My Blade Runner Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

It is a good argument.
I don't like IVF exactly because of the reason.
In that case, the definition could be refined to include a cell-size level natural process.

Human being can make many exceptions to known natural processes. That is why atheists can never find a definite answer on anything.

You still haven't told us why a gorilla isn't a human...

 

[juvenissun]

You still haven't told us why a gorilla isn't a human...

I did. Because human dominates over gorilla and all other life forms on the earth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I did. Because human dominates over gorilla and all other life forms on the earth.

One on one, I'd be less inclined to believe that.

And if "being dominated" is a sign of being less than human, you're going to run into a whole slew of problems...

 

[juvenissun]

One on one, I'd be less inclined to believe that.

And if "being dominated" is a sign of being less than human, you're going to run into a whole slew of problems...

"today" is the time limitation.
otherwise, I don't see any problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"today" is the time limitation.
otherwise, I don't see any problem.

"Today?" Does that mean that something can be human "today" and not be human tomorrow? Or yesterday?

Because I gotta tell you, about 75 years ago, the Aryans were "dominating" the Jews pretty decisively -- who were the "humans" then?

 

[Shemjaza]

It is a good argument.
I don't like IVF exactly because of the reason.
In that case, the definition could be refined to include a cell-size level natural process.

Human being can make many exceptions to known natural processes. That is why atheists can never find a definite answer on anything.

I don't get that you are creating a complicated series of exceptions because your definitions of human are arbitrary and problematic, yet you act like your failure reflects badly on atheists?

 

[juvenissun]

"Today?" Does that mean that something can be human "today" and not be human tomorrow? Or yesterday?

Because I gotta tell you, about 75 years ago, the Aryans were "dominating" the Jews pretty decisively -- who were the "humans" then?

Today means the most recent 5000 years.
Fighting among humans are not part of the argument. The domination of human being is a global feature.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't get that you are creating a complicated series of exceptions because your definitions of human are arbitrary and problematic, yet you act like your failure reflects badly on atheists?

Not at all. IVF is the only exception to my definition about the "natural process". I don't think there will be another one.

My definition (not mine, in fact), is very critical. It will become more and more critical through time. We have the question such as the one in the OP. And I guarantee you that we will have more serious question of this nature in the near future.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Today means the most recent 5000 years.
Fighting among humans are not part of the argument. The domination of human being is a global feature.

So your definition of "human" requires changes to at least three other definitions... nice.

 

[pgp_protector]

Today means the most recent 5000 years.
Fighting among humans are not part of the argument. The domination of human being is a global feature.

So according to your definition you're saying Abraham Lincoln was shot today?

 

[Shemjaza]

Not at all. IVF is the only exception to my definition about the "natural process". I don't think there will be another one.

My definition (not mine, in fact), is very critical. It will become more and more critical through time. We have the question such as the one in the OP. And I guarantee you that we will have more serious question of this nature in the near future.

If interfearance by humans is so important to the definition of humanity, why is there an exception for IVF?

What about using drug treatments to alter the development in utero?

What about hosting the child in an unrelated host mother?

What about a child grown from three parents? (Genes from from a mother and father, with a second mother providing mitochondrial DNA, the egg cell and probably hosting).


If some method of creating what I would call people that somehow cross your definition of human, what is the moral and religious position towards them?

Should they just be killed by Blade Runners? Are they demonic by nature? Not afflicted by original sin?

 

[juvenissun]

If interfearance by humans is so important to the definition of humanity, why is there an exception for IVF?

What about using drug treatments to alter the development in utero?

What about hosting the child in an unrelated host mother?

What about a child grown from three parents? (Genes from from a mother and father, with a second mother providing mitochondrial DNA, the egg cell and probably hosting).


If some method of creating what I would call people that somehow cross your definition of human, what is the moral and religious position towards them?

Should they just be killed by Blade Runners? Are they demonic by nature? Not afflicted by original sin?

Now, you start to involve religion into this. Different religions surely have different views on these questions. I guess we are talking about Christianity first.

Life is given by God and should not be tempered with human intervention. The Bible may not say so explicitly. But this is a result deduced from Christian theology. An example of negative measure based on this result is the ban of contraception in Catholics. Positively, Christianity should oppose all the processes you have listed above.

You are not going to easily find a logic explanation to the oppositions. I can provide one, but it is long and it involves a few more fundamental issues in Christianity, such as the origin of soul, etc.

A straightforward answer to your question would be: "human" "produced" through human manipulation may not be recognized by God as a human. If God does not recognize them, His followers would not recognize them accordingly.

 

[Shemjaza]

Now, you start to involve religion into this. Different religions surely have different views on these questions. I guess we are talking about Christianity first.

Life is given by God and should not be tempered with human intervention. The Bible may not say so explicitly. But this is a result deduced from Christian theology. An example of negative measure based on this result is the ban of contraception in Catholics. Positively, Christianity should oppose all the processes you have listed above.

You are not going to easily find a logic explanation to the oppositions. I can provide one, but it is long and it involves a few more fundamental issues in Christianity, such as the origin of soul, etc.

A straightforward answer to your question would be: "human" "produced" through human manipulation may not be recognized by God as a human. If God does not recognize them, His followers would not recognize them accordingly.

That's horrific.

The concept of treating someone as less then human because a literal commandment existed is unpleasant... but you don't even have that. You are willing to treat someone on your own opinion about what your God thinks.

The Bible may not say so explicitly. But this is a result deduced from Christian theology.

"human" "produced" through human manipulation may not be recognized by God as a human. If God does not recognize them, His followers would not recognize them accordingly.

 

[juvenissun]

That's horrific.

The concept of treating someone as less then human because a literal commandment existed is unpleasant... but you don't even have that. You are willing to treat someone on your own opinion about what your God thinks.

The Bible may not say so explicitly. But this is a result deduced from Christian theology.

"human" "produced" through human manipulation may not be recognized by God as a human. If God does not recognize them, His followers would not recognize them accordingly.

You asked if something is a human.
I gave you a definition of human.
You asked for a religious definition.
I gave you a Christian definition of human.
You do not accept either.
Yet, you don't have a definition.
Without God, you will never have a definition of human.

You will be deeply confused when more robots, androids, replicants, clones show up in the near future.

 

[Shemjaza]

You asked if something is a human.
I gave you a definition of human.
You asked for a religious definition.
I gave you a Christian definition of human.
You do not accept either.
Yet, you don't have a definition.
Without God, you will never have a definition of human.

You will be deeply confused when more robots, androids, replicants, clones show up in the near future.

I notice that when you use the phrase Christian definition, you seem to mean "Juvenissun's intuition". I'd be very curious to see an actual biblical justification. You say without God I will have no definition, but you have God and your definitions are ad hoc.

I asked you because I was honestly interested. I commented because I feel your definitions and attitudes seem, to me, to be flawed logically and morally.

 

[juvenissun]

I notice that when you use the phrase Christian definition, you seem to mean "Juvenissun's intuition". I'd be very curious to see an actual biblical justification. You say without God I will have no definition, but you have God and your definitions are ad hoc.

I asked you because I was honestly interested. I commented because I feel your definitions and attitudes seem, to me, to be flawed logically and morally.

Christianity is more clear on this issue than any other religion.
God creates human. This is so defined in the first book of the Bible.
God creates everything. Logically, it means human can not create human.

 

[FireDragon76]

Going back to Jewish rabbis, the image of God is not only mental but it also has to do with something physical, which is paradoxical as Judaism does not believe that God is a physical being, but in some way physicality has something to do with the image of God.

I would say that a replicant would deserve a measure of dignity because it would be created in the image of man, and derivatively bear the image of God inasmuch as it resembles a human being. It would be dehumanizing to treat them poorly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Christianity is more clear on this issue than any other religion.
God creates human. This is so defined in the first book of the Bible.
God creates everything. Logically, it means human can not create human.

Sounds like you just said every single person born of man and woman in history... is not human.

 

[Shemjaza]

Christianity is more clear on this issue than any other religion.
God creates human. This is so defined in the first book of the Bible.
God creates everything. Logically, it means human can not create human.

Except new human come about from reproduction and we can't see God doing that.
We are back to "Juvenissun's opinion says", as an explanation.

Somehow God gets credit for natural reproduction (and IVF for no consistent meaning), but more involved forms of reproduction somehow overpower his will.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like you just said every single person born of man and woman in history... is not human.

I knew someone would say this. This argument won't work.
However, you did touch a hidden problem in this issue. That's why I said this issue is theologically more complicate than it appears, and need to get into the issue of soul.