jryan

It doesn't go anywhere. If Suzy got Jane's heart and lungs I would still call her Suzy. You've mad a rather clumsy argument there on several fronts. First "for the most part" is meaningless and an admission that they are different. Second, that zygote is considered an organism, and your skin cell is not. So you have admitted that your skin cell is not a zygote, and that your skin cell is not a person. You have not explained why the zygotic organism has no relevance to personhood, however, beyond "because in may be more than one person" which I do not find in the least bit compelling.

Neither answers are quantifiable, and you couldn't find a person who to tell you why they chose what they did over some other answer. Again, it is my experience that such answers will translate into specifically binary behavior. I really have know idea how to answer your afterlife question and I believe in an afterlife! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, I don't believe there is an way to adequately assign a percentage other than the simple 50/50. What is the actual difference between 50% Faith and 55% Faith, without using percentages in your answer? How would you measure that beyond arbitrary declaration? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have already stated why I find such equivalences meaningless. You have simply inserted something that has real and verifiable and testable variance. You still haven't shown me where such real and testable variance exists within faith beyond arbitrary assignment.

Here is an RBF paper from 15 years ago that sums up one aspect of their interdependence nicely: Selling Solar In this document they detail their various cooperative investment efforts with the solar industry to bring solar energy to the third world. In this case, RBF's stated goal is to bring renewable energy to 3rd world people, but it is dependent of the success on the solar companies involved and continued investment of capital in the program. As such, RBF has a vested interest in both the solar industry, and the carbon reduction schemes as a whole as they feed the solar energy market in large amounts now.

No it doesn't iNow. It is a very real discussion going on between Nancy Pelosi and pro-life Democrats. http://electoral-vote.com/evp2010/Senate/Maps/Mar12-s.html You and Slate are splitting hairs as nobody worries about abortion funding for people who don't choose abortions or abortion coverage. The problem is with providing money to people to spend on abortions or abortion coverage. That may be a small thing for you and the Slate author, but you can not take the fact you could care less and project that on Bob Stupak or other pro-life Democrats. If the bill were to include money to buy health insurance from religious organizations what would your stance be?

First thanks for the info on conjoined twins, I didn't know that. Second, I have stated that chimera should be considered one individual even thought hey are made up of two individuals genetic code.. I also made that argument earlier that an organism can be differentiated by genetics or environment. Identical twins share genetic code but experience two separate environments, chimera have two of more genetic codes but share one external environment. But are you saying that a chimera is not an individual? I am still not understanding how it is you think a chimera supports your definition of an individual. Now feel free to start elaborating on your skin-cell-as-individual-living-being argument, now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I didn't call them two people. From my previous post: "What about the "pesty chimeras"? Why should I consider the natural joining of one child any different than a conjoined twin? It is a natural occurance, so as explained before, I have no problem with it. The fact that a person is a chimera also doesn't invalidate their individuality."

Well, that's my sticking point. I think it does. If there is already a characteristic that can be used to define amplitude of a person's reaction then there is no reason to duplicate that in an expanded meaning of the word Faith. Not as I see it, anyway. It would be, for me, like suddenly using "apple" to define "sweetness".. you may be able to properly rationalize the difference between the statement "Maple Syrup is too apple" and "this apple is more apple than that apple" in context, but I think it just confuses the language and makes discussion less precise... and as such makes it less right than using "sweet". Well no. Not as I couched it, anyway. In the example the smoker is acting in direct opposition to their stated belief... but that doesn't mean they don't believe it. I'll go check them out... but I am going to guess in advance that any such test of faith will consist of a number of questions, many yes-no, to evaluate you on farious aspects of faith. Also all of them will be wrong. Do you believe in God?(absent the myriad characteristics and acts of God that exist in various religious scripture) Do you believe in Life after Death? Do you believe Jesus ever existed? Do you believe in one apostolic church? Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Do you believe in Reincarnation? Do you believe in past lives? and so on.

I got you beat there. A months supply of Enbrel can cost as much as $4,500 (16 syringes taken every other day). I pay $20.00, but if I didn't have insurance and went through an online bulk reseller I could get it for $1700, but Canada (last I checked) still had it around $6,800. Granted, debilitating arthritis and psoriasis are not life threatening, and therefor treated far differently in socialized systems, but I sure am glad to have it... and the use of my hands back. By the way, when I was originally prescribed Enbrel I was immediately given an application at the doctors office from those money grubbing Big Pharma bastards at Amgen to apply to get Enbrel free of charge if I could not get it through my insurance and could not afford it otherwise. Those bastards. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOn a separate note, I read an interesting article today about the ongoing reconciliation process that made a very interesting point: Abortion is the only real sticking point in getting this reconciliation passed. The problem is that the Senate bill includes abortion, and the House bill doesn't... but since reconciliation can only deal with financial, and not legal, aspects of a bill the reconciliation can not remove abortion from the final bill. This makes for a hard road as the house has a lot of pro-life democrats from heavily pro-life districts who have stated that they can not vote to reconcile the Senate bill as the abortion laws remain. This has lead to a lot of round table bargaining that has so far gone nowhere since the only way to placate the pro-life group in the house is to promise them a new bill after the fact that will eliminate the abortion wording from the law. This is a hard sell as pro-life Democrats know that there is no way the House and Senate in it's current form would pass such a bill before November, and even less of a chance that Obama would sign it into law.

Here is something I think is worth mentioning on this topic: In August 2007 Reto Rudy and James Hansen tell Doyle Rice of USAToday in an email that they don't use their own GISSTemp records to evaluate their own models. (pdf) GISS uses NCDC and HADCrut.

But that could be a measure of bravery or conviction as much as faith. As I tried to illustrate with the smoker example, there is a lot at play in a persons dedication to something that has nothing to do with belief or faith. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, since the last percentage argument carried out the faith on the individual used as an example to six decimal points, they left room for ... ummm... 100,000,000 individual binary faith memes? I think that would be enough to properly dissect all human religions into finite yes-no propositions. Again, I am seeing that differently than you, I guess. The unwillingness to act on a belief is an indication of no faith rather than little faith, and the willingness to act is a indication of faith. If you break down religion into Dawkins' memes I think you could argue that the verve with with one tackles the tenets of a faith is a measure of how many of that religions memes that that person has faith in, not how much faith one has in a single tenet. And in many cases I would argue that the verve has as much to do with influences beyond the religion itself. As I said, I think we are talking about two different -- but still accepted -- definitions of faith. Faith in a religion could possibly be quantified, but faith in an indivisible idea can only be binary. But faith is an indivisible idea and faith in a packaged series of ideas are both still called faith.

I am simply trying to get someone that believes in variability of faith to explain what is actually variable in someone's faith. The percentage argument is insufficient for me as there is no way to differentiate 37% faith from 99% faith without accepting some simple agreement that 51% is "faithful" and 49% is faithless, or some other essentially binary set of resulting classification. To be honest, for all the Bible quotes in the world I do not see where faith, as applied in any sermon or parable within, equates to anything other than my postulated binary definition of faith. People have it or they don't. But for the sake of argument, let me do your job of defining variable faith for you and you can make of it what you will (but it is at least something the give this sclerotic argument some life): I propose that there are two definitions of faith at play here: 1) The belief in a given religion and it's tenets 2) The the belief in a thing (God, after life, etc.) Definition #1 can be a variable definition as it can be broken down into pieces and quatified that way, definition #2 can not be subdivided and is therefor binary. For example, we can break down simple Christianity into the components Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, Afterlife and Resurrection (again, simplified for the sake of argument) you can have someone that believes in God and Jesus and the After life but does not believe in the holy spirit or the resurrection.... so you could say their faith in Christianity is 60%. I don't however, believe that you can say "I have a 60% belief in God" without first breaking down the argument as I did with Christianity... except no matter how you break down your thought of God into pieces and you will always be left with A, B, C, D ..... and God. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thank you. Hopefully I have clarified my point a bit more as well.

What is the contradiction that you are trying to clear up, then? That may help us with a meeting of the minds on a definition of faith, at least.

What about the "pesty chimeras"? Why should I consider the natural joining of one child any different than a conjoined twin? It is a natural occurance, so as explained before, I have no problem with it. The fact that a person is a chimera also doesn't invalidate their individuality. Are you arguing that a chimera shouldn't be considered an individual. Well, first I am saving that quote for use later because I doubt you allow much room for counterexamples in other debates on this site. Second, if the answer to "how many individuals?" has the answer of "at least one" I am all for protecting the individual or individuals in question. Secondly, based on the definition of organism I discussed, the zygote is a single biological human before separation, and two individuals after separation. They share genetic code, space and environment before separation.. therefor it is an individual, in a strictly secular meaning. Arguing from the position of a soul is a bit different because we are then talking about God and spirit and omniscience where anything is possible. If you want to take it that route I am perfectly fine with that as well. The zygote is an individual until such time that it is two or more individuals, biologically speaking. At some point in the future we may have stronger predictive abilities to know when a zygote, through genetics or environment, will split, and how many times it will split, at which point we could define a zygote as more than one individual... but right now we go with the definition we know. I'm not saying that cells aren't "alive" I am saying the are not a life. THese are two separate concepts, and when we are talking about individuals and human rights we are talking about "a human life".. that is to say an individual organism that is human. No it doesn't, because your skin cell doesn't meet the qualification as an organism. So which classification of organism is your skin cell? Is it a member of the prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, or animals? And why. I would also suggest you read the definitions of each class before making your final decision. Chimeras should be treated no differently than conjoined twins because that is what they are. They are, however, a more complete joining of the two individuals. So how do conjoined twins work into your argument?

This is why I find the debate on the definition of faith interesting. There are now two atheists arguing vehemently that there is a quantifiable faith for something they do not believe actually exists... and using the Christian Bible to prove it. You may yet sway me, but ironically you don't believe your own argument.

I assumed you were making adding a quantifiable that is something other than wholly arbitrary. If you can't establish what "37% certain" is then "99% certain" has no actual meaning. The number they choose is arbitrary, and is not a matter of faith, but rather conviction. Yes, I see where you are going with this but I don't think you are quantifying faith. I think you are just quantifying an arbitrary self evaluation about the existence in God and calling that faith. No, I think that is exactly what you are talking about. I don't think what you are talking about is a quantifiable measure of faith. I'm not sure the relevance of such a statement as you must first assume that your measure is a valid measure of faith. I don't believe that, so your anecdote about religious fanatics is meaningless. Or, as I am arguing, it could be the only wayto ask the question with any real meaning in the answer. No it doesn't. You have simply transposed the "conviction versus faith" argument with a new "confidence versus confident" debate. No, you are redefining the word "faith". Your question, just like the "Yes No" version inserts a presumed qualification that the observer would not necessarily pick up on... or they would accept your definition of "faith" as quantifiable (whether you are correct or not). The mere fact that someone gives you an answer doesn't mean the the question was right. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged "Little faith" even in your next biblical quote is synonymous with "faithless", or absent any faith whatsoever. See here: When you read the entire biblical quote in context Jesus makes it clear clear that "little faith" is "faithless", and that "faith the size of a mustard seed" is "faith"... for with "faith the size of a mustard seed" nothing is impossible. He is telling the apostles that they had no faith in their ability to cast out the demon, so therefor the demon was not cast out.

Conviction was brought up as a variable used to define faith. That doesn't bestow "faith" with variability. To try and explain my thought on this, I'll use another analogy since direct statement of thought may be fruitless due to varying biases in those discussing this. A smoker can have believe that smoking will one day kill them. The fact that they continue smoking is not necessarily a measure of whether they believe... and the amount that they smoke aslo doesn't introduce a variability of belief., the amount they smoke is determined by other factors. Weak conviction is not faith so variability in conviction is irrelevant in discussion of variability of faith, or doesn't logically flow between the two. Your not speaking of faith. Sure, but if they have weak conviction in the probability then they could not be described and having faith in it. I have no problem with speaking about things abstractly, but what we are talking baout here is answering "yes or no" to a question who's wording is not yet agreed on. As such a "Yes or No" is utterly pointless. I'm obviously not being clear. I am asking for a quantifiable for Faith that is also faithful to the definition of faith. Once you define faith as a probability that God exists you have changed the definition of faith. "Conviction" isn't it since as defined "Faith" is a descriptive for a level of conviction... like "milk" and "full" are not the same thing, but a quantity of milk and a capacity of a receptacle can be used to determine if the criteria of "full" is met. You can't be 99% certain in anything that is unprovable. To assign a percentage you have to accept that there is a quantifiable scale from which to draw a percentage... at which point you assume provability which denies faith. No, I'm not, really. Faith is just a tricky thing when discussing religion.. especially among varying beliefs. In an unprovable context faith can only be binary. Loyalty can vary from person to person without budging the existence of their faith. Well, as I stated, I don't find that it does, as it is arbitrary as doesn't (and I assert it can't) define the commodity upon which a percentage can be logically derived.

You used the fact that the definition used the term "strong conviction" to show that faith has levels, didn't you? You argued: "Now take the "strong conviction" part. Would you agree that some conviction can be stronger than others?" Which is not arguing faith at all, but the variability of conviction. You can't immediately assume that conviction varies therefore faith varies. When you can provide even a loose quantifiable notion of faith then you can move forward. "Strong Conviction" is a subjective term for which you have provided no relative qualification. So I can't agree or disagree with your question without first understand the term as you understand it anymore than my answer would be at all informative to you. "Do you like apples, yes or no?" could be answered "Yes" but that would be meaningless unless we knew that we were both thinking aboout the same two fruit. But to answer your question as I understand it, Faith is a thing that you have or you don't. How you go about living with or defending that faith is not a measure of faith but of other characteristics of the given person. No more so than your current tack of ignoring the question all together. You haven't establish the criteria for "more faith" and you want ME to define the criteria in order to answer the leading question. I'm not interested in playing that game. Now is your turn to reciprocate by explaining how you would define "more faith" as opposed to "less faith" in a way that it is differentiated from other contributing characteristics. You need to provide more for your own argument as you are not demonstrating faith in your definition of faith as a quantifiable thing.

Indeed, and as I have said before, I am an environmentalist, I just think that focusing so much effort on carbon dioxide is counterproductive to the environmental issues as a whole. I am also more moderate than, say, Greenpeace when it comes to actual environmentalism -- as an example, I disagree with the idea of "geographical extinction" that is so prevalent in environmentalism today. Too often it ends up overriding the natural process of selection in the environment in favor of an untenable status quo. But that is for another thread. In the case of The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, their investments directly affect their ability to carry out their philanthropic work as they are the source of the funds income (they simply channel investment profit into philanthropy to maintain the tax exempt status). So channeling money into AGW research has a direct return on investment, and a direct impact on their philanthropic endeavors. In a way it could be argued that a philanthropic organization that invests solely in anti-AGW industry and spends money solely on anti-AGW programs is not in a conflict of interest since if AGW is shown to be false then the loss of money would not impact the philanthropy since the target of the philanthropic endeavors would also vanish in the ether. But that isn't the case with RBF or Greenpeace of he Sierra club etc. etc. .. hence they have a vested interest in AGW being true as their investment helps fund all of their other projects. In a way I should be heavily invested in AGW as well because I think that if this theory falls apart it will set back ALL environmentalism in the process.

To the fertilized egg the womb IS the external environment because the egg does not share the genetic code of the surrounding organ. It is therefor a separate organism.

That is because the original question posted in a question of semantics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, your initial posed question was whether extremism is the default for faith. I have shown that extremism has no applicable "default" definition as it requires external evaluations before the term can even be applied, furthermore I showed that your definition of faith does not match up well with the actual definition of faith so on both grounds the answer to your postulate is "No" or "unknowable" depending on which definitions you choose to use. How can we do that and discuss your question? I think the proper answer is that faith is extremism for you when compared to your beliefs if we first assume that your beliefs are the societal norm. But in reality the truth could just as easily be your beliefs are extremism depending of the society you live in. If you live in France then faith would be extremism (a society that is majority atheist), and in the US you would be the extremist (majority have faith). Well, no, there is a problem in your argument of faith in that convictions are also not faith, by that definition. Weak conviction is not faith. But again, we can not escape "extremism" in your question as it is part and parcel to the question itself. Mybe you could argue that "Is strong conviction the default for Faith" to which I would answer "Yes". But strong conviction is also not extremism unless it's in a society with weak conviction.

No, it IS and individual up until the rare point that it is not... at which point it is two or more. Isn't that the standard method of developing knowledge in science? We KNOW that that egg is an individual until it demonstrates itself to be otherwise. Is there any other situation you can think of where you determine something to be undefinable because the standard definition only has only has a 99.6% chance of being true? No, none of your cells perform all functions necessary to be considered a life. They only appear to on a cursory glance and by dredefining the structure of an organism by defining the actual organism separate from it;s internal environment. They are not seperable, however... cells and internal environment are part of a larger organism that biology organizes this way: (taken from here) There is a differentiation between organisms because at the basic level all cells in your body share the same genetic code while all facing the same external environment. In the case of the identical twins their differentiation is reversed... they share the same genetic code and exist in different external environments. I'm not using a private definition, I have linked you to the sources of my definition. You can feel free to post your hypothesis that a skin cell is a life in the biology forum and see what biologists say.

No, I don't see, because nowhere else can you show me that an act that will kill one person but MAY kill more than one is legal simply because we just don't know how many will be killed. The reason for this rests in the biological definition of Life. Your individual cells, once differentiated, no longer meet the definition of Life individually. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, we can be certain it is at least one person, so the potential for being more than one is inconsequential. The simple fact that that one celled human continues to remain and individual 99.6% of the time is also worth considering when you try to make the "not an individual" argument. And beside that point, groups of people do not have less rights than an individual, so regardless of the minuscule potential of that individual becoming a pair of individuals, or even smaller chance three or four does not effect the rights that should be granted to the one that is known. On that same topic: By the "don't know how many" argument provided, would those that ascribe to that argument then consider adult lives forfeit in the advent of cloning? With cloning now being possible every individual is potentially more than one person... so does that mean they aren't a person anymore as the term "individual" no longer applies?

Well, no, a "soul" would exist without a mortal bond, so the death of the body doesn't effect the existence of the soul. The fate of that soul differs from religion to religion from an after-life to reincarnation. As such, a religious belief in a soul would lesson the blow of a loss of a body. Absent a soul, however, each unique person created is lost forever. For some reason that is supposed to make the waste of such persons more acceptable. Unfortunately, that rationale tends to be grossly dehumanizing in it's rationale to both the born and the unborn. Biologically, "what that string will come to represent" is present at conception. The "nature" is fulfilled at that point. The rest of that person is developed over the ensuing years, and never ceases until death. I never said it didn't. Though everything after conception would be considered "nurture" as your genetic baseline if established at that point. Genetic damage or change through smoking or drinking are organ or tissue specific.. I don't know of anything that can change a persons genome as present in all of their cells... though genetic change in germline cells would be "inheritable" but not in the true definition of the word. A genetic disorder introduced to sperm and eggs would be "passed" to an offspring, but the actual disorder would not be present in the parent per se... so it isn't a direct inheritance. At what point do you start counting the nurture? Children can learn in-utero, and diet of the implanted egg and environmental conditions even at conception effect the development of the person. They are developing from conception to death, there is no end point to development. Drawing a line anywhere along that path of development is strictly arbitrary. Who would you have define the terms? And how do they define them? Sure I do, and I find it to be self evident, but feel free to explain why you see it differently than me. No, 5 is an aspect of what is lost in an abortion, but it is not a legal grounds for outlawing abortion. That is an illogical assertion on your part as the pro-lifers want to draw the definition from conception, which encapsulates 100% of the life cycle. At no point do they promote death. They draw the line right at the bginning of life, which is not arbitrary. The rest later.

In the Rockefeller Brothers Fund example they are not just a philanthropic organization but an actual investment firm to fund the philanthropic goals. As such they invest heavily in the same green technology that they endorse through their fund. Also heavy hitters in the green promotion arena like Geroge Soros invest in green technology as well. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this, nor am I saying that the oil investments are wrong either. I am simply pointing out that when it comes to global warming it is hard to find anyone one either side that doesn't have skin in the game.

Pro-choice is a relatively new law and before it there was not a murder investigation for every miscarriage. Unless there is reason to suspect foul play there isn't default murder investigation for adults who die either.

This is a statement based soley on your definition of people. If you believe, for example, that there is no soul and that a "person" soley the product of nature and nurture then it is only logical to conclude that that fertilized egg has already has already completed the nature portion of it's person and begun it's nurture development... that second stage in person never stops from conception to death. So by logical conclusion, at fertilization the zygote is a individual and unique person. Also, to work on definiton of words, let's look at the definition of "person" (Merriam-Websters): 1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson> 2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise 3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person> 5 : the personality of a human being : self 6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection I have highlighted the two definitions that I believe play a part in the abortion debate. In this case I assert that conception meets the criteria for #1, and #6 would be where a pro-choice person would hang their hat. #6 is troubling to me, and to other pro-life advocates, specifically because it puts the choice of who is and is not a person into the hands of the government. It is also a rather distressing definition to base a moral certitude on because it is precisely this kind of definition that allowed for slaves to be considered non-persons. If you have no rights then you are not a person... that's not a great way for a democracy to protect individual freedom.