Eyyup lads, men are about to become redundant

*linkage*

Better hide the beer, get out of the armchair slump and moisturise fast.

PeterCS wrote:*linkage*

Better hide the beer, get out of the armchair slump and moisturise fast.

Don't fret PCS:

They claim that with some minor changes the sperm could theoretically fertilise an egg to create a child.

genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself. I am sure that it will very soon go way all wrong.

Men are the most important component in nature, they give the balance to society. Atleast the non-muslim men. lol

Without men the world is in the hands of ZOG.

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself.

Agree - scientists seem to be playing God these days.

Hilda wrote:

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself.

Agree - scientists seem to be playing God these days.

But if those scientists assist childless couples to bear wanted children, or find cures for ailments, I'm all for it.

Was at a conference in Barcelona last week where researchers in a track on the Singularity claimed benefits, with warnings. So scientists are aware of moral and ethical issues of their work.

Hilda wrote:

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself.

Agree - scientists seem to be playing God these days.

Well people say that until their lives or the lives or someone they care about are saved by the research done by these "scientists playing God".

there are so many ways of improving productivity and helping mankind without going into genetic engineering. but most of the grants given to the tier-I medical research institutions are for genetic engineering and research into gene-mapping etc.

And what once they have done all the mapping ?? the only possibility that i can infer is that they would tamper with the existing plant and animal gene pool to create new and more effective bio-terror weapons and more traditional medicine resistant viruses.

Where I live now is serious tropical country. And a couple of years or so ago, people out here were affected by a virus known as 'Chikungunya' which is basically a central american/african varient of a popular disease. No one really enquired how it got here, but that is besides the point.

All those who were treated for this Chikungunya using modern medicine and drugs like tamiflu etc came away with severe aftereffects and residual illnesses/weakness/symptoms some of which lasted years right to this day. the others who treated themselves/or were treated by traditional systems of medicine like Ayurveda or Homeopathy surprisingly came away unscathed.

So practically what happens is that a select few a Rockefeller foundation hospitals, the global elite so to speak get the real medicines and benefits that these research can bring. For instance look at that evil pig called Kissinger .. can anyone say how old/young he is. he has been looking exactly the same for the past half-century.

as for the rest all these genetic engineering and gene-mapping just generates better and more disease-resistant infections/viruses. Ones that are more deadlier and more resistant to treatment with the typical western medicine that is being popularised around the world.

What?

Hilda wrote:

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself.

Agree - scientists seem to be playing God these days.

They're playing non-existent? You can do that?

Hilda wrote:

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself.

Agree - scientists seem to be playing God these days.

Someone has to. The vengeful one has been conspicuous by his absence for a good few thousand years now...

doremi wrote:

Hilda wrote:

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself.

Agree - scientists seem to be playing God these days.

They're playing non-existent? You can do that?

Why not? People have been believing in an imaginary sky-friend for thousands of years now. It's only a short leap.

buckSH wrote:genetic engineering is a process invented by lucifer himself. I am sure that it will very soon go way all wrong.

Men are the most important component in nature, they give the balance to society. Atleast the non-muslim men. lol

Without men the world is in the hands of ZOG.

Communal, racist, conspiracy theorist, past West Indian ATG pacerist and now male chauvinist.... Is there no end to your talents?

buckSH wrote:
And what once they have done all the mapping ?? the only possibility that i can infer is that they would tamper with the existing plant and animal gene pool to create new and more effective bio-terror weapons and more traditional medicine resistant viruses.

Yes, because we all live inside a Ridley Scott movie, clearly.

If there's one thing I hate more than religious freaks preaching the existence of God as if it were a matter of fact, it's non-religious freaks preaching the non-existence of God as if it were a matter of fact. Might we just discuss the matter at hand and accept that we agnostics are the only people who can take any sort of moral high ground in who is and isn't playing God?

Anyways, artificial sperm, you say? Does this mean women will be giving birth to plastic babies? Will they need Duracell to run? Will women scream more when giving birth? F*ck 'em, I say, or rather don't since f*cking is now defunct. It's alright for me since I've been clinically diagnosed as being asexual anyway by my shrink.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:If there's one thing I hate more than religious freaks preaching the existence of God as if it were a matter of fact, it's non-religious freaks preaching the non-existence of God as if it were a matter of fact. Might we just discuss the matter at hand and accept that we agnostics are the only people who can take any sort of moral high ground in who is and isn't playing God?

Nope, because it isn't a 50/50 call. Agnosticism is simply a cop out. Are you agnostic on the question of fairies too? Or do you do what all rational people do and say you won't believe in their existence until someone offers up some evidence?

Exactly.

Agnosticism is a sort of lame insurance policy - "oh well, this god thingy makes no sense at all but i'll not admit it just in case".

Agnosticism is hardly a cop-out, it's simply an acceptance that we have no idea what we're talking about when we examine such lofty issues as God and the Universe and where it all came from. Fairies are very different in that they're a smaller issue within our sphere of influence which, were we to bother, we could set up a worldwide fairy finding experiment to prove they don't exist - but they don't anyway so why bother proving it?

In the God question you just get the same old arguments. A big man in the sky? Yeah, right. Juxtaposed alongside Naw, not a big man in the sky, simply a being involved in or in some way responsible for the creation or overseeing of the Universe. By which logic God could just be an alien who accidentally farted out the Universe. One could reasonably argue that the word God needs some redefining so that we are better able to ask whether it exists.

Though the question is a pretty pointless one since, either way, we're all going to die at which point, one way or another, the question will be defunct. So yeah, less God, more Sperm.

But you've highlighted the problem there; you cannot prove a negative. Quite often people will say to prove that God does not exist, but you no more do that than prove fairies do not exist. Or leprechauns. Or the Loch Ness Monster. But it is for those who do say there is a God - or those who say there might be - to provide us with some evidence, ANY evidence in favour of their hypothesis.

I do not absolutely rule out the existence of God, any more than I do anything else, but since there is not a shred of evidence in favour of there being one, I am quite comfortable stating that it does not exist.

And saying that it is simply something we do not understand is even more of a cop out than agnosticism. We know a lot about the origins of the universe and are learning more all the time. That is the role of science.

But that's bollocks though. We know less than 1% about the origins of our Universe and we have no idea if we can truly call what we know the origin at all. The Big Bang Theory is all well and good but it starts as if that's Day One. We don't know that that was day one - was there another Universe before that crunched in on itself, are there other Universes?

We don't know anything. God is just something people add in to try and make sense of a tired looking plot. It's their deus ex machina except at the beginning rather than the end. I ain't saying it's probable let alone possible but it's no less probable or possible than anything else. As I look at it I exist in one plain, I don't know if there are other plains of existence or if I am the only one.

What I do believe is that there was something before day one and that the Universe didn't just burst out of a massive hulk of compressed matter which just happened to be there ticking over forever until one day it shat itself.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Agnosticism is hardly a cop-out, it's simply an acceptance that we have no idea what we're talking about when we examine such lofty issues as God and the Universe and where it all came from. Fairies are very different in that they're a smaller issue within our sphere of influence which, were we to bother, we could set up a worldwide fairy finding experiment to prove they don't exist - but they don't anyway so why bother proving it?

No they aren't within your sphere of influence, unless you do live in fairyland (which wouldn't be too shocking). So, you can't irrefutably prove they don't exist, same as god. However common sense demands that you see that there is next to none chance of beings such as those existing.

Atheism to me atleast isn't the 100% position that god definely doesn't exist, it's the 99.999999% position.

In the God question you just get the same old arguments. A big man in the sky? Yeah, right. Juxtaposed alongside Naw, not a big man in the sky, simply a being involved in or in some way responsible for the creation or overseeing of the Universe. By which logic God could just be an alien who accidentally farted out the Universe. One could reasonably argue that the word God needs some redefining so that we are better able to ask whether it exists.

Read above.

Though the question is a pretty pointless one since, either way, we're all going to die at which point, one way or another, the question will be defunct. So yeah, less God, more Sperm.

Not really, if there really is a god, you and I are pretty ******.

doremi wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Agnosticism is hardly a cop-out, it's simply an acceptance that we have no idea what we're talking about when we examine such lofty issues as God and the Universe and where it all came from. Fairies are very different in that they're a smaller issue within our sphere of influence which, were we to bother, we could set up a worldwide fairy finding experiment to prove they don't exist - but they don't anyway so why bother proving it?

No they aren't within your sphere of influence, unless you do live in fairyland (which wouldn't be too shocking). So, you can't irrefutably prove they don't exist, same as god. However common sense demands that you see that there is next to none chance of beings such as those existing.

Atheism to me atleast isn't the 100% position that god definely doesn't exist, it's the 99.999999% position.

It would be fairer to say that commonly taught sense tells us these things have scarcely a chance of existing. Considering our knowledge is basically 0.00000000000000000000001% of the collected knowledge of the Universe we are not in a strong position to start judging what can and cannot exist and what does or does not exist. For what it's worth I've never been much of a believer in God myself I just don't happen to think that I'm in a position to make a decision. I'm more of a Buddhist, though I'm sure folk will think reincarnation a ludicrous idea as well. To which I say if by coincidence I came to be, by coincidence I may come to be again.

Though the question is a pretty pointless one since, either way, we're all going to die at which point, one way or another, the question will be defunct. So yeah, less God, more Sperm.

Not really, if there really is a god, you and I are pretty ******.

****** is how I likes it.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:But that's bollocks though. We know less than 1% about the origins of our Universe and we have no idea if we can truly call what we know the origin at all. The Big Bang Theory is all well and good but it starts as if that's Day One. We don't know that that was day one - was there another Universe before that crunched in on itself, are there other Universes?

We don't know anything. God is just something people add in to try and make sense of a tired looking plot. It's their deus ex machina except at the beginning rather than the end. I ain't saying it's probable let alone possible but it's no less probable or possible than anything else. As I look at it I exist in one plain, I don't know if there are other plains of existence or if I am the only one.

What I do believe is that there was something before day one and that the Universe didn't just burst out of a massive hulk of compressed matter which just happened to be there ticking over forever until one day it shat itself.

Yeah we don't know a lot, so let's bloody say it. Big Bang is a theory, subject to change, correction and if it's proven wrong abolition.

The god thingy is peddled as facts, and the 'ultimate truth', whatever the hell that means.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:But that's bollocks though. We know less than 1% about the origins of our Universe and we have no idea if we can truly call what we know the origin at all. The Big Bang Theory is all well and good but it starts as if that's Day One. We don't know that that was day one - was there another Universe before that crunched in on itself, are there other Universes?

All good questions. And we don't know the answer to them. But the point surely is that we are trying to find out, and that we do know some of it, and we are learning more. In all cases there are theories that can be created, tested and discarded if the facts do not fit. You cannot do that with God, you start from the point of saying he exists, and nothing more is required because it answers everything. It is lazy and intellectually dishonest. At no point in any of that has there ever been found any evidence whatsoever for any kind of God. There is no disgrace in not knowing everything, science actually exults in not knowing everything. It is religion that claims to provide full answers.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:We don't know anything. God is just something people add in to try and make sense of a tired looking plot. It's their deus ex machina except at the beginning rather than the end. I ain't saying it's probable let alone possible but it's no less probable or possible than anything else. As I look at it I exist in one plain, I don't know if there are other plains of existence or if I am the only one.

It is a lot less possible than other explanations, because introducing God into things adds an extra layer of complexity. You always come back to the "who created God?" question to which there is no answer. Not only is God not something that has any validity, there isn't even a need for one. The idea that a supremely complex being appears out of nothing is far more ludicrous than any idea that the universe did.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:What I do believe is that there was something before day one and that the Universe didn't just burst out of a massive hulk of compressed matter which just happened to be there ticking over forever until one day it shat itself.

Which is fine. But why would you add God to that and make it even more complex? It is vanishingly unlikely.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:It would be fairer to say that commonly taught sense tells us these things have scarcely a chance of existing. Considering our knowledge is basically 0.00000000000000000000001% of the collected knowledge of the Universe we are not in a strong position to start judging what can and cannot exist and what does or does not exist. For what it's worth I've never been much of a believer in God myself I just don't happen to think that I'm in a position to make a decision. I'm more of a Buddhist, though I'm sure folk will think reincarnation a ludicrous idea as well. To which I say if by coincidence I came to be, by coincidence I may come to be again.

But what you are saying is the same as atheism. It is saying that there is no evidence in its favour, not that it categorically cannot exist - which would in any case be a belief, and therefore irrational. In the same way you are an atheist for those fairies too.

As for re-incarnation, the same point would apply. I would not dismiss it completely as impossible, but there is no evidence in its favour.