I'm surprised to see that my questions were down-voted, and that a religious tirade ensued. I was just curious who Mark 8 was. The comment I was replying to mentioned Mark 8 with the assumption that everybody knew who that was... Sometimes religious people are so indoctrinated that they think they live in a [theology book]-centric universe. I'm sorry I crossed you, Mark 8.
That's a bible verse describing Jesus making a blind man see. Point is, knowing God better is apparently of value to religious Jews and Christians. Biblical study can serve this effort. If it (knowing God) really is important to believers, then they have to consider how science plays a role in that effort as well, except that what science offers may not be nearly as satisfying in a traditional religious sense.
What beautiful irony, the bible itself extols the value in "knowing god" - for which I will read, knowing the natural world. Yet when anyone tries to do that, they very often end up being persecuted by the very same church.
Not that any of this Mark nonsense makes any difference in the real world. Aside from contributing to huge death tolls across the world in the name of minor semantic difference in reading, religion adds absolutely no value to advances in medicine.
In another lovely irony, the eye is one of the single most convincing pieces of evidence for the non-existence of god! Why, otherwise, would "he" have bothered to create a blind spot.
If we could all just stop with this outdated nonsense and focus on the actual problems the world faces, like climate change and overpopulation instead of worrying about which particular form of doctrine to pick we might as a species stand a chance.
>> "religion adds absolutely no value to advances in medicine"
I know what you mean, but the number of hospitals hosting groundbreaking medical research that happen to have "Saint" in their name contradict the way you're trying to say it.
I recommend shying away from superlatives when stating a case.
> In another lovely irony, the eye is one of the single most convincing pieces of evidence for the non-existence of god! Why, otherwise, would "he" have bothered to create a blind spot.
So we could learn to trust in Him and stop relying entirely on ourselves.
haha! what does that even mean - that's just typical religious mumbo jumbo. It's by relying in "HIM" that we have the blind spot. If "He" is so capable wouldn't he have thought of a better way to connect the optic nerve, like evolution did in other species? I know I can't win an argument using logic with a zealot, but seriously, let's stop with the "trust in him" claptrap.
I have, from time to time, played the "I can't get behind that" game.
It goes like this:
1) Observe that a lot of older people in my life---and throughout history---are / have been intolerant of something that you find benign (myriad things have taken this role in history: bare ankles, women voting, rock music).
2) Infer by the law of averages that I am probably not very different from most people.
3) Assume I will therefore have a 'thing'that a younger generation will be fine with that I am utterly intolerant of.
4) Try to guess that 'thing.'
It's a hard game. My best guess at this time is "In a world where medical science and services have evolved to the point where life-saving procedures are routine, automated, and five-nines successful, a younger generation will find ever more violent and dangerous versions of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game) to be fun to play, and I can't get behind that!"
A bit flipped, but I expect younger generations to be intolerant of the way animals are treated in our society; e.g. mousetraps, factory farming, animal experimentation. I'm not sure how to factor that into your game; "can I get behind future intolerance of behaviours that I consider ordinary" I guess.
I wouldn't think it'd become more common. Personally, I'd say no to the possibility of my qualms going down about it because:
-That is still considered a screwed up thing to do someone,
-It's illegal: you'd be charged(and probably convicted) with attempted murder, or at the very least, assault and battery, which carries significant fines and jail time,
Small wounds often heal within days, yet I don’t go around stabbing people (not even with tiny knives!). Sure, maybe some offences turn from ‘murder’ into ‘grievous bodily harm’, but that shouldn’t be bad in and of itself?
Better recovery would make grievous injury more dangerous for the assailant, not less. Leaving aside murderous intent for a moment, and think about a car accident from reckless driving: the party at fault would be on the hook for the bill, and regrowing complex organs won't be cheap.
Imagine that we can grow _better_ eye, kidney, ... extra eye, kidney...