Atheists gather to ‘push back’
San Francisco gathering aims to counter fundamentalism
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:04 a.m. ET May 23, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - To the uninformed, the gathering here may have seemed like a church revival, full of zeal and fervor. But worshipping God was most decidedly not part of the agenda.
The attendees of the “All Atheists Weekend” came together to discuss what they call the rise of fundamentalism in the U.S. and the blurring of lines between church and state.
Who says you have to believe in God to be “religious”? These folks are very “religious” in their non-beliefs almost to the point that I don’t believe that they don’t believe.
It almost makes one wonder why they bother with rallies and get-togethers. I mean, if you don’t believe in God, then it’s no big deal, is it? He isn’t the “man upstairs” since there is no “upstairs” (heaven) or “down below” (hell). He’s a figment of other people’s imaginations but, of course, not yours.
Atheists should be the most sane, self-assured, peaceful people on the planet. With no one to be accountable to (there is no God, remember?) they are free to do their own thing and act without impunity. They shouldn’t worry about what others think about their lack of belief in God and they, in turn, shouldn’t even give a care about the fact that the vast majority on the planet say that they do believe in God.
In short, why should atheists gather together to push their agenda? It sounds oddly like an "organized religion" to me.
Or is it more like a classic case of insecurity? Perhaps atheists are secretly worried that there may actually be someone upstairs that they are held accountable to—and they have to prove the strength of their unbelief to the so-called Deity.
Remember, even St. Paul commended the Athenians on their religiosity when he spotted their idol dedicated to an “unknown god”. Modern day atheists, by protesting their unbelief, sound like they’ve rediscovered this idol for themselves.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
The Island of Dr. Moreau Revisited or Do Mice have more Brains than Humans?
An excerpt from an article from the Associated Press
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7681252/
Mice with human brains
In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson’s progress.
Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice’s behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.
Okay... Is anyone besides me seeing a few ethical problems with giving animals "human brains"?
We give them human stem cells so we can grow a "human-like" brain in a lab animal, a mouse or a monkey, and then we study the creature to see how certain brain diseases/abnormalities work. Hopefully scientists can then come up with a cure for these brain diseases.
But if the animal starts showing any "traits of humanity" the researcher will immediately kill the animal. We can't have another H. G. Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau on our hands, can we?
Heaven forbid we create a part-human, part-mouse type of creature! Think of how grossed out you were when you first watched the movie The Fly.We don’t want to build monstrosities, freaks of nature, do we?
But if an animal did show human-like behavior… Wouldn’t it understand that mankind is playing God with its existence?
We bring the poor hybrid thing into the world, and we reserve the right to take it out if its behavior in any way offends us or makes us uncomfortable with our choices. If this isn’t playing God, then what is?
And how many human cells are necessary to create another “human”? Fifty percent? Forty percent? Eighty percent? One percent? Who determines who is a “human being” and who isn’t? The courts?
Does any of this make you nervous? It should. Remember the Dred Scott case in the 1850’s… Mr. Scott wasn’t allowed to sue for his freedom from slavery since he was judged by a US court of law to be a piece of property and not a man. And property can be used, abused and discarded at will by the property owner.
By attempting to make human-hybrids and clones, is mankind trying to create a new form of slavery? I wonder.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7681252/
Mice with human brains
In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson’s progress.
Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice’s behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.
Okay... Is anyone besides me seeing a few ethical problems with giving animals "human brains"?
We give them human stem cells so we can grow a "human-like" brain in a lab animal, a mouse or a monkey, and then we study the creature to see how certain brain diseases/abnormalities work. Hopefully scientists can then come up with a cure for these brain diseases.
But if the animal starts showing any "traits of humanity" the researcher will immediately kill the animal. We can't have another H. G. Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau on our hands, can we?
Heaven forbid we create a part-human, part-mouse type of creature! Think of how grossed out you were when you first watched the movie The Fly.We don’t want to build monstrosities, freaks of nature, do we?
But if an animal did show human-like behavior… Wouldn’t it understand that mankind is playing God with its existence?
We bring the poor hybrid thing into the world, and we reserve the right to take it out if its behavior in any way offends us or makes us uncomfortable with our choices. If this isn’t playing God, then what is?
And how many human cells are necessary to create another “human”? Fifty percent? Forty percent? Eighty percent? One percent? Who determines who is a “human being” and who isn’t? The courts?
Does any of this make you nervous? It should. Remember the Dred Scott case in the 1850’s… Mr. Scott wasn’t allowed to sue for his freedom from slavery since he was judged by a US court of law to be a piece of property and not a man. And property can be used, abused and discarded at will by the property owner.
By attempting to make human-hybrids and clones, is mankind trying to create a new form of slavery? I wonder.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Cruelty is in the Eye of the Beholder
From MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/
Brain responses differ in gay, straight men
Study: Homosexuals react to male sex hormones like women
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:19 p.m. ET May 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - The brains of homosexual men respond more like those of women when reacting to a chemical derived from the male sex hormone, new evidence of physical differences related to sexual The finding, published in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows differences in physiological reaction to sex hormones.
In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found…
I’ve been reading similar studies for years now—long before I went back to college in the mid 90’s and got my degree in psychology. The big question on my mind is, “Why isn’t some pharmaceutical company out there working on a drug or other method to ‘cure’ gay people?”
After all, if it’s a “chemical imbalance” in the brain that is causing these individuals to act out in a homosexual manner, then another chemical (or chemicals) may be able to set them “straight.”
Think about it. We give lithium to bipolar people to stabilize their moods—by stabilizing their brain chemistry.
We give Prozac to depressed people to help them equalize levels of serotonin in their brains—and we change their outlooks on life for the better.
So why hasn’t the scientific community been working on a cure to help homosexual people? Why can't we help them to stabilize their brain chemistry?
I think the answer here is obvious. Homosexual people’s behaviors or brain chemistry isn’t considered “abnormal” by the American Psychiatric Association and other medical organizations. Up until the 1960’s, the DSM listed homosexuality as a personality disorder right along side alcoholism and addiction. But then it became politically incorrect to consider people who demonstrated homosexual tendencies “ill” even if the person himself wasn’t particularly happy with his situation.
And if someone is “acting normally” and isn’t considered sick, then he or she doesn’t need any treatment, right? Their behavior is labeled as “normal” and if you as a medical professional think otherwise you are sure to be called “cruel”. Fears of retaliation and hate mail alone have shut down much research in this area I'm certain.
God made us all male and female—human, animal, fish, bird and even plant. It takes one of each sex to create another living being. This was His plan for His creation. But somehow, man has put himself in God’s place and started dictating rules that go against God’s wonderful creation. The creature brashly tells the creator where to get off. The lump of clay tells the potter it wants to remain an ugly lump rather than be transformed into a beautiful work of art.
And the saddest, sickest thing about all this is that we’ve allowed these suffering “gay” people to think all these years that they didn’t deserve to have their brain chemical imbalances corrected. They were told there was no help for them. They were stuck feeling the way they did even if they knew it went against God’s plan for them as His beloved children and it caused them much anguish.
How cruel is that?
Brain responses differ in gay, straight men
Study: Homosexuals react to male sex hormones like women
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:19 p.m. ET May 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - The brains of homosexual men respond more like those of women when reacting to a chemical derived from the male sex hormone, new evidence of physical differences related to sexual The finding, published in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows differences in physiological reaction to sex hormones.
In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found…
I’ve been reading similar studies for years now—long before I went back to college in the mid 90’s and got my degree in psychology. The big question on my mind is, “Why isn’t some pharmaceutical company out there working on a drug or other method to ‘cure’ gay people?”
After all, if it’s a “chemical imbalance” in the brain that is causing these individuals to act out in a homosexual manner, then another chemical (or chemicals) may be able to set them “straight.”
Think about it. We give lithium to bipolar people to stabilize their moods—by stabilizing their brain chemistry.
We give Prozac to depressed people to help them equalize levels of serotonin in their brains—and we change their outlooks on life for the better.
So why hasn’t the scientific community been working on a cure to help homosexual people? Why can't we help them to stabilize their brain chemistry?
I think the answer here is obvious. Homosexual people’s behaviors or brain chemistry isn’t considered “abnormal” by the American Psychiatric Association and other medical organizations. Up until the 1960’s, the DSM listed homosexuality as a personality disorder right along side alcoholism and addiction. But then it became politically incorrect to consider people who demonstrated homosexual tendencies “ill” even if the person himself wasn’t particularly happy with his situation.
And if someone is “acting normally” and isn’t considered sick, then he or she doesn’t need any treatment, right? Their behavior is labeled as “normal” and if you as a medical professional think otherwise you are sure to be called “cruel”. Fears of retaliation and hate mail alone have shut down much research in this area I'm certain.
God made us all male and female—human, animal, fish, bird and even plant. It takes one of each sex to create another living being. This was His plan for His creation. But somehow, man has put himself in God’s place and started dictating rules that go against God’s wonderful creation. The creature brashly tells the creator where to get off. The lump of clay tells the potter it wants to remain an ugly lump rather than be transformed into a beautiful work of art.
And the saddest, sickest thing about all this is that we’ve allowed these suffering “gay” people to think all these years that they didn’t deserve to have their brain chemical imbalances corrected. They were told there was no help for them. They were stuck feeling the way they did even if they knew it went against God’s plan for them as His beloved children and it caused them much anguish.
How cruel is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)