FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2003, 11:23 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 961
Default

When fundies say that someone is "playing God" they mean that someone has done something which offends thier personal moral/religious sensibilites.

Of course there's no logic to it. Doctors play God every day by saving people who by all rights should be dead. Any time a medical breakthrough extends the human lifespan, that's playing God as well. But you won't hear them complaining. Consistency is not a Xtian strong suit (or a conservative strong suit for that matter).
Grad Student Humanist is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 11:24 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Durango, Colorado
Posts: 7,116
Default

I think that it makes 'em nervous because the more we advance scientifically and technologically, the more painfully obvious it becomes that we don't *need* (nonexistent) God. We can do cool stuff ourselves! (No miracles required). In fact, the modern "miracles" of technology, medicine etc. are way cooler than the lame stuff Biblegod supposedly did.
christ-on-a-stick is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 12:20 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,578
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Says who? How do you figure? What makes you think so?
I say! I think that human clones would be little more than lab rats because they would be studied every day of their lives--and they might be brought into the world solely for scientific research. I think that's wrong--for the most part I think that you should decide to allow yourself to be studied without coersion (sp) and what is more coersive than being told that you are the only one (or several) so it's wrong not to allow study--you ingrate clone! That's just my general take on what I think it might be like for the first generations of clones, and I don't think that I like that. Of course, I could be wrong--but you would have to study them for the first couple of generations!

Quote:
So assuming the existence of sufficient technology to use it, you'd have no ethical qualms about, say, cloning a human brain? Disregarding all the extra meat that keeps it alive, that's basically what a human is.
I disagree a little with this--but that's because I don't understand brain chemistry well at all! My thoughts and actions are simply complex chemical reactions! Shocking!

But are we supposed to say, no cloning of neural tissue? When does a bit of neural tisse become enough to be "human"? And a brain is not just what makes us human--it's the input from the meat of the human that helps develop that brain and the environment that we are placed in, etc. So I don't really have a problem with cloning a human brain, even in its entirety. A human brain in and of itself is not human--it is the interactions of that brain with the environment and other humans that makes us human. IMO

A human is more than the sum of its parts.

--tibac
wildernesse is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 12:36 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,425
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shadowy Man
God help them if they ever need an organ transplant!!
There was an Australian senator who opposed organ transplants, saying that 'If you had a heart attack, that was god telling you that you should be dead.'

Then, surprise, surprise, he got a heart attack, and got a heart transplant. Now THAT'S hypocrisy, bigotry and arrogance for you. A nice example of ironic justice, though.
winstonjen is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 07:21 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 4,183
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by winstonjen
There was an Australian senator who opposed organ transplants, saying that 'If you had a heart attack, that was god telling you that you should be dead.'

Then, surprise, surprise, he got a heart attack, and got a heart transplant. Now THAT'S hypocrisy, bigotry and arrogance for you. A nice example of ironic justice, though.
I'm waiting for the day when a close relative of Bush's becomes gravely ill due to some disease that likely could have been treated via stem cell research or therapeutic cloning or some other "playing God" medical research that offends his religious ideology. Maybe then he'll get it...
thebeave is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 08:19 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,425
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by thebeave
I'm waiting for the day when a close relative of Bush's becomes gravely ill due to some disease that likely could have been treated via stem cell research or therapeutic cloning or some other "playing God" medical research that offends his religious ideology. Maybe then he'll get it...
Yeah, I sure hope so.

Another thing I find interesting is how we can shorten our lives by several decades through an unhealthy lifestyle, and neither the law nor vocal pro-lifers or Xians try to stop us. But try to cut our lives short by a few weeks or months with a lethal injection, and they get all up in arms. This is what I don't understand.
winstonjen is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 08:23 PM   #17
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 253
Default Re: What is "Playing God"?

Quote:
Originally posted by winstonjen
Most fundies I know say that it is when you try to take your own life or kill someone else or dabble in science. They see it as usurping god's authority. And yet they would love to benefit from the next new painkiller or wonder drug that could cure something they have.

:banghead: :banghead:

Is it just me, or are they just wierd. To me, you are 'playing god' when you try to interfere in the lives of other people and usurp their free will.

Religious groups against euthanasia believe that shortening life is playing god, well, what about extending life? They seem to have no problem with that, for some reason. That leads me to believe that their 'sanctity of life' doctrine is based on the natural desire of self-preservation, not a religious viewpoint. They just use religion to justify it, but to me, it doesn't make it any less absurd.

Your thoughts/comments on this?
Would you consider the idea that their desire for self-preservation is quite possibly 'God-given' and therefore fits in nicely with their 'sanctity of life' doctrine. If they had a 'sanctity of death' doctrine, I'm sure they would be killing themselves more often, and making the opposite claims to what they have been making.

Your argument has no basis.
Thieving Magpie is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 08:25 PM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by thebeave
I'm waiting for the day when a close relative of Bush's becomes gravely ill due to some disease that likely could have been treated via stem cell research or therapeutic cloning or some other "playing God" medical research that offends his religious ideology. Maybe then he'll get it...
That's absurd... to Bush, stem cell research is 'playing God' no matter how you slice it. Just because he might get emotional over it does not change what he sees as COLD HARD FACTS.
Thieving Magpie is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 08:27 PM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SecularFuture
God concepts just DO NOT make ANY sense! I've spent many years searching for God, and I've come up short in every attempt.
To play the Devil's Advocate, maybe you have just failed horribly.
Thieving Magpie is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 08:32 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: Re: What is "Playing God"?

Quote:
Originally posted by Thieving Magpie
Would you consider the idea that their desire for self-preservation is quite possibly 'God-given' and therefore fits in nicely with their 'sanctity of life' doctrine. If they had a 'sanctity of death' doctrine, I'm sure they would be killing themselves more often, and making the opposite claims to what they have been making.

Your argument has no basis.
Why do you say that it has no basis? The natural order of all animals is to preserve themselves (apart from lemmings). What makes you think it is 'god-given'? I have considered it, but to me it just doesn't make sense. It is much more likely that it came from a natural urge to live, and a fear of death.
winstonjen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:36 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.