mooeypoo

k, here it is: Also, I tweaked the chemistry ones:

Actually, if anyone can find a better sign it would really help -- I found one that was small and mirrored, I had to play with it a bit.

I am trying to include scienceforums.net in there anyways, for "branding" purposes. We're calling ourselves SFN, but we're not sfn.net or sfn.com, so we want to make some kind of connection to the address so people remember us if they visit once or twice. But I'll try your idea with the brackets when I get back home

Also please remember this *isn't* the religion forum. Let's keep religious discussions out of it.

A death of a child can be natural too in the same sense (say, a child born with severe birth defects that dies despite our attempts) - and yet, this type of death is considered a tragic death, even when it's natural. So it seems 'natural' is not a good enough description to convert death from 'tragic' to not-tragic and vise-versa. That is not a consistent argument unless you would say that all natural deaths are not tragic. And do remember that cancer is natural. Consistency. Yes. I know some of those too. It was extremely tragic emotionally. It was less about the death of a person than it was about the death of a dream, and the failure to reach the aspiration of having children. And since they want a child, it's also the aspect of the failure itself that is very difficult to handle. And we must remember that a for many women (with a partner or without), discovering an unwanted pregnancy is tragic too. Whether she is a young woman whose life is going to be completely changed (was she going to be a famous scientist maybe and will have no money to study from now on? maybe she was going to cure the world of cancer and now needs to tend to a child she didn't want because the condom broke or her pills failed. She can be the most responsible woman and practice the most safest sex and still have flukes. This is tragic). And can be tragic for the child, in case it's born to unwanting parents. "Tragic" is really a subjective term here, obviously. jryan, what is your criteria? You keep bouncing around from one criterion to the next whenever one fails. Tell us your criteria for this definition you made of "tragic death" and stick with it. Stop moving the goal posts whenever our claims show your criteria to be lacking. ~moo

Is it even loss of life, Cap'n?

That's not the only inconsistency, though. It seems like the argument shifts between when human life starts and when it doesn't. On one hand, the zygote is when human life starts but when it doesn't feel comfortable to jryan, he switches to say that maybe human life starts afterwards, and the zygote's re-integration is irrelevant. I agree that it's a good point about loss of life vs. tragic loss of life in morality, but if we can't even have a consistency (not necessarily an agreement) in a claim about when human life *starts* then we can't have a debate at all.

An interesting comparison considering the claims in the other thread...

... understatement.. "After Jesus' Death" would be at least 70 years after, seeing as that's the earliest date of the earliest writing about Jesus, if he existed (which historians are no longer so certain). I think the better point to raise, though, is more about "Which Christianity?" seeing as while Severian's Christianity prefers Jesus and God, there are other streams who go by the Holy Church or the Pope or Prophets or Joseph Smith. ~moo

Sure, Severian, but that doesn't mean science is unrelated to reality, it means that reality might be 'bigger' than science can explain. It's like those "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square" things.. no?

Yeah I didn't say you did, I just wanted to clarify my position about 'waiting'. I don't believe in waiting for the sake of waiting, I believe in waiting until you feel ready for it, hence, not doing it against your will. I agree with what you said, I just wanted to clarify my own position in light of it.

One more, Cap'ns idea:

Here are mine, made 2 of each -- black bg and blue gradient bg, so we can see how both feel like (take these as more 'ideas' we can build on.. I just played around): And bigger:

The claim was made about the scientific method, I wasn't the one who raised this issue first, I was only correcting the claim made. Do you think science is unrelated to reality, that I can't use scientific terms to describe it? How would you want me to describe it, then, in a helpful manner? And finally, my friend, if "scientific method", "subjectivity" and "methodologies" is what you call "obscure words and science", then you should buy yourself a better dictionary. I'm not a native English speaker and I would not define either of those words as obscure, but since you asked, I added the links for you, I hope it helps. ~moo

I think it's a personal matter, Snail. I personally feel my body is an intimate thing I share only with people I trust. I'm also the type of person that (while I *am* very social), I'm not hugging/kissing everyone when meeting them, unlike my other friends who do. It's a personal preference. Seeing that this is how I am, it's no surprise I felt like my sexual experience (first, second and 99th) would be with someone I *WANT* to share my body with. I have absolutely not an ounce of criticism for people who act differently or believe otherwise (I do hope that they have *safe* sex, but that's regardless of how many times who you do it with). I don't think it's about specifically the 'first time'; this issue is more about the romantic chick-flick movies out there speaking of this magical love bond that makes first-time-sex this awesomely amazing feat. In reality, it's awkward and (at laest in my experience) not hardly as enjoyable as, say, the third time, where you actually know what you're doing (or, well, have a bit more experience). But that doesn't mean that I think people should 'jump straight in' and start practicing towards the real thing. If this was swimming, maybe. Since this is an intimate issue with the body, it really depends on the person. If you don't feel comfortable, don't do it. I would say, though, that I think sex and intimacy is also not something that should be delayed until a wedding. If a couple is dating for however long, this is one thing they *should* experience together *before* they are bound together for life. That's my opinion about it, at least. ~moo

Light can collide with another light, which means it doesn't have to collide with mass to change its velocity. Also, light can interact with gravity (Gravitational Lensing) which changes its velocity too. It's not just mass. (See, guys, there's a reason why scientific definitions are something so complex I think this exercise is awesome and if we get out of here with a better set of definitions, great, but it can also show all of us *WHY* scientific definitions are complex, as they first and foremost need to rely on accuracy. This above is not yet accurate).

Cap'n, to do proper thought experiments, the participants need to speak the same language, or at least be sure they agree to proceed on consistent claims. We're not there yet, it seems. We are still in a stage where the claims brought forth by jryan are in need of examination first according to his OWN claims, and only then we can move on to thought experiments. Claiming a life is created with the zygote but then dismiss the problem of dual-life of twins is a consistency issue. Claiming that because life is created with the zygote abortion is the killing of life, and hence immoral, but then ignore the problem of the loss of life with a re-integrated twin, is a consistency problem. This thought experiment -- interesting as it is, and it is a good question -- is not yet valid if we're not in agreement to remain consistent and debate rationally. ~moo

This thread asks the question "Which Religion is Right". How can you expect to relate to this question while mishmashing groups with mutually-exclusive beliefs? Mormons believe utterly DIFFERENT things than Catholics and Evangelicals, who believe different things than Orthodox. In fact, many of those groups treat the others as if they aren't at all Christians, because they don't follow their notions of what christians should be. You can't talk about the trends that affect the *BELIEFS* of those groups as if they're one when they're completely separate. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged(btw, I am not ignoring your points, I am at work and want to take the time to answer them properly.. I just posted the general contention I have about the OP and the points raised, and will answer your more specific points a bit later)

Fine, fair enough, how would you define this "identical-twins-turned-one-baby" situation then? Either the twins shared a soul/person, or they a soul/person died when they re-integrated. That situation happens. Not too often, but it happens. Should we mourn the lost 'twin' even though it was barely in the making? No no, the purpose of this argument wasn't to claim we should or shouldn't protect the lives in the womb, it was to challenge your assertion of when life can be called a person in the womb. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis is very simple, jryan. You claim human life start with the zygote, and base your opposition to abortion (at any stage of the pregnancy) on this claim. We gave you examples of when this assertion is problematic. These are not things that never happen, some happen quite often, and they produce a problem with the claim you raised: Either you should now mourn the loss of a person every time a zygote splits to twins and re-integrates (it is your choice to do so), and remain consistent in your argument, OR you can realize that the argument has these flaws and change it so it remains consistent. Of course, you also have the right to do neither and continue holding a claim that is shown to be inconsistent, in which case the argument ceases to be rational and we can end it here.

Severian, I see your point but I think the bigger issue that caught my attention here is the admission of the OP that she's not comfortable with it. Sex is intimate, specially for women (more so than for men for various reasons, most of them social, some of them physical). If the OP states that she's not comfortable with it, she shouldn't do it. I don't think it's about an obsession to remain virgin, and I didn't get the feeling the OP doesn't want to have sex so that she remains a virgin or out of some conviction or "obsession" for virginity, she stated that she's not comfortable with it, and if she's not, then she shouldn't do it. I don't believe in preserving virginity for wedding, I don't bleieve in sex as this "supreme" or "holy" or "magical" act, but it definitely is intimate, and it depends on the individual how they want to share their bodies with others. If you're refusing to experience sex because you think virginity is holy, we can argue (and I'd likely agree with you, Severian, which, I believe, is noteworthy \o/) but if the refusal to have sex is out of a feeling of discomfort or awkwardness or not being ready to share your body with someone else, then you shouldn't do it. ~moo

That's because most of the time they have different trends. I think we should separate them, is my point. I don't quite know what you mean by that. First off, Jews never had holy men (prophets are not holy, they're righteous, there's a huge huge difference in faith about that). Second, Catholicism didn't move from the holy men, did it? It still holds the position that the pope is the messenger of god and the hierarchy of the church. So even if it's a trend, it's not a trend of catholicism. Evangelicals don't quite fit into that analysis either, and I am not sure I see how Mormons do. In short -- if you want a serious discussion about the trends of religions to show why and where they were right, I suggest you try to be a bit more to the point. Christianity is not a single religion, and the trends that its different denominations are taking differ. Combining it all under one definition is nonsensical, and just serves to emphasize the confirmation bias that seems to shine here in this historical analysis. Less generalization, less confirmation bias, perhaps finally a bit more potential for debate. Much can be said about the influence (ahem, forceful influence) of Christianity in most of those places, including south America. If that's the reason, then no wonder they are subdued -- christian missionaries, with soldiers and guns, subdued them. But that's true for the USA, while not so much to many parts of Europe. Is that still a trend? Also, how does that answer the "Which relgion is right" question? I'm a bit lost with regards to your point. ~moo

Sorry, but if the definition is lacking ('minute body of mass') then how can it be relevant? Science doesn't go by "vote" it goes by the best fit, and if the definition was shown to be wrong, it should be out. Or alternatively, it should be fixed.

You know, I think one of the problems I have with the past few posts is that "Modern Christianity" is an extreme generalization. It seems to me that there's an attempt to explain how "Modern Christianity" relates to various subjects and its history, when "Modern Christianity" is divided into various streams that have, a lot of times, mutually exclusive beliefs and, most of the time, totally different history. Which "Modern Christianity" are we talking about?

How can you not, though? You take two women at the same stage of their pregnancy, where the zygote split. You (and medicine) cannot yet determine which one would yield healthy twins and which will yield a chimera. We can't know. It's not yet determined. But the zygote has split already. It's mutliplying, it's growing as *TWO* entities. Is it still one life? If it is, then twins are also not "life" on their own until ..... when? If it is two lives/souls/whatever, then if it fails being twins and transforms to a chimera, a soul/person just died. Lost. Where did it go? So I understand why it is a tough decision to be consistent in this case, but if you want to make sense, you need to try. ~moo

Right! But let's say you create a model of something (like, say, model some physical movement using forces, lagrangians, whatever), and you got something with variables and even roots. You don't know, necessarily, which answer (positive or negative) to expect, you just know you want to account for the values of x. If you square the result, you *ADD* values to x, that wouldn't have been there previously. So at the end, you will have to verify each result if it can stand the original equation or not. Err, I hope I am getting the point across right. I agree (and thx DH for the explanation you sent) that in this particular question, because we deal with finite numbers, the concern is moot, but this is something that I thought held, at least for variables. Anyhoo if we continue debating this, we could split it off to its own subject. I was just a bit confused, I remember both my physics and math professors warning against squaring results and when we do, we need to take into account absolute-value answers. It's a bit higher level than the current question, I guess. ~moo