Religion and Medicine

[DropkickMurphy]

Depends on how you interpret the phrasing of the commandments. "Good" people in the Bible have killed and it seemed to be "okay."

True.....that's one of the reasons I have a hard time buying into it....contradictions abound. Not to mention the whole "This guy died and is going to come back from the dead...someday...." part......

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bretticus]

We should conduct a survey less likely to turn into an argument. For example:

Are you

a) A Yankee Fan
or
b) Stupid

Someone will inevitably be a complete ***** and answer "Boston Red Sox fan."

And we just can't have that.

 

[chad5871]

Depends on how you interpret the phrasing of the commandments. "Good" people in the Bible have killed and it seemed to be "okay."

Do you have any specific examples?

Moses killed an Egyptian slave master and was supposed to be killed by the Pharaoh. He had to flee from this in order for his life to be spared.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Are you taking this on faith or do you have data?

hahaha

 

[pyrois]

Are you taking this on faith or do you have data?

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

I take very few things in life "on faith."

 

[Anastasis]

Holy crap - an interesting thread on SDN!?!?

 

[pyrois]

Do you have any specific examples?

Moses killed an Egyptian slave master and was supposed to be killed by the Pharaoh. He had to flee from this in order for his life to be spared.

I have no specific examples off the top of my head. I just remember having a very long discussion about it in Sunday school back in the day

But if your Moses anecdote is correct, and that was before he was denied entrance to the promised land, then there you go

 

[bretticus]

Seriously, people.

Religion is responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not MILLIONS of people.

So is science.

I demand we stop pursuing both of these ridiculous enterprises at once! Someone think of the children!!!!

 

[OncoCaP]

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

I take very few things in life "on faith."

Wow ... this article would get some people's panties in a bunch:

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found. CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.

 

[pyrois]

Holy crap - an interesting thread on SDN!?!?

Trust me, as much as I often stay away from religious discussions, I'd much rather be doing this than checking my cell phone every 2 minutes to see if there's an 858 missed call on it

It's not even tomorrow yet

 

[MattD]

Killing someone who deserved it (say in the case of someone trying to rape your wife or rob your house). Technically it's a violation of one of the commandments. Therefore, it's basically a damning offense.

I was speaking to Christianity for the most part because most of us have the most experience with it. Being an atheist makes doing what needs to be done in certain situations a whole lot easier.

Hmm.. killing someone who 'deserved it' I would classify as unnecessary. Killing someone in self defense, or defense of another, I would not classify as 'damning'. Sure, there are those out there who have refused to use lethal force in their own defense due to their personal religious beliefs, but I don't think Christianity requires that of you. Regardless, the whole issue of forgiveness is kinda sorta maybe an important component of Christianity, so even if you want to consider killing for just cause a sin, Christianity provides for absolution through a simple act of repentance. But like I said, I don't think that the situation you described could be accurately described as a sin, although it's a point of much debate within the faith.

 

[pyrois]

Hmm.. killing someone who 'deserved it' I would classify as unnecessary.

This is a purely technical comment, but if someone "deserves to be killed," by definition, that individual has done something worthy of his death.

Arguably unnecessary, but by the "slippery slope" concept, nothing in this world is necessary.

 

[OncoCaP]

Seriously, people.

Religion is responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not MILLIONS of people.

So is science.

I demand we stop pursuing both of these ridiculous enterprises at once! Someone think of the children!!!!

Yeah, but which one killed more? We must find out tonight, and we will not stop until we do. Discuss.

 

[Steiner]

Someone will inevitably be a complete ***** and answer "Boston Red Sox fan."

And we just can't have that.

All the paranoid people on here would never admit to liking the Red Sox, knowing that is automatic grounds for rejection; and knowing all the adcoms have nothing better to do than sit around on SDN and figure out which person on here matches up to one of their thousands of applicants.

 

[chad5871]

Someone think of the children!!!!

I believe that children are our future -- teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside!

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Seriously, people.

Religion is responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not MILLIONS of people.

So is science.

I demand we stop pursuing both of these ridiculous enterprises at once! Someone think of the children!!!!

Imagine the destruction if these two forces ever started working together *sarcasm*

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Seriously, people.

Religion is responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not MILLIONS of people.

So is science.

I demand we stop pursuing both of these ridiculous enterprises at once! Someone think of the children!!!!

Richard Dawkins:

"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian parition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers," no Northern Ireland 'troubles,' no 'honour killings,' no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public bheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it."

 

[bretticus]

Eh, well Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth was considered pretty solid with his thermal analysis.

Then Darwin came along with evolution and all of a sudden Kelvin's estimates had to be wrong because it "wasn't enough time" for humans to evolve.

So they redid the numbers with this great new discovery of "radiation" and fixed it up so it matched Darwin's theory.

Heaven forbid internal nuclear energies, neutrino, and gamma ray emission contribute to error in their new number.

And God save us if there's a particle or electromagnetic wave out of our omniscient knowledge of invisible energy propagation spectra.

But then again, those scientists wouldn't care to look into anything that disproves the scientific faith

That's all well and good. Did I ever claim that science can prove everything at the moment? Sure it's conceivable that (macroscopic) evolution is wrong, but the problem is there's a whole lot of evidence to back it up. When a huge mountain of evidence in favor of a god's existence turns up, I'll be happy to entertain that idea with equal footing. For the moment, however, please keep the discussion to a philosophy classroom or some research project. Where it does not belong is a basic science classroom undermining the scientific method.

 

[pyrois]

Yeah, but which one killed more? We must find out tonight, and we will not stop until we do. Discuss.

Probably whatever is causing the genocide in Darfur.

So...

Religion?

But then Science helped create the weapons of murder.

Oh my!

 

[Anastasis]

Trust me, as much as I often stay away from religious discussions, I'd much rather be doing this than checking my cell phone every 2 minutes to see if there's an 858 missed call on it

It's not even tomorrow yet

lol - no I was being serious. I used to post on a Christian theological message board so I'm pretty interested in this discussion.


At the risk of stirring up an ant hill: Has anyone see the documentary "Jesus Camp"? I saw it for the first time this weekend.

It's funny. I'm a pretty devout Presbyterian and I was raised in a Protestant Irish family where I was taught that Catholics were evil and I should never associate with them. Obviously I grew past my upbringing. I also spent some time doing peace work in Northern Ireland (where I was terrified my neighbors would find out I was protestant and set my flat on fire). But after watching that documentary I realized that I think I share more beliefs with a Catholic than an Evangelical Christian. That was a really startling thing for me to realize.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I believe that children are our future -- teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside!

Is your avatar getting ready to fellate the microphone?

 

[pyrois]

That's all well and good. Did I ever claim that science can prove everything

No, but the question I'm proposing is whether science can prove anything?

(this post officially moves this sub-branch topic of the thread into the realm of "philosophy")

 

[Steiner]

Ouch, a dose of truth to the joking around! Although even choice c) is less frightening than the pitiable

d) Alcoholic NASCAR fan

Redundant? Perhaps........

very frightening. I had to work a NASCAR event for a fund-raiser and have never seen so many people willing to crank out 8 dollars for a 22 oz Bud.

 

[OncoCaP]

Richard Dawkins:

"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian parition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers," no Northern Ireland 'troubles,' no 'honour killings,' no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public bheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it."

Imagine no nuclear weapons, imagine no bullets, heck, imagine no wheels to run over you! Imagine no pollution, no global warming, no SDN ....

 

[Steiner]

I believe that children are our future -- teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside!

"Sexual Chocolate" everybody

 

[KeyzerSoze]

Killing someone who deserved it (say in the case of someone trying to rape your wife or rob your house). Technically it's a violation of one of the commandments. Therefore, it's basically a damning offense.

I was speaking to Christianity for the most part because most of us have the most experience with it. Being an atheist makes doing what needs to be done in certain situations a whole lot easier.

You are operating under a common misapprehension. There is no commandment which forbids killing. There is a commandment which forbids murder. This is quite clear in the original Hebrew, in which the verb used is R-TZ-H, not H-R-G.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

lol - no I was being serious. I used to post on a Christian theological message board so I'm pretty interested in this discussion.


At the risk of stirring up an ant hill: Has anyone see the documentary "Jesus Camp"? I saw it for the first time this weekend.

It's funny. I'm a pretty devout Presbyterian and I was raised in a Protestant Irish family where I was taught that Catholics were evil and I should never associate with them. Obviously I grew past my upbringing. I also spent some time doing peace work in Northern Ireland (where I was terrified my neighbors would find out I was protestant and set my flat on fire). But after watching that documentary I realized that I think I share more beliefs with a Catholic than an Evangelical Christian. That was a really startling thing for me to realize.

I tell most people I'm Episcopalian...since it's the American branch of the Church of England.....can I refer you all to the Eddie Izzard bit about "Cake or Death"? "It's much more of a hobby religion."

 

[chad5871]

Is your avatar getting ready to fellate the microphone?

If anyone caught Jennifer Hudson back in her Idol days, this is what she looked like. Ha ha - she's so ridiculously over-the-top! I'll probably change my avatar again soon - I'm not too sure I want to be associated with the visual you just described.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

You are operating under a common misapprehension. There is no commandment which forbids killing. There is a commandment which forbids murder. This is quite clear in the original Hebrew, in which the verb used is R-TZ-H, not H-R-G.

Sweet. Not that it matters to me.....but that's good to know.

 

[Anastasis]

I tell most people I'm Episcopalian...since it's the American branch of the Church of England.....can I refer you all to the Eddie Izzard bit about "Cake or Death"? "It's much more of a hobby religion."

"The reading this sunday is about the fall shade of lipstick. And that reminds of me of our Lord Jesus who I'm sure when he went to Jerusalem got tarted up a bit."

 

[baylormed]

lol - no I was being serious. I used to post on a Christian theological message board so I'm pretty interested in this discussion.


At the risk of stirring up an ant hill: Has anyone see the documentary "Jesus Camp"? I saw it for the first time this weekend.

It's funny. I'm a pretty devout Presbyterian and I was raised in a Protestant Irish family where I was taught that Catholics were evil and I should never associate with them. Obviously I grew past my upbringing. I also spent some time doing peace work in Northern Ireland (where I was terrified my neighbors would find out I was protestant and set my flat on fire). But after watching that documentary I realized that I think I share more beliefs with a Catholic than an Evangelical Christian. That was a really startling thing for me to realize.

I saw part of it on youtube. Pretty interesting, and kind of scary at the same time.

 

[bretticus]

Richard Dawkins:

"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian parition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers," no Northern Ireland 'troubles,' no 'honour killings,' no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public bheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it."

While true, you're making the assumption that people would not find other ways to kill each other for stupid reasons. I think things like oppression of women are things that men found a way to do in the name of religion, and that just brings some kind of legitimacy to it in a sick way. If religion weren't there, the crazies would just find some other thing to veil their actions in.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Imagine no nuclear weapons, imagine no bullets, heck, imagine no wheels to run over you! Imagine no pollution, no global warming, no SDN :eek" ....

Our oldest religious texts show man it its best: violent and ruthless.

Science is a process, its a concept. Religion causes people to do these listed things (see above post) that are terrible. Science doesnt cause these things. Science is used to make nukes, bullets, etc. But science doesn't cause one to use them!

 

[pyrois]

no SDN ....

But without SDN, who would I talk to about medical school!

Oh wait... there wouldn't be medical school.

Oh God. Without science, I'd still be a single celled organism, because the lack of formal education would remove the selective pressures to develop a central nervous system.

AIEEE!

 

[Steiner]

"The reading this sunday is about the fall shade of lipstick. And that reminds of me of our Lord Jesus who I'm sure when he went to Jerusalem got tarted up a bit."

Once you imagine this being said in Eddie Izzard's voice, you automatically start laughing.

 

[Steiner]

Our oldest religious texts show man it its best: violent and ruthless.

Science is a process, its a concept. Religion causes people to do these listed things (see above post) that are terrible. Science doesnt cause these things. Science is used to make nukes, bullets, etc. But science doesn't cause one to use them!

So religion was responsible for Nagasaki?

 

[TMP-SMX]

Richard Dawkins:

"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian parition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers," no Northern Ireland 'troubles,' no 'honour killings,' no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public bheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it."

Dawkins is a nut. Anyway, a vast majority of those things were just cultural differences and portions of human nature. Conflict and war will find a justification with or without religion. (Of course religion does make it a whole lot easier). A whole lot of those problems there have to do with colonialism, which of course did have a religious justification to Christianize the barbarians. Of course the same thing could be said about Rome. Rome didn't conquer for religious reasons. Their justification for taking slaves and building an empire was bringing "civilization" to the barbarians. However, the main reason any of this was done is for economics plain and simple.

 

[MattD]

This is a purely technical comment, but if someone "deserves to be killed," by definition, that individual has done something worthy of his death.

Arguably unnecessary, but by the "slippery slope" concept, nothing in this world is necessary.

True, but that individual 'deserving of death' does not authorize you to be the harbinger of such, nor does it make it necessary that you carry this punishment out. If so, government would allow, nay, endorse vigilante justice. In the beliefs of Christianity, we as sinners are not worthy nor justified in casting judgment on others, and are to leave such judgment to God. Now, before someone starts down this path, this does not render the justice system sinful. Provision is made for government to enforce law, using methods including punishment. But that is intended to be a judgment of an individuals actions, not their character or soul.

 

[Anastasis]

Once you imagine this being said in Eddie Izzard's voice, you automatically start laughing.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tpr1Qc3PaA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bretticus]

No, but the question I'm proposing is whether science can prove anything?

(this post officially moves this sub-branch topic of the thread into the realm of "philosophy")

Prove something in the philosophical sense? No. Prove something that may have happened? Yes. Case in point: my LCD TV. Can't argue with the science behind that. When that same science suddenly says we evolved from bacteria? Oh, it couldn't be, because this book I read says so. Sorry, I really like my TV, and if it means I came from bacteria, so be it.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

While true, you're making the assumption that people would not find other ways to kill each other for stupid reasons. I think things like oppression of women are things that men found a way to do in the name of religion, and that just brings some kind of legitimacy to it in a sick way. If religion weren't there, the crazies would just find some other thing to veil their actions in.

well now you're boiling down to the nature of man.

i think of it this way. think of all the major conflicts in the world today. (go to CNN.com even). what is the basis for them? what is the underlining cause? many of the times its religion. It is hard to separate religion from a multiple factor problem (maybe its differences in culture that cause conflict?). Thats the hard part.

 

[pyrois]

In the beliefs of Christianity, we as sinners are not worthy nor justified in casting judgment on others, and are to leave such judgment to God.

Once again, a matter of interpretation. I certainly would argue that their judgment be left to God. But maybe it wouldn't hurt to send him to God for that judgment a little early

 

[pyrois]

Prove something in the philosophical sense? No. Prove something that may have happened? Yes. Case in point: my LCD TV. Can't argue with the science behind that. When that same science suddenly says we evolved from bacteria? Oh, it couldn't be, because this book I read says so. Sorry, I really like my TV, and if it means I came from bacteria, so be it.

You know, from a purely statistical standpoint, there is a finite and positive probability that the existence of your LCD TV is purely chance

(this post, officially sends that sub-branching thread of philosophical argumentation down the tubes)

 

[Anastasis]

Prove something in the philosophical sense? No. Prove something that may have happened? Yes. Case in point: my LCD TV. Can't argue with the science behind that. When that same science suddenly says we evolved from bacteria? Oh, it couldn't be, because this book I read says so. Sorry, I really like my TV, and if it means I came from bacteria, so be it.

I like my TV too

 

[Stolenspatulas]

So religion was responsible for Nagasaki?

world war II is based on a lot of causes.... some cultural, which had basis in religion

science doesn't cause one to bomb Nagasaki. Thats akin to saying breathing causes me to kill someone (breathing lets me stay alive and thus I then retain the potential to kill someone, YET I DONT HAVE TO EXERCISE THAT POTENTIAL... in the same way science gives me the oppurtunity to create weapons, doesnt mean i have to use them)

 

[OncoCaP]

Our oldest religious texts show man it its best: violent and ruthless.

I dunno. There's a lotta begats in there too.

Science is a process, its a concept. Religion causes people to do these listed things (see above post) that are terrible. Science doesnt cause these things. Science is used to make nukes, bullets, etc. But science doesn't cause one to use them!

Yes, that's right ... we make them so we can observe them ... hmmm ... I wonder what would happen if we took this RPG here and shot it over there??

Ok, boys and girls. Today, we are going to learn about RPG's and their cause and effect on open air markets as opposed to shopping malls. Which one do you think would sustain more carnage at peak shopping times? This is important because we need to know which makes a safer shopping environment.

 

[Steiner]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tpr1Qc3PaA[/YOUTUBE]

The first time I saw this was at a bar in vegas. They have a huge projection screen up on the wall and show whatever they want. Movies, comedy, music videos. Cool place, overpriced beer though.

 

[bretticus]

You know, from a purely statistical standpoint, there is a finite and positive probability that the existence of your LCD TV is purely chance

(this post, officially sends that sub-branching thread of philosophical argumentation down the tubes)

Have you been watching Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

 

[MattD]

Once again, a matter of interpretation. I certainly would argue that their judgment be left to God. But maybe it wouldn't hurt to send him to God for that judgment a little early

I don't really disagree with you, to be honest. And I'm glad Keyzer brought up the semantic difference between killing and murder, which is significant. I guess it's up to the individual to decide whether they feel like they have the moral authority and the confidence in their assessment of that person to carry out the killing, what with that being the ultimate punishment, and irreversible to boot. For instance, I'm philosophically conflicted about the morality of capital punishment, but that conflict is not based on my religious beliefs, but other considerations.

 

[Anastasis]

The first time I saw this was at a bar in vegas. They have a huge projection screen up on the wall and show whatever they want. Movies, comedy, music videos. Cool place, overpriced beer though.

My college roommate and I would walk around quoting Dressed to Kill all the time. I swear at one point I had the whole thing memorized word for word. The best part of Eddie Izzard is that it's really "smart" comedy. (in a sense )