Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Galileo Was Wrong: The Hubris of Anti-Science

12346»

Posts

  • corcorigancorcorigan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I meant that presumably a perfect, super-smart group would do a better job of running things. It does sound a bit like a creepy idea you'd find in 1930s Germany though now I have rephrased it.

    I doubt genetic modification on that level is going to be around for centuries though, and in any case power collects in the older and wealthier people who presumably would not be keen to give it straight to their grandchildren just because they look pretty and are really good at football. Not to mention it is one thing to correct a few minor errors, but another thing entirely to really improve someone. It would also take decades to work out if what you had done was actually useful (and you might never really know).

    Ad Astra Per Aspera
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    corcorigan wrote: »
    I meant that presumably a perfect, super-smart group would do a better job of running things. It does sound a bit like a creepy idea you'd find in 1930s Germany though now I have rephrased it.

    A perfect, super-smart group would do a better job of attaining their goals, but there's no reason to assume that their goal would be to run things better. You know, seeing as I'm a communist.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Yeah, you'd have to excise greed and personal ambition to have even a hope of that working out, really...

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
  • tehmarkentehmarken BrooklynRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Gattaca. It's only a matter of time.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The advantage of genetic augmentation is that it sticks around for future generations. The genetically augmented haves won't be having genetically augmented children, they'll just be having children. Likewise for anyone who was augmented through government assistance or fiat, they'll spread good genes to their children even if they couldn't actually afford the procedure themselves.

    Remove a particular defect from an entire generation, and that defect will be permanently gone, save for extremely rare mutations.

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tehmarken wrote: »
    Gattaca. It's only a matter of time.

    What's sad is that we'll prolly see "programmable births" before we'd ever see an electric car you "plugged in" when you got home.

  • tehmarkentehmarken BrooklynRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    tehmarken wrote: »
    Gattaca. It's only a matter of time.

    What's sad is that we'll prolly see "programmable births" before we'd ever see an electric car you "plugged in" when you got home.

    I see those around in Japan already, but not exactly commonplace yet. But there's a whole different set of circumstances here than other countries. (For like 80%+ of the people here, you never drive more than 1 hour in a day; and almost any distance more than 30min away you take a train.)

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Wasn't this thread supposed to have something to do with religion?

    How about the bans of cloning and the reluctance for Western governments to fund stem-cell research? Moral inflexibility due to religion or is it irresponsible to play with life by any metric?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • tehmarkentehmarken BrooklynRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think it's mostly religious. The only thing that trumps economic analysis in the West is religious views. And stem cell research & cloning would be very profitable.

  • corcorigancorcorigan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tehmarken wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    tehmarken wrote: »
    Gattaca. It's only a matter of time.

    What's sad is that we'll prolly see "programmable births" before we'd ever see an electric car you "plugged in" when you got home.

    I see those around in Japan already, but not exactly commonplace yet. But there's a whole different set of circumstances here than other countries. (For like 80%+ of the people here, you never drive more than 1 hour in a day; and almost any distance more than 30min away you take a train.)

    There are loads of Gee-Whizz things driving around London. They look a bit silly.

    Ad Astra Per Aspera
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Wasn't this thread supposed to have something to do with religion?

    How about the bans of cloning and the reluctance for Western governments to fund stem-cell research? Moral inflexibility due to religion or is it irresponsible to play with life by any metric?

    Well, cloning as it is today has massive side effects. Its still not been perfected to the point where I would want them to start on human cloning. A human clone today would suffer a painfull life and a early death. I think it took around a hundred tries to get Dolly the Sheep. 100 pregnancies to get a single clone. Now transfer that to human pregnancies.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Technicus RexTechnicus Rex All your base.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tehmarken wrote: »
    I think it's mostly religious. The only thing that trumps economic analysis in the West is religious views. And stem cell research & cloning would be very profitable.

    Also on religion the popes imminent arrival in London is causing quite a stir of controversy with some calling for his arrest and trial over his involvement in the vatican cover-up of peadophile priests.

    Religious institutions have always claimed a moral monopoly but how long do you think they'll be able to maintain such a high level of credibility?

    People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazi's. You can't trust people. - Super Hans.
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Wasn't this thread supposed to have something to do with religion?

    How about the bans of cloning and the reluctance for Western governments to fund stem-cell research? Moral inflexibility due to religion or is it irresponsible to play with life by any metric?

    Well, cloning as it is today has massive side effects. Its still not been perfected to the point where I would want them to start on human cloning. A human clone today would suffer a painfull life and a early death. I think it took around a hundred tries to get Dolly the Sheep. 100 pregnancies to get a single clone. Now transfer that to human pregnancies.

    How is this relevant to the macro subject of research?

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Wasn't this thread supposed to have something to do with religion?

    How about the bans of cloning and the reluctance for Western governments to fund stem-cell research? Moral inflexibility due to religion or is it irresponsible to play with life by any metric?

    Well, cloning as it is today has massive side effects. Its still not been perfected to the point where I would want them to start on human cloning. A human clone today would suffer a painfull life and a early death. I think it took around a hundred tries to get Dolly the Sheep. 100 pregnancies to get a single clone. Now transfer that to human pregnancies.

    How is this relevant to the macro subject of research?

    pointing out that its not just moral inflexibility that prevents human cloning research. Anybody trying it would be endangering the health of many people. The cloning ban only applies to human cloning.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    pointing out that its not just moral inflexibility that prevents human cloning research. Anybody trying it would be endangering the health of many people. The cloning ban only applies to human cloning.
    Which cloning ban exactly?
    I know there's a ban on reproductive cloning (what you're talking about) in the UK, but IIRC, the US ban is on cloning involving human tissues which is a bit broad for my tastes.

    However, I still say we should have been doing induced pluripotency research all the time anyway, ban on cloning or not, because it's what you're going to want to do anyway, once you figured out how to teach a stem cell to become a liver cell in vitro.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 250MB extra free.
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Hipstah Kitteh Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    Religious texts are not intended to be used strictly as a textbook or set of directions from which religious practice and belief springs. That's a very common idea in the West even among the non-religious, and is AFAICT rooted in the Protestant belief of sola scriptura (or, more likely, a popular conception of what sola scriptura means).

    A religious text is - in some religions, at least - a source of inspiration that believers can draw from or go to in times of assistance. Again, this isn't the sort of thing that can be reduced beyond a certain point and by its very nature carries a certain experiential quality.

    So, the answer isn't that there's parts of the text that are now discarded and hence useless. Everything is in there for a reason; if it's not "literally" true (and "literal" is a really bad term here with lots of historical baggage) then it obviously means something else. What that something else is and its purpose is up to various groups or individual believers to figure out. Most religious texts are not composed of lists of rules, at at least most of them that I've read. They tell the stories of holy people and the interaction of humanity and the divine and people are supposed to live their lives according to what they take from that.

    This confuses a lot of people because a lot of people generally think of religions as first and foremost a set of rules telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do, or should and should not believe. This is inaccurate; a religion is often first and foremost a way of perceiving and interpreting the world. There's various cultural and historical reasons that people hold the former view but that's not usually how religions are practiced from an emic perspective.

    Fortunately, in many religions there's a few basic and fairly clear ground rules that are hard to mess up, and larger practice is intended to derive from those. Stuff like
    Luke 10 wrote:
    26 What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27 He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.

    or
    James 1 wrote:
    26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

    So, in short, religion is not a system of postulates, an equation, or a set of statements; treating it like one is to misunderstand the essential nature of the thing and how people practice it.

    This is revisionist bullshit. It's God 2.0. Two-hundred or even one-hundred years ago, you'd might have been lynched or stoned for this sort of thought crime. You're just rationalizing religious beliefs in a world where there's no longer any room for them. You're making excuses for retaining belief in a supernatural, supreme being when those beliefs are no longer necessary. Apologizing for the rest of the faithful. This sort of argument only further discredits religion by saying "Oh, well, yeah, there's over a thousand years of history that contradicts everything I just said, but those people were just ignorant. They didn't really understand. They weren't ENLIGHTENED, like us modern folk!"

    You cannot cherry pick what you like and dislike about your book, it's history, and the people who practice it. It doesn't exist within a bubble. Historical, the Bible was accepted as the whole truth. It was a record of history, a map to the universe's cosmology, and a guide to proper living all rolled into one. To deny God and the Christ was to risk death. If you were a nonbeliever (I hate that term, because it acknowledges a theo-centric worldveiw, but its appropriate to the conversation), you kept your fucking mouth shut if you valued your neck. There are still countries were stoning is, according to Abrahamic religous texts used to justify it as law, an acceptible method of punishment for the wicked and unfaithful. To deny this is to be willfully ignorant.

    You're within your right to believe whatever you like (as long as you're not forcing your faith on to others). But you have to acknowledge that, within historical context, you're veiws are anamolous and only allowed because you live in tolerant society. You have accepted that the Bible is meant as parable, not as historical truth. This is not true for the rest of the world, though. You can interpert your faith however you like, but what you cannot do is project your beliefs on its history and its practitioners. Make whatever excuses you need to if you must justify to yourself your beliefs. You must accept, however, that just because it's what you think doesn't make it what the rest of the world believes.

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior //
    Astro Girl, Paragon of Titan - "And Justice for All" M&M3e
    jswidget.php?username=Mikey+CTS&numitems=8&text=none&images=small&show=top10&imagepos=right&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    You cannot cherry pick what you like and dislike about your book, it's history, and the people who practice it. It doesn't exist within a bubble.

    It's literally impossible for a Christian to follow the teachings of the Bible without ignoring the teachings of other parts of the Bible. There isn't a single book of the New Testament whose doctrine isn't explicitly contradicted in some fashion by at least one other book of the NT. The Bible wasn't a single text written by a single author, or even by multiple authors of a single theologically uniform sect. It's hypocritical, if not ignorant, to accuse Christians of cherrypicking when the Bible itself requires Christians to do so in order to develop an internally cohesive and coherent theology.

    If you're going to attack Christianity as a whole on a Biblical basis, using the entire Bible as a rhetorical bludgeon, and treating it as a single homogenous text in the process, is only useful when the people you're trying to reach either aren't Christians, or are Christians whose personal faith doesn't actually reference the Bible at all. It's even less useful to attack modern Christians and Christianity on the basis of the actions of historical Christians or of modern Christians from completely different cultures; doing so compounds the issue of doctrinarian differences with the issue of cultural differences. Nobody with any sense of intellectual honesty is going to compare conquistadores to Episcopalians (for example) solely on the grounds that they're all Christians.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    You cannot cherry pick what you like and dislike about your book, it's history, and the people who practice it. It doesn't exist within a bubble.

    It's literally impossible for a Christian to follow the teachings of the Bible without ignoring the teachings of other parts of the Bible. There isn't a single book of the New Testament whose doctrine isn't explicitly contradicted in some fashion by at least one other book of the NT. The Bible wasn't a single text written by a single author, or even by multiple authors of a single theologically uniform sect. It's hypocritical, if not ignorant, to accuse Christians of cherrypicking when the Bible itself requires Christians to do so in order to develop an internally cohesive and coherent theology.

    If you're going to attack Christianity as a whole on a Biblical basis, using the entire Bible as a rhetorical bludgeon, and treating it as a single homogenous text in the process, is only useful when the people you're trying to reach either aren't Christians, or are Christians whose personal faith doesn't actually reference the Bible at all. It's even less useful to attack modern Christians and Christianity on the basis of the actions of historical Christians or of modern Christians from completely different cultures; doing so compounds the issue of doctrinarian differences with the issue of cultural differences. Nobody with any sense of intellectual honesty is going to compare conquistadores to Episcopalians (for example) solely on the grounds that they're all Christians.

    I think the point generally becomes that if you can pick and choose which parts of your "holy" book you're going to follow, then your beliefs have no more claim to validity then anyone elses, be they a different sect, a different religion or non-religious.

    There's no real functional difference between rejecting parts of the Bible and rejecting the entire thing. One could very easily describe an atheist as one who believes (some) of the word of the Bible, but rejects the notion of a deity - since really, that's just outmodded.

    You can't have it both ways without doublethink.

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited September 2010
    One could very easily describe an atheist as one who believes (some) of the word of the Bible, but rejects the notion of a deity - since really, that's just outmodded.

    You can't have it both ways without doublethink.

    (I believe they often would describe themselves as Jews).

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • BankRobberBankRobber __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    "Scientific evidence showing the earth is motionless in space." LMFAO!!!! What a freakin joke.

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think the point generally becomes that if you can pick and choose which parts of your "holy" book you're going to follow, then your beliefs have no more claim to validity then anyone elses, be they a different sect, a different religion or non-religious.

    There's no real functional difference between rejecting parts of the Bible and rejecting the entire thing. One could very easily describe an atheist as one who believes (some) of the word of the Bible, but rejects the notion of a deity - since really, that's just outmodded.

    You can't have it both ways without doublethink.

    This is only true if you believe your scriptures to be infallible. What Duffel was getting at above is that this isn't always the case. It may be for Islam, and a lot of varieties of protestantism, but it's pretty stupid to lump all religious beliefs together in this regard.

    Not all religious texts are assumed to have been divinely written by their adherants.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Not all religious texts are assumed to have been divinely written by their adherants.

    In those instances, though, what's the use of keeping them as holy texts?

    It would seem that if a particular sect had a good reason for doubting the validity of, say, Deuteronomy, they would come up with a Bible that left out that book. Not, as it seems, downplay its importance or divine inspiration.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Not all religious texts are assumed to have been divinely written by their adherants.

    In those instances, though, what's the use of keeping them as holy texts?

    It would seem that if a particular sect had a good reason for doubting the validity of, say, Deuteronomy, they would come up with a Bible that left out that book. Not, as it seems, downplay its importance or divine inspiration.

    And that's exactly what the Protestants did.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Not all religious texts are assumed to have been divinely written by their adherants.

    In those instances, though, what's the use of keeping them as holy texts?

    It would seem that if a particular sect had a good reason for doubting the validity of, say, Deuteronomy, they would come up with a Bible that left out that book. Not, as it seems, downplay its importance or divine inspiration.

    Just because something Biblical isn't taken as literal, or in this case is Old Testament and contains guidelines that are no longer followed, doesn't mean there isn't value in it. I wouldn't throw Deuteronomy out of the Bible any more than I would throw Herodotus out of a History classroom.

    And apparently there are some criteria for not including certain works in the Bible, depending on your sect, because there are apocrypha.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    BankRobber wrote: »
    "Scientific evidence showing the earth is motionless in space." LMFAO!!!! What a freakin joke.
    Frames of reference are a hell of a thing.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.