Why do all you people hate religions??

A couple of months back hybrid stem cell research was nearly banned in the UK because the Catholic Church demanded Catholic MPs vote against it, regardless of it's potential medical benefits without the need for human stem cells. Luckily they didn't manage to get it banned. But this is one example of why I dislike religion, it is constantly getting in the way of progress in the name of dogma, regardless of the damage it may cause.

AnnoyedDragon

If they thought that it was ending human lives, why wouldn't they be opposed to it? The part I don't understand is why people find it weird when others try to block something that they think is responsible for the killing of humans. That's not to say I agree with their premises (or, consequently, their conclusions), but if you begin with them and take them to their logical conclusion, their actions make perfect sense.

if religion == "crazies"

print "run!!"

if religion == "wine drinkers"

print "ok, that's cool"

If they thought that it was ending human lives, why wouldn't they be opposed to it? The part I don't understand is why people find it weird when others try to block something that they think is responsible for the killing of humans. That's not to say I agree with their premises (or, consequently, their conclusions), but if you begin with them and take them to their logical conclusion, their actions make perfect sense.

GabuEx

Let me just put emphasis on "without the need for human stem cells". Even if they believe destroying a human embryo is murder, hybrid stem cell research requires no human embryos.

They wanted to destroy an entire area of research just because the method offended them, human embryos played no part.

Let me just put emphasis on "without the need for human stem cells". Even if you believe destroying a human embryo is murder, hybrid stem cell research requires no human embryos.

They wanted to destroy an entire area of research just because the method offended them, human embryos played no part.

AnnoyedDragon

What was their reason for wanting to ban it, then? I somehow get the sense that it wasn't just "I don't like it".

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Let me just put emphasis on "without the need for human stem cells". Even if you believe destroying a human embryo is murder, hybrid stem cell research requires no human embryos.

They wanted to destroy an entire area of research just because the method offended them, human embryos played no part.

GabuEx

What was their reason for wanting to ban it, then? I somehow get the sense that it wasn't just "I don't like it".

Hybrid stem cells are half human cells, half animal cells.

What was their reason for wanting to ban it, then? I somehow get the sense that it wasn't just "I don't like it".

GabuEx

Well here is a very simplstic way of looking at it.

Hybrid stem cells are half human cells, half animal cells.

Theokhoth

Where on Earth are you getting that from? The DNA is 100% human, it's like saying someone is half cow because they are wearing a leather jacket.

Well here is a very simplstic way of looking at it.

It uses animal embryos to house a human nucleous to produce humant compatible stem cells without the need of a human embryos, hence hybrid stem cell research. Even though a their definition of killing a human doesn't take place, they still got offended by the idea of human DNA going anywhere near an animal cell so they tried to get it banned.

AnnoyedDragon

Well then it sounds like their problem isn't the whole "stem cell research kills humans" thing in this case, but rather the direction they see it potentially opening up of further genetic experiments involving human and animal DNA.

Disagree with their view if you wish, but I don't see how that's a completely unreasonable view to have. While the main opponent here was the Catholic Church, it seems to me that one need not be a member of an organized religion to be uncomfortable at a thought like that.

While the main opponent here was the Catholic Church, it seems to me that one need not be a member of an organized religion to be uncomfortable at a thought like that.GabuEx

Well then it sounds like they're problem isn't the whole "stem cell research kills humans" thing in this case, but rather the direction they see it potentially opening up of further genetic experiments involving human and animal DNA.

Disagree with their view if you wish, but I don't see how that's a completely unreasonable view to have. While the main opponent here was the Catholic Church, it seems to me that one need not be a member of an organized religion to be uncomfortable at a thought like that.

GabuEx

And the irony is they are the ones who pushed scientists down this rout, they had to find some way of creating stem cells without human embryos to please the pro lifers. If they are that against it if anything useful is produced by the research they don't have to use it, that is what I don't get about some religious people.

Jehovah Witnesses don't have blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs, yet they aren't running around trying to ban blood transfusions for everyone else. If you are against something then don't support it, don't rob someone who doesn't share your religion the possibility of a cure.

I dont hate religon, i simply hate the half wit, morons that take part in it. If you want to belive god and stuff like that, fine. That is your choice but for the love of god, Keep your damn religon to yourself. As a wise man once said "More ppl have died in the name of god then for any other cause" I had one friend who i was very close wtih but he was very religous. He once invited me to a teen social group at his church and those little keniving bastards tried to get me to change my religon. I dont hate religon, i just hate the violence and obbession some ppl have with it. Roxol

For such a wise man, he apparently overlooked things like money, government and land when he made that carefully calculated estimation.

I'd say more people have died in the name of materialism than any other cause.

Why? What other thing than religious dogma would cause a person to frown upon DNA experimentation?Vandalvideo

Well, as an example, I personally have to admit a certain degree of discomfort at the prospect of something along the lines of "designer babies", where wealthy parents can genetically engineer their children to be superior to those who either can't afford or refuse to participate in such practices. Now, of course, this obviously isn't that, but it seems to me that one could conceivably see some sort of slippery slope there depending on how averse they are to such a thing.

And the irony is they are the ones who pushed scientists down this rout, they had to find some way of creating stem cells without human embryos to please the pro lifers. If they are that against it if anything useful is produced by the research they don't have to use it, that is what I don't get about some religious people.

Jehovah Witnesses don't have blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs, yet they aren't running around trying to ban blood transfusions for everyone else. If you are against something then don't support it, don't rob someone who doesn't share your religion the possibility of a cure.

AnnoyedDragon

I didn't say I agreed with them; I'm just saying that it seems like it's not an entirely indefensible position. Nor do I think that a position is deserving of being completely ignored just because it happened to come from a religious tenet, for that matter, as that tenet might well have grounds in the perceived effect of an action. I can't say much about this particular case without knowing their actual reasons for opposing this, though.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Let me just put emphasis on "without the need for human stem cells". Even if you believe destroying a human embryo is murder, hybrid stem cell research requires no human embryos.

They wanted to destroy an entire area of research just because the method offended them, human embryos played no part.

GabuEx

What was their reason for wanting to ban it, then? I somehow get the sense that it wasn't just "I don't like it".

Well, as an example, I personally have to admit a certain degree of discomfort at the prospect of something along the lines of "designer babies", where wealthy parents can genetically engineer their children to be superior to those who either can't afford or refuse to participate in such practices. Now, of course, this obviously isn't that, but it seems to me that one could conceivably see some sort of slippery slope there depending on how averse they are to such a thing.GabuEx

Uuuugh, slippery slope fallacies are the most atrocius peices of reasoning there can be. How are you going to call something so fallacious 'reasonable'?Vandalvideo

Slippery slope arguments are only fallacious if there isn't any logical link between the current development and the undesirable end result. The link is certainly tenuous in this case, but I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily the case that someone could never come to this conclusion absent of a deluge of Bible quotes (or whatever the religious book of their choice might be).

Even beyond that, though, as I've already said, it's often the case that tenets of a religion can be justified absent of "God said so", anyway. I've had conversations with multiple religious people who did so; the people whose sole existence is a string of Bible quotes are not exactly representative of all religious people.

I didn't say I agreed with them; I'm just saying that it seems like it's not an entirely indefensible position. Nor do I think that a position is deserving of being completely ignored just because it happened to come from a religious tenet, for that matter, as that tenet might well have grounds in the perceived effect of an action. I can't say much about this particular case without knowing their actual reasons for opposing this, though.

GabuEx

It's a sanctity of human life thing, they think human DNA is too good to be used this way and it would somehow damage... well the sanctity of it.

It's the image religion has imposed on humanity as being above all other life, experiments like this are an insult in their eyes.

Frankly I think the human ego can survive the insult, the potential to cure diseases is more important than self imposed pride.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I didn't say I agreed with them; I'm just saying that it seems like it's not an entirely indefensible position. Nor do I think that a position is deserving of being completely ignored just because it happened to come from a religious tenet, for that matter, as that tenet might well have grounds in the perceived effect of an action. I can't say much about this particular case without knowing their actual reasons for opposing this, though.

AnnoyedDragon

It's a sanctity of human life thing, they think human DNA is too good to be used this way and it would somehow damage... well the sanctity of it.

It's the image religion has imposed on humanity as being above all other life, experiments like this are an insult in their eyes.

Frankly I think the human ego can survive the insult, the potential to cure diseases is more important than self imposed pride.

Gee, considering humans to be important is self-imposed pride? Religion is so evil for having a basis for basic human rights.

Slippery slope arguments are only fallacious if there isn't any logical link between the current development and the undesirable end result. The link is certainly tenuous in this case, but I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily the case that someone could never come to this conclusion absent of a deluge of Bible quotes (or whatever the religious book of their choice might be).Even beyond that, though, as I've already said, it's often the case that tenets of a religion can be justified absent of "God said so", anyway. I've had conversations with multiple religious people who did so; the people whose sole existence is a string of Bible quotes are not exactly representative of all religious people.GabuEx

Gee, considering humans to be important is self-imposed pride? Religion is so evil for having a basis for basic human rights.

Theokhoth

Besides religion has it's own brand of human rights.

It's a sanctity of human life thing, they think human DNA is too good to be used this way and it would somehow damage... well the sanctity of it.

It's the image religion has imposed on humanity as being above all other life, experiments like this are an insult in their eyes.

Frankly I think the human ego can survive the insult, the potential to cure diseases is more important than self imposed pride.

AnnoyedDragon

Would you happen to have a link to their exact arguments on hand? No offense intended - I've just found that those who disagree with a position can sometimes gloss over details that can often be important to the argument at large, so I'd prefer not to talk about their position without hearing it straight from them.

Slippery slope arguments are fallacious at all times. I have my logic book sitting right in front of me, open to inductive fallacies, staring at slippery slope as I type this. Slippery slope is a fallacious method of reasoning. Vandalvideo

If that is indeed what your logic book says, then your logic book is, quite frankly, incorrect. A slippery slope argument is not fallacious unless there is no clear logical path from the beginning to the end. I've told people in the past that we can't reverse moderations purely on their say-so that they weren't intending harm, on account of the fact that this would open it up to everyone getting moderated coming and claiming that they didn't mean it that way, and this would be an obviously undesirable outcome. This is an obvious slippery slope argument in that it claims that doing A would lead to B occurring, but it's not fallacious on account of the fact that the link between A and B is actually present.

If that is indeed what your logic book says, then your logic book is, quite frankly, incorrect. A slippery slope argument is not fallacious unless there is no clear logical path from the beginning to the end. I've told people in the past that we can't reverse moderations purely on their say-so that they weren't intending harm, on account of the fact that this would open it up to everyone getting moderated coming and claiming that they didn't mean it that way, and this would be an obviously undesirable outcome. This is an obvious slippery slope argument in that it claims that doing A would lead to B occurring, but it's not fallacious on account of the fact that the link between A and B is actually present.GabuEx

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Gee, considering humans to be important is self-imposed pride? Religion is so evil for having a basis for basic human rights.

AnnoyedDragon

Besides religion has it's own brand of human rights.

Who says we're the supreme beings of the universe?

Who says we're the supreme beings of the universe?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]If that is indeed what your logic book says, then your logic book is, quite frankly, incorrect. A slippery slope argument is not fallacious unless there is no clear logical path from the beginning to the end. I've told people in the past that we can't reverse moderations purely on their say-so that they weren't intending harm, on account of the fact that this would open it up to everyone getting moderated coming and claiming that they didn't mean it that way, and this would be an obviously undesirable outcome. This is an obvious slippery slope argument in that it claims that doing A would lead to B occurring, but it's not fallacious on account of the fact that the link between A and B is actually present.Vandalvideo

Arguing that event b will happen if event a is fallacious.

Arguing that event b will be more likely to happen if event a happens is not fallacious.

In addition, while the first example is not valid reasoning, the conclusion it reaches is not necessarily wrong.

I always hear so many people here say rude things about Christians or Catholics.
Alright first of all, I am a catholic, so are my parents. We never have tried to convert anyone.
We never act like we are better then anyone, we never tell others they are going to hell if they swear or something.

So will atheists hate me just because I am a catholic??

I have a friend who is an atheist and he called me a retard because I am catholic.
So I am retarded because I am a catholic??

Should I be an atheist just because everyone tells me to be one??


You should never be an atheist if your friend calls you retarded because you belive in GOD then he might not be a real friend to you because religion is such a great thing and must be taken seriously and you cant just change your faith because of something someone said to you.

Arguing that event b will happen if event a is fallacious.Arguing that event b will be more likely to happen if event a happens is not fallacious.In addition, while the first example is not valid reasoning, the conclusion it reaches is not necessarily wrong.Theokhoth

Would you happen to have a link to their exact arguments on hand? No offense intended - I've just found that those who disagree with a position can sometimes gloss over details that can often be important to the argument at large, so I'd prefer not to talk about their position without hearing it straight from them.

GabuEx

Sure I'll just hunt down an article.

A little old but it does the job, quotes from the oposition are at the bottom.

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said: "The HFEA decision represents a disastrous setback for human dignity in Britain.

"The deliberate blurring of the boundaries between humans and other species is wrong and strikes at the heart of what makes us human."

Dr Peter Saunders of Christian Medical Fellowship said: "Many scientists now regard using animal-human hybrids for stem cell research as a scientific blind alley.

"As well as being unethical they are simply unnecessary."

The oposition wanted people to think there were many scientists against the idea and the research was a dead end before it began, I was keeping track; there wasn't nearly as many qualified people against the idea as they suggested at the time.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Arguing that event b will happen if event a is fallacious.Arguing that event b will be more likely to happen if event a happens is not fallacious.In addition, while the first example is not valid reasoning, the conclusion it reaches is not necessarily wrong.Vandalvideo

I don't care what your book says; it is wrong. I do have an AA in philosophy and am working on that BA. Even a simple Wikipedia article explains what is common sense: Another form appears more static, arguing that admitting or permitting A creates a precedent that leads to admitting or permitting B, by following a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical necessity (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this a valid argument and thus not a slippery slope according to the cIassical definition. The slippery slope is not a fallacy by virtue of a chain of implications (which relies on the transitivity of the material conditional) but rather because of the failure to factually establish said chain.

In addition, UCLA agrees with me.

Sorry, but you have an outdated logic book. Slippery slope as a semantical argument is VALID, if not a little Sophist in its approach. Slippery slope fallacy is NOT valid.

Who to trust; Logic book that has been adopted by colleges around the United States as one of the premeire books for teaching logic, language, and evidence, or a person on the gamespot internet forums telling me that my logic book, published and referreed by premeire people in the subject, is wrong. Slippery slope is an innately fallacious method of inductive reasoning. There is no gaurentees that B will occure if A happens. Vandalvideo

What exactly does your book say about slippery slope arguments? Does it say that any argument, full stop, saying that A will lead to B is necessarily fallacious? I would be rather surprised if it did.

But beyond that, you could try applying logic yourself, as you're basically pulling an appeal to authority fallacy here yourself. A fallacious argument is one where the conclusion is not logically derivable from the premises. Any argument where the conclusion is logically derivable from the premises is by definition an un-fallacious argument. As a rather extreme example for the sake of illustration, the argument, "You should not shoot yourself in the brain because that would lead to your death," is also a slippery slope argument: it asserts that doing A will result in undesirable outcome B. But I have to hope that you wouldn't argue that one cannot assume that shooting oneself in the brain would in fact lead to one's death.

You don't have to have a rock-solid scientific guarantee that B will happen if you do A for the argument to be un-fallacious, anyhow. All you have to do is modify your conclusion to say that B is likely to occur, and that that likelihood is not a risk that you'd like to take. Given the tendency of human nature to be predictable, I can certainly say that it's not unreasonable to make statements about what humans are likely to do.

Again, you can keep trying to rationalize your own reasoning, but the facts are simple. I'm staring at one of the premeire logic books used in countless universities across the United States. It is telling me that Slippery Slope is an innately fallacious method of inductive reasoning. Now, unless you have a BA in philosophy with a concentration in logistical reasoning, I have no reason to take your word over theirs.Vandalvideo

No offense, but I really think that you should turn to the section of the book covering "Appeal to Authority". And then, after reading it, actually apply your own ability to reason logically to respond to our statements.

Who says we're the supreme beings of the universe?

Theokhoth

You do, well your religion at least. You cannot say a big part of religion isn't spent uplifting the human image above all other life, that this world and all other life in it was handed to us to rule over according to the Bible.

The problem is you confused the sanctity religion places on human beings with human rights, there is a difference between thinking human beings should have rights and that human beings have a god given 'specialness' that makes even our dandruff more holy than thou to other lifeforms dandruff.

Some people have a problem with hybrid stem cell research because they feel it damages something they themselves created, that humans are so much better than other life that putting human DNA in an animal embryo is an insult to human dignity.

That's the ego I'm refering to, don't confuse criticising that ego with the idea that humans should have any rights at all.

What exactly does your book say about slippery slope arguments? Does it say that any argument, full stop, saying that A will lead to B is necessarily fallacious? I would be rather surprised if it did.GabuEx

But beyond that, you could try applying logic yourself, as you're basically pulling an appeal to authority fallacy here yourself.

A fallacious argument is one where the conclusion is not logically derivable from the premises.

Any argument where the conclusion is logically derivable from the premises is by definition an un-fallacious argument. As a rather extreme example for the sake of illustration, the argument, "You should not shoot yourself in the brain because that would lead to your death," is also a slippery slope argument: it asserts that doing A will result in undesirable outcome B. But I have to hope that you wouldn't argue that one cannot assume that shooting oneself in the brain would in fact lead to one's death.You don't have to have a rock-solid scientific guarantee that B will happen if you do A for the argument to be un-fallacious, anyhow.

Sure I'll just hunt down an article.

A little old but it does the job, quotes from the oposition are at the bottom.

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said: "The HFEA decision represents a disastrous setback for human dignity in Britain.

"The deliberate blurring of the boundaries between humans and other species is wrong and strikes at the heart of what makes us human."

Dr Peter Saunders of Christian Medical Fellowship said: "Many scientists now regard using animal-human hybrids for stem cell research as a scientific blind alley.

"As well as being unethical they are simply unnecessary."

The oposition wanted people to think there were many scientists against the idea and the research was a dead end before it began, I was keeping track; there wasn't nearly as many qualified people against the idea as they suggested at the time.

AnnoyedDragon

Hmm, well I don't know, I'd have to hear their justification for thinking that way. If they eventually began to go down the route of producing a deluge of Bible quotes, then yes, I would certainly call that particular case pretty indefensible.

I don't care what your book says; it is wrong. I do have an AA in philosophy and am working on that BA. Evena simple Wikipedia article explains what is common sense: Another form appears more static, arguing that admitting or permitting A creates a precedent that leads to admitting or permitting B, by following a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical necessity (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this a valid argument and thus not a slippery slope according to the cIassical definition. The slippery slope is not a fallacy by virtue of a chain of implications (which relies on the transitivity of the material conditional) but rather because of the failure to factually establish said chain.In addition, UCLA agrees with me.Sorry, but you have an outdated logic book. Slippery slope as a semantical argument is VALID, if not a little Sophist in its approach. Slippery slope fallacy is NOT valid. Theokhoth

It explicitly states, and I quote; "Slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place. Slippery slope can involve various kinds of causality. For example, some one might argue that removing a single brick from a building would set off a chain reaction leading to the destruction of the building, or that chopping down a talle tree would set off a cascade of falling trees leading tot he destruction of the forest. These arguments depend on pure physical causality. On the other hand, someone might argue that starting a rumour.....(list ad naseum dozens of types of slippery slope).. All slippery slope arguments are innately fallacious."Vandalvideo

Read the part that I have bolded. That is exactly what I have been saying all along: an argument is only fallacious when there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place. Patrick J. Hurley agrees with me, not you.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]It explicitly states, and I quote; "Slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place. Slippery slope can involve various kinds of causality. For example, some one might argue that removing a single brick from a building would set off a chain reaction leading to the destruction of the building, or that chopping down a talle tree would set off a cascade of falling trees leading tot he destruction of the forest. These arguments depend on pure physical causality. On the other hand, someone might argue that starting a rumour.....(list ad naseum dozens of types of slippery slope).. All slippery slope arguments are innately fallacious."GabuEx

Read the part that I have bolded. That is exactly what I have been saying all along: an argument is only fallacious when there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place. Patrick J. Hurley agrees with me, not you.

Should I be an atheist just because everyone tells me to be one??

joshrocks2245

Sure, why not? That's why you're a Catholic isn't it?

All slippery slope arguments are innately fallacious All slippery slope arguments are innately fallacious All slippery slope arguments are innately fallacious All slippery slope arguments are innately fallacious Not sure how many times I have to pull that out. Don't nitpick words.Vandalvideo

Well if you define the term "slippery slope argument" to be one in which there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place, then yes, a slippery slope argument is tautologically fallacious. But then the argument is over whether or not the argument that started this whole mess is indeed a slippery slope argument, rather than over whether or not there is sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place, which nonetheless still rests on whether there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place, and thus we have accomplished nothing whatsoever.

No offense, but you seem to have a rather unhealthy reliance on the precise wording of what other people have said, and appear to use that in lieu of actually engaging your brain in thinking about what the other person is saying. This is a rather strong impediment to effective communication.

Well if you define the term "slippery slope argument" to be one in which there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place, then yes, a slippery slope argument is tautologically fallacious. But then the argument is over whether or not the argument that started this whole mess is indeed a slippery slope argument, rather than over whether or not there is sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place, which nonetheless still rests on whether there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain will actually take place, and thus we have accomplished nothing whatsoeverGabuEx

.No offense, but you seem to have a rather unhealthy reliance on the precise wording of what other people have said, and appear to use that in lieu of actually engaging your brain in thinking about what the other person is saying. This is a rather strong impediment to effective communication.

Types of religious people I don't like:

• If they try to force their beliefs on others
• Claim their religion is the only way

Types of religious people I don't like:

• If they try to force their beliefs on others
• Claim their religion is the only way

Other than that. I have no problem with religion.

Cwagmire21

I hate religion because they feel they should get tax exemptions and special rightshtekemerald