Abortion doc murdered in Wichita

[WestEastMountGuy]

Just stop trying to mix both of them together. You can't get any intelligent debate out of this.

 

Religion and philosophy can answer a lot of questions that science can't. In the same way, I won't ask religion to give me the last decimals of pi.

 

 

 

By the way, life can't be calculated by science. I don't why you atheist guys keep saying religion is bad, science is great, since you can't solve any ethic problem with science.

 

Oh, and and I don't think Jesus Christ would have said : "Come on, you got to kill that doc !".

 

Most intelligent post of the thread^^^

 

Especially the WWJD point. Obviously, reading the New Testament would not have lead the shooter to kill the doctor, if followed to the letter.

[Guest Shim]

...what specifically?

 

Well, Mike, to me it was obvious to which kind of questions I was refering, but I'll answer as if you would really not know.

 

Religion and philosophy can help answering any problem on ethic or human values. An easy problem would be to tell which person, the Doctor or the killer, is wrong in this story. To cover it quickly, it's definitively the killer, because you must "look after your own things, and not assume as yours what belongs to others" (I took that statement from stoicism). You can't obligate the others to live as you would like them to live. A consequence of misunderstanding that statement would allow anybody to raise a genocide, yes, even if you're not religious. You won't eliminate war by eliminating religion, this is just being stubborn. Most of wars occuring in Africa aren't religious, as an example. The 2nd World War wasn't a religious war neither by the way.

 

If you want to know any more philosophical question, you can easily find them on the Internet. Some are more famous than other, such as (sorry I'm not sure about the translation) : "Who am I ?" ; "Why am I on Earth" (what you should do of your life), etc.

 

To conclude, I'd say wisdom is to philosophy what intelligence is to science.

[MSmith19]

Philosophy doesn't solve anything..you should know that. Philosophers could argue perpetually over just about everything under the sun. I'm not religious and I still have no problem with ethics and morals.

 

The problem is that your *answers* provided can be debated just as much. There's no absolute truth to religion because everyone's is different. You may claim it's the killer's fault through Christianity, but I may claim otherwise through Islam.

[uvicstudent]

Well, Mike, to me it was obvious to which kind of questions I was refering, but I'll answer as if you would really not know.

 

Religion and philosophy can help answering any problem on ethic or human values. An easy problem would be to tell which person, the Doctor or the killer, is wrong in this story. To cover it quickly, it's definitively the killer, because you must "look after your own things, and not assume what belongs to others" (I took that statement from stoicism). You can't obligate the others to live as you would like them to live. A consequence of misunderstanding that statement would allow anybody to raise a genocide, yes, even if you're not religious. You won't eliminate war by eliminating religion, this is just being stubborn. Most of wars occuring in Africa aren't religious, as an example. The 2nd World War wasn't a religious war neither by the way.

 

If you want to know any more philosophical question, you can easily find them on the Internet. Some are more famous than other, such as (sorry I'm not sure about the translation) : "Who am I ?" ; "Why am I on Earth" (what you should do of your life), etc.

 

To conclude, I'd say wisdom is to philosophy what intelligence is to science.

 

In the situation you described above, you used philosophy and logic to give an answer to an ethical question. There was no religious contribution to the answer you gave to that question.

[tooty]

Well, Mike, to me it was obvious to which kind of questions I was refering, but I'll answer as if you would really not know.

 

Religion and philosophy can help answering any problem on ethic or human values. An easy problem would be to tell which person, the Doctor or the killer, is wrong in this story. To cover it quickly, it's definitively the killer, because you must "look after your own things, and not assume as yours what belongs to others" (I took that statement from stoicism). You can't obligate the others to live as you would like them to live. A consequence of misunderstanding that statement would allow anybody to raise a genocide, yes, even if you're not religious. You won't eliminate war by eliminating religion, this is just being stubborn. Most of wars occuring in Africa aren't religious, as an example. The 2nd World War wasn't a religious war neither by the way.

 

If you want to know any more philosophical question, you can easily find them on the Internet. Some are more famous than other, such as (sorry I'm not sure about the translation) : "Who am I ?" ; "Why am I on Earth" (what you should do of your life), etc.

 

To conclude, I'd say wisdom is to philosophy what intelligence is to science.

 

sigh. even though I have Shim on my ignore list and see this for all his stupid posts: This message is hidden because Shim is on your ignore list, there's an option on the top right that you can click to view the message anyway. i was curious. but to no surprise, i wasted 60 seconds of my life reading something retarded. I learned my lesson.

[NewfieMike]

Religion and philosophy can help answering any problem on ethic or human values.

 

a little extreme, don't you think?

 

ok so what about the catholic church being against gay marriage? how does that help SOLVE a problem of ethics/human values?

[The Law]

Religion and philosophy can help answering any problem on ethic or human values. An easy problem would be to tell which person, the Doctor or the killer, is wrong in this story. To cover it quickly, it's definitively the killer, because you must "look after your own things, and not assume as yours what belongs to others" (I took that statement from stoicism). You can't obligate the others to live as you would like them to live. A consequence of misunderstanding that statement would allow anybody to raise a genocide, yes, even if you're not religious. You won't eliminate war by eliminating religion, this is just being stubborn. Most of wars occuring in Africa aren't religious, as an example. The 2nd World War wasn't a religious war neither by the way.

 

Common sense and logic can also answer questions on ethics and human values.

 

If you want to know any more philosophical question, you can easily find them on the Internet. Some are more famous than other, such as (sorry I'm not sure about the translation) : "Who am I ?" ; "Why am I on Earth" (what you should do of your life), etc.

 

To conclude, I'd say wisdom is to philosophy what intelligence is to science.

 

Religion does not "answer" these questions. It merely makes guesses. This all that anyone, whether scientist or philosopher, can ever do to answer them.

[Guest Shim]

In the situation you described above, you used philosophy and logic to give an answer to an ethical question. There was no religious contribution to the answer you gave to that question.

 

No, I used stoicism. I could have used a Christian statement instead.

 

As I said, this one was an easy problem and it was only intended to make you understand what I mean. Some questions, as I said, are really more complicated. Call it logic if you want, but you should know that the theory of universal intelligence is being really discredited right now.

 

MSmith, any credible religion would say that the killer is wrong. If you really want to make the parallel to science, you got to know that sometimes, researchers had "bad theories" that didn't work at the end.

 

I'll stop right there, but yes MSmirth, philosophy and religion can answer to a lot of questions. Obviously you can't know if you're not interested in them, and even more obviously, if you never tried.

 

 

 

EDIT: Newfie, your quote is a bit unjustified. I wrote help, so how am I being extreme ? If the gay marriage question interest you, go read it by yourself, but I can't get all the information and expose it right here each time somebody will have something to say agaisnt religion. Especially on a science and medical forum.

[peachy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Heh. That was exactly what I was thinking. A few people have complained about this thread, though I think it's been relatively polite given the subject matter.

[The Law]

Heh. That was exactly what I was thinking. A few people have complained about this thread, though I think it's been relatively polite given the subject matter.

 

Nice seeing you around peachy! Been a while since I've see you post.

[AdamP]

A question posed by Christopher Hitchens at several of his debates on this issue....

 

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

 

Yet to hear an answer to that.

 

Now this easier question

 

Name me a wicked statement made or an action performed that could only be performed by a believer.

 

I'm sure you're head is already reeling with ideas.

[The Law]

Name me a wicked statement made or an action performed that could only be performed by a believer.

 

I'm sure you're head is already reeling with ideas.

 

See, this type of attitude is also extreme. The extremists on both sides, whether it is the crazy religious believer or the hardcore atheist (such as Hitchens or Dawkins), make bold, overgeneralized statements that only serve to sensationalize their personal beliefs.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong for anyone to believe in a higher power or a particular religion. I'm just saying it's wrong to use your personal beliefs to attack others, which is what religious people do when they impose their belief system on others and what the hardcore atheists do when they attack people who choose to believe in religion.

[WestEastMountGuy]

You can only guess when you have something that is not able to be subjected to scientific research.

 

Religion and Philosophy (and don't forget a religion is really just an organized theistic school of Philosophy) fill a gap in our knowledge with, yes, speculation. But just because it may result in answers that are either right or wrong, does not make it useless.

 

We all have a Philosophy to how we live life even if we don't think about it. Actually, think about it.

[WestEastMountGuy]

A question posed by Christopher Hitchens at several of his debates on this issue....

 

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

 

Yet to hear an answer to that.

 

Now this easier question

 

Name me a wicked statement made or an action performed that could only be performed by a believer.

 

I'm sure you're head is already reeling with ideas.

 

Can, Will Want To, Would Likely, and Actually Does, are all different things. One could argue that while it is not impossible for a non-religious individual to be moral or ethical, that its more likely that if they believe doing ethical things will make their life go all right that they will be more likely to behave ethically with greater frequency.

[WestEastMountGuy]

See, this type of attitude is also extreme. The extremists on both sides, whether it is the crazy religious believer or the hardcore atheist (such as Hitchens or Dawkins), make bold, overgeneralized statements that only serve to sensationalize their personal beliefs.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong for anyone to believe in a higher power or a particular religion. I'm just saying it's wrong to use your personal beliefs to attack others, which is what religious people do when they impose their belief system on others and what the hardcore atheists do when they attack people who choose to believe in religion.

 

or you can argues that "imposing beliefs" or attacking is actually an attempt to save these individuals from themselves. (disclaimer: I am playing devils advocate here)

[silvrsleuth]

you'd have to wonder, though, if religion wasn't there in the first place, would these killers have gotten to the point where they felt so strongly about killing.

 

fair point. but, i think it's more likely that religion is something that is easily to manipulate. for example, the crusades (which someone else brought up) had little to do with religion, at least not relative to their emphasis on political/geographical gain, but religion provides a convenient excuse for those who want to do things their own way.

 

much like the wars that go on today... which is why i feel that religion is crutch. much like... well, anything really (including science), religious doctrines can be manipulated into saying anything, including killing people. hell, so could a cook book, if you make it fit.

 

(wait... could it be that I'm actually making use of my undergrad in religious studies? i may rethink my med application haha

 

as i read back through these posts, it seems like people have some really interesting views on "religion" (i use "" because it's being used as a bit of a catch-all here). however, at the risk of breaking the flow of the conversation, does anyone have thoughts on how this event (Dr. Tiller's death) relates to medicine, and the work we do as doctors. religion is a huge part of billions of people's lives and views on health, and i think it's something we'll have to confront, both in dealing with patients and in other aspects of our work. what do others think?

 

(not that discussions on religion aren't valuable, but i'm just trying to tie it in here )

[MSmith19]

Can, Will Want To, Would Likely, and Actually Does, are all different things. One could argue that while it is not impossible for a non-religious individual to be moral or ethical, that its more likely that if they believe doing ethical things will make their life go all right that they will be more likely to behave ethically with greater frequency.

 

Then they aren't moral individuals in the first place. If you need a kindergarden structure in order to be a good person, you aren't one in the first place. You see, when you are being moral and ethic for selfish reasons (such as trying to get into heaven, please god, etc.) then it's not authentic at all.

 

or you can argues that "imposing beliefs" or attacking is actually an attempt to save these individuals from themselves. (disclaimer: I am playing devils advocate here)

 

So it's either out of ignorance or out of envy and distrust..either way, the situation isn't commendable.

[Guest viscous]

money, a means to obtain food and shelter, is necessary in society.

 

what does religion give us?

 

religion is more important to me than my parents, money, and you. Right, once upon a time, money WAS not necessary and barter system was used. So human need made money necessary. Human needs change over time. Soon, it might be unnecessary again, what is your point?

 

tango: how is that a logical fallacy? just because you have more respect and desire for money than religion, it became a logical fallacy?

[Guest viscous]

you'd have to wonder, though, if religion wasn't there in the first place, would these killers have gotten to the point where they felt so strongly about killing.

 

you are saying that religion motivated them to kill and if religion was not there, would they feel strongly about killing?

 

I said the exact same thing. Money motivates some people to kill others, if money was not there, would they feel strongly about killing? Maybe I did not choose the best words to express it earlier, but here it is now.

 

someone said that money and religion are not the same thing. ooh, thanks for pointing that out, eh! I never claimed that money and religion are the same thing. they are two different realities which provoke various emotions in different people. They share this quality and hence their comparison can be equated under this similarity.

[Guest viscous]

You can only guess when you have something that is not able to be subjected to scientific research.

 

Religion and Philosophy (and don't forget a religion is really just an organized theistic school of Philosophy) fill a gap in our knowledge with, yes, speculation. But just because it may result in answers that are either right or wrong, does not make it useless.

 

We all have a Philosophy to how we live life even if we don't think about it. Actually, think about it.

 

many realities of life are NOT subject to scientific research. Such inability to be rigorously tested objectively in a lab does not make them any less important to me or others who feel strongly about such realities. Stop presenting scientific research as your god. Even if it is, keep your god to yourself, let others utilize scientific method the way it really is.

[DylanDK]

That's not really pertinent or appropriate. The story linked only dealt with religion in describing the doctor's religious activities, and I suspect this was only mentioned because he was killed in a church. To insinuate that the evil deed of the killer is rooted in religion is a bit of a jump, especially when so few details are known about the suspect right now.

 

 

I think you have somewhat of a point here. Some people may view abortion as murder without having religious views, however, I think it this case religious zealots are to blame. But like other people have already said, religion is not the case of all murder, and is not 'evil' unto itself. I think the problem comes when people think they can bend their own religions principals

[DylanDK]

Can, Will Want To, Would Likely, and Actually Does, are all different things. One could argue that while it is not impossible for a non-religious individual to be moral or ethical, that its more likely that if they believe doing ethical things will make their life go all right that they will be more likely to behave ethically with greater frequency.

 

Hah, and what do you think about people following a religious code?

[DylanDK]

Well, Mike, to me it was obvious to which kind of questions I was refering, but I'll answer as if you would really not know.

 

Religion and philosophy can help answering any problem on ethic or human values. An easy problem would be to tell which person, the Doctor or the killer, is wrong in this story. To cover it quickly, it's definitively the killer, because you must "look after your own things, and not assume as yours what belongs to others" (I took that statement from stoicism). You can't obligate the others to live as you would like them to live. A consequence of misunderstanding that statement would allow anybody to raise a genocide, yes, even if you're not religious. You won't eliminate war by eliminating religion, this is just being stubborn. Most of wars occuring in Africa aren't religious, as an example. The 2nd World War wasn't a religious war neither by the way.

 

If you want to know any more philosophical question, you can easily find them on the Internet. Some are more famous than other, such as (sorry I'm not sure about the translation) : "Who am I ?" ; "Why am I on Earth" (what you should do of your life), etc.

 

To conclude, I'd say wisdom is to philosophy what intelligence is to science.

 

Shim I think that's where your wrong.. the fact is the question of whether or not it was right to kill the doctor can never be answered, only decided. That opinion can change with time and culture, it's transient, where science can answer something concretely (that's what it's supposed to do, anyway).

[Ninjaface]

the fact is the question of whether or not it was right to kill the doctor can never be answered, only decided. That opinion can change with time and culture, it's transient, where science can answer something concretely (that's what it's supposed to do, anyway).

 

I'd have to disagree with this. I can use logic to reason out why it is never right to take the life of another human being, no matter what the cultural or temporal context. Kant did too. You can have moral absolutes without religion. I do anyways...

 

I can answer you right now in fact - it was wrong to kill the doctor.

 

Trust me.

[Guest Shim]

Shim I think that's where your wrong.. the fact is the question of whether or not it was right to kill the doctor can never be answered, only decided. That opinion can change with time and culture, it's transient, where science can answer something concretely (that's what it's supposed to do, anyway).

 

I don't think science can solve this problem or any other.. ;-)

 

Well, at least demonstrate how it could in order to get your argument right.

 

 

 

And also, you got to tell me why transient means bad. Any development got to be over a certain period of time. Science is transient too. Just as science got better over time, philosophy can help to have a better society with less injustices and better values. If you agree that a society can change, then do you really think it would be necessary worse towards ethic ? If you take a look at our history, it doesn't confirm a downward tendancy. We definitively didn't have the same ethic as in the middle-age. In the same way of thinking, we didn't have a blooming science back then.

 

You should also know that even if it's "decided", or any other verb, it's because it's right. It's not because you can't calculate it with numbers (that were created by man by the way) that it got to be inaccurate. Obviously, killing the doc was wrong, as Ninjaface said.