call on what to do, and your relatives will decide it was God's Will for you to die.

There's ALWAYS a way to claim something is God's Will. That's why The Bible includes "God helps those who help themselves", so dopes don't wait for manna from heaven rather than get a job.

I simply HATE the zealots who cherry-pick good and bad things and only make God responsible for the good. Bad thing shappening to good people is simply not His fault.

I say all or nothing...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 14 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]302977[/snapback]</div>

Ask a lot the scientists at NASA.

As it goes for religion, I don't like it. Too many variations on a theme. And too many use religion to push their own agenda.

The core message of Christ, love one another, peace to all, that is what I preach. Seems like a simple message, one that anyone should get behind.

Oh, and the Bible? It's a great book, that stands up to a lot of scrutiny, time and time again. However, 100% from God? Not likely. Inspired, driven by God, yes. But man tends to muck things up, so I doubt it's a perfect book.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Aug 14 2006, 09:20 AM) [snapback]303012[/snapback]</div>

I wish all Christians had your views. As it is, I know many do. Unfortunately, they are not the loudest. Those are the extremists (the same is true for most groups). Oh, and your core message (love one another, peace to all), rest assured that others follow it too. I knew several Atheists in college (myself included) who followed those principles, and I still do, as best I can. I haven't kept up with the others, so I can't speak for them in the present.

 

having read this entire thread, and observed all the unsupportable generalizations and stereotypical "knee-jerk" responses, it is painfully apparent based upon the empirical evidence that almost none of you are really applying the principals of the scientific method to define who it is being talked about and why it appears that this loosely defined "religious right" is acting and a manner you find hypocritical.

 

Since we are making wildly generalized statements here, let me add my three cents worth:

If ALL science is good science, why is the Union of Concerned Scientists against science?

They are not too thrilled with Genetically Modified Foods (AKA Frankenfood). Yet it is the bounties of this scientifically improved food production technique which will help feed the world's starving masses.

Why is the Union of Concerned Scientists against feeding starving people?

So, apparently, all members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are godless mass murderers.

 

I would say the main problem with fields such as global warming and evolution is the assumed requirement of belief. Those who advocate these fields are convinced they are right and that everyone who does not agree is ignoring the facts and is therefor at least confused if not a proper wackjob. Opponents often make things worse by taking a "my way or the highway" stance. Myself, all I would like to see is a mutual agreement to disagree. Some of the best arguments I've ever had have been over evolution, but it requires both parties to understand they're very unlikely to change the other's mind. We both leave with a much better understanding of each other and each other's positions.

As for compairing the medical field to evolution and global warming, while they are all based on the scietific method, they are very far from being alike. To create and execute an experiment that proves global warming would be nearly impossible. The system is so huge and complex that it makes it nearly impossible to isolate one input and analyse it's results. Likewise with evolution. There is also a huge time issue. Both these processes span incredable amounts of time, most of which, we were not present to observe. Instead we have to rely on geological evidence, which may or may not present the whole picture. (Yes, I know global warming is supposed to have a recent onset, but without rigously knowing what the climate does on its own, we cannot know if what we see is natural or due to human interferance.) What we end up with is a huge segment of observations that can be interpreted in very different ways. This is where the propenents and opponents fail to meet. It is also a matter of did it or did it not happen, not so much probabilities.

In the medical field, it is less difficult to analyse the result of an input. We can eventually provide a probablility of action A having result B. But the thing of most interest here is that there is no requirement of belief. You are highly unlikely to have a congressional debate over whether asprin relieves headaches or has a psycosematic effect instead.

In conclusion, medical research has far fewer places to interprete data differently then global warming and evolution. The last two have room, and so are contested tooth and nail by both sides.



As a side note, the issue of embrionic stem cell research will eventually come down to the same base as the abortion debate. When does human life begin?

 

The problem in a nutshell, is that huge segments of christianity have not learned from the Middle Ages: they continue to admix ideological dogma into science. But now, it is done will-nilly when it suits them, rather than pervasively. So we have 'progressed' in orthodox fundie Christianity from ideological stupidity to hypocritical ideological stupidity.

Embryonic stem cell research is nothing like the social debate on abortion, because of anticipated future health benefits. If concrete benefits materialize, "reinterpretations" of the dogma will occur overnight as religious leaders jump to help themselves as they develop conditions that the fruits of this research offer. In the meantime, progressive countries will become the leaders in medical research.

I still remember rather clearly a time in Israel, when deeply religious Jews did not inject Porcine Insulin, based on the restriction against eating pig. But then a child of one of the leading Rabbis developed Type I Diabetes, and guess what ? Yep, it was suddenly OK.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 02:09 PM) [snapback]303097[/snapback]</div>

'Course it is. It all boils down to "Is it OK to kill this fetus for the benefit of one or more humans?" If a fetus is considered to not yet be a human life, then neither abortion or stem cell research has any problems. If a fetus is considered to be a human life, then one is forced to justify the killing of one human for another's benefit. Is killing one for the potential cure of another acceptable to your ethics? ("your" is an generic anybody here)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawkjm73 @ Aug 14 2006, 04:05 PM) [snapback]303163[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I don't think fetuses are generally used for stem cell harvesting--embyros are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawkjm73 @ Aug 14 2006, 04:05 PM) [snapback]303163[/snapback]</div>

You can't frame the debate that way unless you ignore the world around you and reason. Does (the generic) you find it acceptable to eat a hearty meal, when people are starving ?

Do you consider me a mass murderer, since my vasectomy ?? Will you put on trial every woman who ovulates but is not impregnated ??

Your stance is ludicrous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 14 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]302977[/snapback]</div>

well, buddhists and atheists and all sorts of other groups also tend to do well, find cures, and invent things. also, there are plenty of uber-religious folk who are not the most upstanding citizens in our world community. it goes both ways in all groups.

i don't think any of us are trying to be or replace god with our research. most of us have had enough education (being that it requires a lot of education to be a scientist and all) to understand that our work has nothing at all to do with the spiritual realm.

i'm tired of the "evil scientist" crap i keep hearing.

if the right group of people get jobs as bankers and spend 10 years in the business, they could get together and pull off one hell of a heist. so are all bankers bad too?

if the right group of people get jobs as food service coordinators and spend 10 years in the business they could coordinate the poisoning of a public official at an event. are all food service coordinators bad too?

i don't care what field you're talking about, there are people who are okay with doing things exclusively for personal benefit in that field somewhere. as for your hypothetical situation of blowing up the entire earth... well... i don't see the benefit to the inventors of such a device.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Aug 14 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]303012[/snapback]</div>

this is the most rational thing i've read about religion in a LONG time. we need more folks like you, TJ.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(captain archer @ Aug 14 2006, 12:52 PM) [snapback]303038[/snapback]</div>

ok.

religious right: those who will not let the facts get in the way of what they believe.

more specifically in this case, that group of people who vehemently decries science as immoral, evil, contrary to god's intentions, "playing god" or "trying to replace god" or the like. the question is raised as to whether it's hypocritical of such persons to use the benefits of science while simultaneously crying about how terrible science is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Aug 13 2006, 10:53 PM) [snapback]302888[/snapback]</div>

What "liberal thinkers" ?



Wildkow [attachmentid=4491]

p.s. I kill myself. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 14 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]302977[/snapback]</div>

It didn't take ten years - it didn't even take 5. And nothing about the development and deployment of nuclear weapons from the Manhattan Project to the present day was open to public scrutiny of any kind whatsoever. The question is a good one - clearly the overwhelming majority of the earth's inhabitants would have prevented the development of nuclear weapons had that full population been given the opportunity to prevent it. But the much more important question is how do we make such a unified voice possible - invoking the first TRUE democracy in that everyone affected by development anywhere on the planet would have a say in it.

Such a democracy would have two edges, as does every advance, and would not just prevent WMDs but would also, perhaps, prevent biotechnological and agricultural developments whose benefits would greatly outweigh any abuses of said technology - but in the choice between living in the permanent shadow of nuclear armageddon or living without a cure for cancer, living without a cure for cancer means at least living. The other choice eradicates life altogether.

I'm surprised I'm saying what I'm saying - I'm the anti-Luddite on virtually every technological front and despise attempts to squelch new developments out of fear that they will get abused. But I do think some developments are better left unsought, such as deliberately, explicitly and solely intending to incinerate as much land and as as many people as possible, efficiently.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 14 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]302977[/snapback]</div>

I've got news for you: The U.S. of A. was the first country to do exactly that: They got a bunch of people together (not exactly in a room) and in far less than ten years they invented and tested the H-Bomb. And while one H-Bomb won't explode the Earth, this sick country of ours built enough of them to obliterate all life on the surface of the planet something like 300 times over.

Some folks are mystified as to why we need enough H-Bombs to exterminate the human race more than once, much less 300 times over. Others suspect that it was more a pork barrel project than a defense or security measure. Both Democrats and Republicans fed at the thermonuclear-bomb trough, and the present administration has taken the position that it would be justified in nuking any enemy of our national security. But the fact remains that with 300 times more nukes than it would take to exterminate the human race, continued nuke-building can only be seen as pork-barrel spending.

The rest of the world does certainly have a right to say something about WMDs, including ours.

P.S. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligated the nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles. The U.S. has been in violation of the treaty ever since it was signed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 14 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]302977[/snapback]</div>

Were you intending to touch on the "real" issue of embryonic stem cell research? Bush did not outlaw research...he forbade TAX dollars from being used. This was in respect to the 50% of the population that objects.



just substituting different words in parentheses to make a point.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 02:09 PM) [snapback]303097[/snapback]</div>

It is the human condition and "atheists" or any other group can supply plenty of examples.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 14 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]303259[/snapback]</div>

Then, if you truly are objective, this is a very small group of people. Then again, if YOU are doing the defining, it is as big as YOU want it to be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 14 2006, 11:16 AM) [snapback]302984[/snapback]</div>

Ah, thats the most deadly explosion - the shattering of myths.
:mellow:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2006, 09:05 PM) [snapback]303271[/snapback]</div>

Huh - is that not the single most offensive thing to the steaming mass than the overt academic taint? And now, you, deny that?

Well done, sir - the sarcasm almost passed me by.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Aug 14 2006, 10:44 PM) [snapback]303315[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but to complain and whine so? Talk about the oppressed majority. Cry me a river.