171 replies to this topic

[Danail Bulgaria]

From its start to until today, the religion is doing its best to suppress the science in any possible way. Further, the most important one science is, the most suppressive pressure the religion tries to apply on it. During the middle ages, it managed to stop the developments of all of the sciences and the medicine with averagely 1000 years. Astronomy and anatomy for example, have been reasons to get killed from the inquisition. Can you even imagine where we could be, if this haven't happened at all? These are 1000 years. We could even be immortal today. Today, apparently it can't stop the entire progress, and it decided to concentrate its progressively inefficient suppressive might on the most important of all sciences - the medicine. In the modern days the religion is rising against each new big discovery, that may push the medical science much further - it raised against the cloning as general, and later against the cloning of humans. The last religious hit was to rise against the embryonic stem cells. The embryonic stem cells are the most important existing today technology, that has the potential to make us immortal. What's wrong with the religion? Doesn't the religious leaders know, that they will die too, from the fact of their own anti-medical conquest?

[cats_lover]

You're right, but this is due to the church not religion. Of course church and religion are closely related; but the church (or organized religion) are those who actually oppose these  advances arguing that (on its interpretation) this is prohibited by religion and forcing people to believe that this interpretation is correct.

About stem cells, while most organized religions oppose the research on embryonic stem cells; nations do not investigate or stop investigate because of religions. Most Western countries do not investigate them because it involves the destruction of the embryo; and this has big bio-ethical implications.

Maybe arabic countries dont research on it because religious reasons; and maybe some Western countries like Spain and Italy dont resarch on it because the strong influence that the Catholic Church has on these countries; but the strong countries on bio-medical research (USA and Nordic countries) do not care what religion says but they still dont research (or do very little research) because bio-ethical issues.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Alright, I will fix my question - why the church is against the most important technologies for immortality - the embryonic stem cells and the human cloning, including therapeutic cloning.

 

I don't see any bio-ethical implication for destroying an embryo. Since the abortion until the third month is allowed in these countries, and is not considered to be a bio-ethical implication, because of the mother, who does not want  a child, why the destruction of a 2 weeks old embryo is a bio-ethical implication, if it is done to push the science forward to the fastest route of treating all possible diseases and conditions? It turns out, that if it is ok to kill a 3 month old embryo, if the reason is the mother's stupidity, but if it is not ok to kill much younger embryo, with much fewer cells, if it has to be done for the benefit of the humanity. This is a high level of idiotism.

[cats_lover]

Alright, I will fix my question - why the church is against the most important technologies for immortality - the embryonic stem cells and the human cloning, including therapeutic cloning.

 

I think that from church point of view god is the only one who must create life, and for this reason cloning is a wrong thing. About embryonic stem cells; because they believe than embryo is still a human being (and a lot of non-religious people also believe that).
 

 

I don't see any bio-ethical implication for destroying an embryo. Since the abortion until the third month is allowed in these countries, and is not considered to be a bio-ethical implication, because of the mother, who does not want  a child, why the destruction of a 2 weeks old embryo is a bio-ethical implication, if it is done to push the science forward to the fastest route of treating all possible diseases and conditions? It turns out, that if it is ok to kill a 3 month old embryo, if the reason is the mother's stupidity, but if it is not ok to kill much younger embryo, with much fewer cells, if it has to be done for the benefit of the humanity. This is a high level of idiotism.

 

Actually the few researches done with embryonic stem cells use aborted embryos (today there is a method to obtain stem cells without destroying the embryo but nobody uses because it is very expensive and complicated).

Anyway you also need the consent of the "mother" to use the cells for research, and for most women have an abortion is very painful (from the emotional point of view), and because emotional issues, they refuse to research on this biological material.

Moreover, even in countries where abortion is allowed, there are strong ethical controversies.

Seivtcho, you have girlfriend or wife?

Purpose her to get pregnat and abort within few weeks to research with the embryo; with her answer you might began to understand the bio-ethical implications involved.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Yea, only that the existence of God is not certain, and the 2 weeks old embryo is a future human, not a human at this very point. At the second week it is a bunch of cells. Plus if it is a cloned embryo, it is a bunch of your own cells. Destroying it is equal ethical as destroying 2 cubic centimeters of your skin.

[cats_lover]

Yea, only that the existence of God is not certain, and the 2 weeks old embryo is a future human, not a human at this very point. At the second week it is a bunch of cells. Plus if it is a cloned embryo, it is a bunch of your own cells. Destroying it is equal ethical as destroying 2 cubic centimeters of your skin.

 

I'm not totally against abortion, i just understand why abortion is controversial from ethical point of view.

 

If you want significant advances in research on embryonic stem cells you should ask why there is no more research to perfect the methods with which the cells are obtained without destroying the embryo instead of wondering why people have these conceptions; because I do not believe that people easily change their beliefs about life, and the option of refusing to use of abortion stem cells for research will always be a right.

Changing the focus of discucion... a few years ago when i work on applied physiology resarch in Spain I had a similar conversation about stem cell research with a friend researcher an he told me that the ethical and religious reasons actually mask the pharmaceutical industry who really do not want that nations do research in stem cells because this could take out of market several drugs due to cure for many pathological conditions.

He did not claim that this is true but it was a very feasible theory that many researchers argue (conspiracy theory), based on how hard it is to get permission to research in stem cells. I also heard about a researcher who claimed to have received death threats after finding a treatment that cures mice with spinal injuries using stem cells. Supposedly he could not publish his paper.

Well, I'm not sure about my last comment on the post, I have no evidence of this, just something that somebody told me before (questionable anecdotal evidence), but it is interesting to consider.

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

And don't the pharmacephtic companies owners know, that they will die too? Because of their own artifitial restrictions? Sooner or later they will get a deadly disease, and they will not have the treatment for themselvs.

[cats_lover]

And don't the pharmacephtic companies owners know, that they will die too? Because of their own artifitial restrictions? Sooner or later they will get a deadly disease, and they will not have the treatment for themselvs.

 

It is just a theory im dont know if this is true, anyway most of the scientific community does not believe that stem cells can indeed lead to eternal life.

Edited by cats_lover, 23 January 2015 - 08:27 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Whoever is trying to stop the stem cells research must know, that (s)he will die from that.

 

The stem cells are really very optimistic technology. Recently I also was 50/50 doubthfull, but I found amazing videos for real effects on humans. I actually listed them here:

http://www.longecity...used-on-people/

[cats_lover]

You also have some wonderful benefits from adult stem cells.

Some years ago we can regenerate a new finger with stem cells, why advances are so slow in this issue now?

[Danail Bulgaria]

What benefits for humans do you know of? You may add them in this topic:

http://www.longecity...used-on-people/

[shadowhawk]

Christianity is not against immortality but believes there is a way to eternal life.  The topic is imprecise and nonsense.

[Danail Bulgaria]

What is the way to eternal life, offered by the christianity?

[shadowhawk]

Nothing purely physical is eternal.  The entire cosmos is dying and even our understanding of physical reality is in question.( See The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies and John Gribbin)  So you don't have to be religious to doubt eternal Materialism as it has been understood in modern times..  The ground of being and eternality must be something beside the physical.  Christians believe, for various reasons,  that we are a composite being made up of body and spirit. If the body and spirit are separated we die.  When the physical runs down we die.  All things physical run down (age).  So it is in the spiritual aspect of us where hope is to be found.  That is where the eternal lies.  Join the spiritual and physical back together and you have life.

[Danail Bulgaria]

E.g. the christianity offers us to die and do nothing, blinded by the hope of "the spiritual aspect". Thank you, but I prefer to try to become ethernal in the bad material world and to die together with "entire cosmos". Plus I support morally all the sciences, that develop the needed technologies.

 

"Join the spiritual and physical back together and you have life"

Good luck doing that.

[shadowhawk]

No I am sorry you can't understand.  That is not what I said.  So you want to limit yourself to the physical world.  Be my guest.  I AM GLAD YOU SUPPORT MORALLY ALL THE SCIENCES.  Science is morally nurtural how it is used is what has ethical and moral issues. Do you support all the ways science has been used?

[Danail Bulgaria]

You said "Christians believe, for various reasons,  that we are a composite being made up of body and spirit. If the body and spirit are separated we die.  When the physical runs down we die.  All things physical run down (age).  So it is in the spiritual aspect of us where hope is to be found.  That is where the eternal lies. " So, don't think how to be physically (biologically in my terminology  ) immortal. Instead give hope the spirit to be immortal. This can be interpreted as "christianity offers us to die and do nothing, blinded by the hope of "the spiritual aspect".

 

On the other side, if religion is not against the human bilogical immortality, then what do they think about the transhumanistic utopia? Why not they invest in the bilogical immortality in order to build the paradise on the Earth? How was the prayer ... "let it be your kingdom ... on the Earth and on the sky ... "

[shadowhawk]

You said "Christians believe, for various reasons,  that we are a composite being made up of body and spirit. If the body and spirit are separated we die.  When the physical runs down we die.  All things physical run down (age).  So it is in the spiritual aspect of us where hope is to be found.  That is where the eternal lies. " So, don't think how to be physically (biologically in my terminology  ) immortal. Instead give hope the spirit to be immortal. This can be interpreted as "christianity offers us to die and do nothing, blinded by the hope of "the spiritual aspect".

 

On the other side, if religion is not against the human bilogical immortality, then what do they think about the transhumanistic utopia? Why not they invest in the bilogical immortality in order to build the paradise on the Earth? How was the prayer ... "let it be your kingdom ... on the Earth and on the sky ... "

Your ignorance is showing because all over the world Christian doctors and scientists have advanced life through hospitals, medicine, science, and welfare.  This has been going on for centuries.  No other group even comes close to supporting life.  We do not in general believe in a transhumanistic utopia.  You are leaving out the spiritual and we don’t think anything is immortal without it.  That being said we are as committed as you to extending life.  Prove uou can be immortal through the physical alone.

Let Gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Do you believe in heaven?


 

[Danail Bulgaria]

I haven't seen official statistics about how much are the christian researchers, who develop medicine and science, compared to those, who don't believe in God. In my opinion, they are not as much as you say. The majority of the medical researchers, that I know, are not religious at all. The only thing, that I know for certain, is that in the middle ages the christianity stopped the development of the most important for the medicine sciences at that time, such as the anatomy for at around a thousand years. It also successfully deviated it from its correct path of development and pushed the such called "healing through prayer".

 

I don't believe neither in the existence of God, who has made the universe, nor in the written in the bible, nor in the existence of the hell and the paradise. When I heard more about the idea, that we can build the paradise at some moment in the future, I believe, that we can do it here, in what you maybe call the material world.

[shadowhawk]

Well I am not going to have time to correct this kind of ignorance.  As a starter, I suggest you look at
http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
https://www.facebook...stiansinscience
http://network.asa3.org/
http://www.godandsci...iencefaith.html
http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1596981555/

I also accept your statement of faith in what you believe.  Evidence. 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Show me official statistics about how much are the christian researchers, who develop medicine and science, compared to those, who don't believe in God, today, and how their number correlation changes with time.

 

My statement of faith? You mean, why I believe, that we can make the paradise in the material world? Well, because the only think we need to do it, is to become biologically immortal. We have the rest technologies already. There is a web page, that I recently made together with another participant in this forum. It explains the vision about why we can do it in the future:

http://www.whyparadise.tk/

[shadowhawk]

Every thing that we have made is rusting away.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics is taking care of everything including you.  Indeed you have blind faith going against fundamental physics.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Yes, it seems, that my thought, that the science can make the human immortal is a faith after all, but according to me, it is still possible for the science to find a way for a constant regeneration of our bodies.

 

For example, if some one's kidney is damaged, new kidney can be grown in a lab with his stem cells, or via therapeutic cloning of new organs. The same is possible for everything - the skin, the bones, the liver, the lungs, whatever. The brain cells can be repaired by new brain cells made from stem cells.

 

I use the analogy of a car repairments. It seems, that Aburey De Gray is using it too. The Second law of thermodynamics says, that the parts of the car has to wear off and the car to damage, but until you have the spare parts for this model of the car, you always can repair it, and theoretically it can run forever, by periodical parts replacement. There are virtually vintage cars, that are in working conditions today, using this method.

[shadowhawk]

Well I am not against repairing old cars, I have two classics myself that I take out once a year .  We drive them in parades.  No one would think of using these old cars like regular cars.  I follow the worlds super centarians very closely.  Where do you say this kind of thing is happening?  Are you comparing humans to cars?

[Danail Bulgaria]

Noone wants the old cars, because the new models of the cars are better, and more beautiful, but the human does not evolve this fast, and the new models of humans are equal with the older ones. Furthermore, the more the science develops, the more the biological evolution of the human will be decreasing. It actually may even not exist today.

[shadowhawk]

People die and there are none above 120 and only about 80 older than 110.  All the rest have died just like everything else in the cosmos.  Religion says this is the way things are in reality.  Then along come those who say, "It ain't so."  OK, show me and don't claim my asking this question about the physical means I am against life extension.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I am one of those, who say "It ain't so" lol. People die, true, no one is immortal today, true, this has been the way the things were in the reality so far, true, but it is the only possible way - false. Medicine is using transplantations today. The transplantation technology works. The people with transplantations live longer, than those, who don't receive them. So the analogy with the spare parts of the car works. The problem is that the human population need organs, that are ABSOLUTELY GENETICALLY IDENTICLE with the recepient. Once we get an unlimited supply of the correct soare parts, we will be able to change our old and damaged parts, whenever it is necessary, and will always be able to repair ourselves, as you will be able to repair always your vintage car(s), until you have the correct spare parts.

[shadowhawk]

Evidence?

[shadowhawk]

By the way, this is getting off topic.

[serp777]

The idea of immortality is great, but not for everyone. We don't want every useless person to live forever.

 

Those who live forever should be great leaders, or scientists, or engineers, or great artists/musicians. These people could do wondrous things over the course of a thousand years. No need for Joe Shmoe at the gas station to be immortal though. He needs to make room for the next 20 billion people.

 

Religion is general against immortality for various reasons, but mainly because religion is obsessed with death. A true religious person works their whole life in order to improve their position in the afterlife. Many religious people want the apocalypse to occur so that God or allah can judge those deemed unworthy while the rest get to go to heaven. Immortality avoids this judgment that God is supposed to give you. Its stupid however, that's for sure.

 

They're also against cloning which is stupid. No idea why people are so butthurt about cloning. Wouldn't it be awesome to clone a human without a brain and extract their organs? Immortality is within reach at that point. Seems pretty win to me. All of the stupid ethics really get in the way though.