It's a non exsistant morality. Look at all the cultures that tried to seperate themselves completely from religion.......the Maoists, the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Leninists, the more extreme French revolutionaries. Without widespread religion to watch over people like Goering, Gobbels and all those other fun freaks, a moral society is ulitimately been proven to be impossible.
Ehh...what? Since when did I speak of those countries? I wasn't saying that we need to abolish religion, ban it and be rid of it. I WAS saying that there is such a thing as non-Christian western morality, morality that says that contraception is good, abortion is allowed, euthanasia is not a bad thing. That morality does exist, even though it hasn't been written down in a book. Humans are the ones who create their own morality, and society is formed after general opinions on that morality, moreover, here are some nice examples for you:
Hitler(as many others) used religion to support his arguments every once in a while.
Religion does not control those groups, since the Catholic church did absolutely nothing about Hitler or Mussolini. In fact, only Judaism as a religion stood up to Hitler, logically.
It has been a year sense this field was seriously considerd to be a likely scource of benefits. I dont know, I have lost interest in the subject.
What a convincing argument. </sarcasm>
Among the most powerfully ignorant statements here. I simply cannot comprehend how changing a few lines of genetic code to help billions of starving people across the world could be considerd a "sin" and "unsafe" when killing a fetus to suck the life out of it for your own selfish purposes could be considerd a great work.
Not only that, but look at me. I am the product of 16 years of that "unsafe product", and am I going to die of cancer anytime soon?
Why thank you for completely bending my words, and putting words in my mouth. I never said sin, unsafe, or any of those things. I never even said that I was against genetically engineered food, all I said was that there was a difference between genetical engineering and stem cell cloning.
What's more, you're suggesting that I'm being selfish. Selfish? WHAT? HOW? This research will not benefit me, I'm not suffering from any of those uncureable diseases, and my guess is you're not either. I want that research to continue so it can help other people who do suffer from incureable possibly fatal diseases.
And lastly, I don't consider using a hump of cells to cure peple sucking the life out of a creature, solely because that hump of cells isn't even sentient.
So is the US. The US invented the idea of seperation of church and state. And all these nations are secularized, my comment was about an athiestic state.
And this still doesn't mean your previous statement made any sense. I wasn't talking about purely atheist states, and I wasn't talking about banning religion. I was talking about Western morality as a seperate morality from Christian morality.
Total bullshit. If I where to genetically engineer a plant to be perfect in the wild, that would be fine. But these plants are for agracultural purposes alone, and thus have nothing to do with anything you are talking about.
You cannot stop these plants from spreading at all. There are always unknown(or unforeseen) side-effects, and these "genetically perfect" plants tend to completely push out other plants.
It is alot harder to farm an equivelent amount of say natural strawberries then it is to farm GMO Strawberries. Hence the price goes dowon on strawberries. Hence more people can afford Strawberries. Hence an imporvment in the quality of life.
Hence Africa remains underdeveloped. Why? Because they won't be able to sell anything of their own food. I say you first help all the poor countries develop and build their own strong economy so that they can participate in those genetically engineered projects.
Fair enough. But it is no more natural then making a dog with five asses.
So?
I find it hilarious that you call the stuff you have been eating for 20 years "not knowing the long term effects" about food that is desigend not to dominate ecosystems but to help feed starving people, while it is A-Okay to alter someone's DNA without any fear of repercussion with these little half-babies.
Wow, you really can't read, and you really do create problems don't you?
By that definition, the begginings of a human life, and how we treat the cells of that beggining by putting them in another human being, are not nearly as important as the stuff we stuff our mouths with.
This simply makes no sense at all.
That farmer, lets call him Demercu, will, because of his loss of a farming job, will move to an industrial job. And because this food will be readily availbe in greater quantities, he will be able to expand economically unlike he would if he had reamined a farmer. Hence a very big incentive to move up on the economic ladder anyway.
More silliness(and why Demercu? What a silly name).
Here we go: YOu are in the middle of the country in AFrica, not near a city. WHAT industrial job?
Plus, don't you know about the industrial revolution? Don't you know about the absolutely horrifying circumstances people lived in due to industrial jobs??
Hiterl's ideas where based on Nitche more then anybody else. And ask him what he thinks of the pope.
He said he disliked religion, although he did USE religion as arguments(If you want, I'll get you some examples). However, that wasn't the point, the Pope did NOTHING about him.
Not only that, but look at the worse commitings of genocide ever. Every man jack of them are commited by a Communist regiem, save the Nazis, who where doing it also for athiestic purposes as stated above, and the Armenian. Hell, even the Bosnian was on some pseudo-nationalistic thing, it's core was not religious. Same argument can be made about he Armenians and the Pontic genocide, even.
Sjeesj, fix your spelling, please! No, really, it would help you a lot.
But again: what does this prove? Nothing!
It shows that some of the worst atrocities were committed on a non-religious basis. But does this mean that there can be no good morality without religion? Of course not!
Show me one state sponserd athiest society that did not commit genocide. One, and I might reconsider my position. I dont think athiests are evil people, particularly people of the Kharn, Sander and OTB branch. They should just not rule the religious policies of a nation.
I am no atheist, and I dislike being called that. I am an agnost, as Huxley defined it. Difference.
Furthermore, I also oppose state sponsored atheist societies, but this does not mean that there can be no good morality without religion, this merely shows that those purely atheist societies that have been around, and that we know of, have been genocidal bastards.
Funny, I am the one that belives in a higher power, yet you are the one who belives in inherint morality.
Man is an animal. A beast. Most of the time he does what is in his favor. And acting "morally", by any definition, is impossible without any kind of system of rewards and punishments.
Remove God, and everything falls apart. Even Voltaire knew as much. Vol-fucking-taire, the founder of modern athiesim!
Actually, there is a perfectly logical Darwinian evolutionary theory on why morality is inherent in the human species:
A human cannot survive or breed on his own, he needs companions. Because he needs companions, humans will automatically be opposed to hurting and killing other human beings. There you go, hard isn't it?
), but that's all but true, Jebus. History (and you ARE a history student, aren't you?) tells us the exact opposite. Think about the Crusaders. And do you know what happened to the American Indians when the Spanish arrived there? They did that for God, my friend. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Yep. Oh, that's too OLD, you'll say. I know. Guess what? Second world war? Hitler and the Pope? Yep. Even nowadays, it would probably amaze us all if we would know how many influence the church still has when it comes to politics, warfare and such.
