This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Coffee_Anathema's Profile

Coffee_Anathema's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Female

Latest Discussions Started by Coffee_Anathema

More Discussions by Coffee_Anathema

Latest Comments by Coffee_Anathema

Go to: Francis Collins prays for Hitchens

Coffee_Anathema's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Coffee_Anathema

Comment 10 by Paula Kirby :

I’m not sure what this means, but I hope Collins isn’t praying for Hitch to see the light and ask God for wisdom. I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. It's arrogant and it's patronising, and in Hitch's place I would show him the door faster than he could say 'frozen waterfall'.

I agree. At least Collins isn't hoisting himself with the patard of 'if I pray to God Christopher will MAAAGICALLY get better'. What I'd like to see is him doing his praying in front of Mr Hitchens, looking at his impassive, unmoved and rational face, observe how he doesn't automatically go into remission, and how neither of them have an epiphany as to how to reverse metastasis and stop cancer in its tracks. I would much rather Collins did his job, which will do people in Hitchens' condition (in the future, regrettably enough) than loafing around praying will. Given the opportunity.

Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:44:57 UTC | #525351

Go to: Pope's Holyroodhouse Speech Transcript

Coffee_Anathema's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Coffee_Anathema

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

Funny, that last is what I think is religion's effect on the person.

So he's trying to equate atheism with fascism now? Really? I smell a lawsuit. it may indeed be time to start fighting dirty.

Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:49:08 UTC | #518882

Go to: Stem Cell Research blocked again by US Court

Coffee_Anathema's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by Coffee_Anathema

Comment 41 by jac12358 :

Comment 38 by Coffee_Anathema :

My grasp of developmental biology isn't completely vice-like, but I think you'll find that the vast majority of all existing human embryonic cells do end up being essentially destroyed anyway, mostly through the process of, ah, GROWING UP.

That is a bit floppy in reasoning. By extension I could argue that by allowing someone to live you have in essence murdered them by giving them a death sentence, the inevitable conclusion of every being.

When a cell divides the original cell technically did not die. Sometimes cells DO die, but not before being outnumbered by their progeny.

By your reasoning you also might as well condone child murder since, in effect, the act of GROWING UP would have totally replaced every one of those murdered cells anyway. Even if you cloned the child prior to murdering him, something still would have been lost. In the "unmurdered" lineage, there is an adult which is genetically identical but cellularly distinct from it's childhood version. In the "cloned murder victim" version, there is ALSO a genetically identical but cellularly distinct adult. What is the difference? The memories and shaped behavior of experiences? So basically all one is killing is a memory of experiences, and not a living organism, no?

Anyway - tricky, and why your point did not convince me.

My problem with those who wish to ban government funding of stem-cell research is that such cells will never in reality become breathing thinking beings.

Thanks for the response. I did just want to get a discussion going on the point. As I said, I don't have a complete understanding of embryology, or maybe floppy reasoning begets floppy reasoning - every time I come into contact with anti-stem cell arguments, I do feel exponentially more stupid ;oD You did however reach the conclusion I was hoping for, which is that a bunch of cells alone do not a living being make.

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:54:24 UTC | #508168

Go to: Stem Cell Research blocked again by US Court

Coffee_Anathema's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by Coffee_Anathema

...the Dickey-Wicker amendment...

How fitting that possibly the stupidest legal clause in American history also has the stupidest possible name.

My grasp of developmental biology isn't completely vice-like, but I think you'll find that the vast majority of all existing human embryonic cells do end up being essentially destroyed anyway, mostly through the process of, ah, GROWING UP.

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:26:48 UTC | #505993

Go to: Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death'

Coffee_Anathema's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Coffee_Anathema

Why did you post that and then not this? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/26/relevance-doctors-religion-atheist Did you think we'd be able to reach the same conclusions as Dr. Harris did? Damn it to nothing on earth, you can't assume that ;oP The issue here is that 'religious' doctors may compromise patient care by selectively providing and/or discussing all the end-of-life care based on their beliefs, not that atheist doctors are stampeding to 'hasten' death, I think. I wonder why the author went with that bombastic title in the first place...

It brings up a slight worry that doctors may end up being discriminated against based on their religion, though they may bring it on themselves if they can't keep their beliefs out of treatment and its ethics :S

Updated: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:50:19 UTC | #505974

More Comments by Coffee_Anathema