Richard Dawkins tweets on abortion: ‘any fetus is less human than an adult pig’

There are 1829 comments on the freerepublic.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Richard Dawkins tweets on abortion: ‘any fetus is less human than an adult pig’. In it, freerepublic.com reports that:

It would seem the pro-life movement has acquired an unlikely supporter. On Wednesday, Richard Dawkins, a vocal proponent of atheism and the author of The God Delusion, posted a provocative tweet about abortion: With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at freerepublic.com.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#388 Apr 22, 2013

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#389 Apr 22, 2013
Interesting find thanks!

Such books really are to enforce beliefs in a believer, no secular person will find such two penny apologetic arguments convincing.
NightSerf wrote:
As one would expect, infidels.org has a review of "The Resurrection Factor" by Josh McDowell (1982), written by a fellow named Jerry Wayne Borchandt. It's quite lengthy, but the gist of it is that even though McDowell claims to have '"... spent hundreds of hours over thirteen years combing the annals of history" for the historical evidence to prove the claims of Christianity,' he then asserts that "the New Testament provides the primary historical source for the information on the resurrection."

Borchabdt continues, "The problem with the narratives are intensified by McDowell's curious notion that the Gospel (at least Matthew and John) are eyewitness accounts and thus reliable (contradictions and all). Most biblical and secular scholars know otherwise; the authors of the Gospels are considered anonymous. According to the scholar Joseph Tyson, in his A Study of Early Christianity, the Gospel of Matthew was probably written between 80-100 by an unknown Jewish Christian living perhaps in Syria. Tyson also states that "we must admit our complete ignorance" about the authorship of the Gospel of John."

McDowells sources for these assertions? Borchandt writes,'McDowell's second line of argument is weaker still. He supports his belief in a literal rendering of the New Testament by relying on various fundamentalist authorities. This selective use of sources marks the very defect in McDowell's work that he claims is found in the skeptical opposition, namely an unstated reliance on a particular presupposition. It shows also that McDowell relies more on contemporary fundamentalist rhetoric than on the "annals of history."'

If Borchandts criticisms are at all valid, "The Resurrection Factor" seems less that reliable as a source for the claims that Largelanguage makes.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#391 Apr 23, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
As one would expect, infidels.org has a review of "The Resurrection Factor" by Josh McDowell (1982), written by a fellow named Jerry Wayne Borchandt. It's quite lengthy, but the gist of it is that even though McDowell claims to have '"... spent hundreds of hours over thirteen years combing the annals of history" for the historical evidence to prove the claims of Christianity,' he then asserts that "the New Testament provides the primary historical source for the information on the resurrection."
Borchabdt continues, "The problem with the narratives are intensified by McDowell's curious notion that the Gospel (at least Matthew and John) are eyewitness accounts and thus reliable (contradictions and all). Most biblical and secular scholars know otherwise; the authors of the Gospels are considered anonymous. According to the scholar Joseph Tyson, in his A Study of Early Christianity, the Gospel of Matthew was probably written between 80-100 by an unknown Jewish Christian living perhaps in Syria. Tyson also states that "we must admit our complete ignorance" about the authorship of the Gospel of John."
McDowells sources for these assertions? Borchandt writes,'McDowell's second line of argument is weaker still. He supports his belief in a literal rendering of the New Testament by relying on various fundamentalist authorities. This selective use of sources marks the very defect in McDowell's work that he claims is found in the skeptical opposition, namely an unstated reliance on a particular presupposition. It shows also that McDowell relies more on contemporary fundamentalist rhetoric than on the "annals of history."'
If Borchandts criticisms are at all valid, "The Resurrection Factor" seems less that reliable as a source for the claims that Largelanguage makes.
The book called the resurrection factor does not have evidence very strong, but reasonably accurate.

The review of the book is a bit biased, as the book does also account for mentioning the reliabilty of the Bible as a source.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#392 Apr 23, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The book called the resurrection factor does not have evidence very strong, but reasonably accurate.
The review of the book is a bit biased, as the book does also account for mentioning the reliabilty of the Bible as a source.
That argument is inherently flawed in its circularity, i.e., "The Bible is evidence that the Bible is accurate." It would send any logician worthy of the appellation into gales of laughter or fits of apoplexy.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#393 Apr 23, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>That argument is inherently flawed in its circularity, i.e., "The Bible is evidence that the Bible is accurate." It would send any logician worthy of the appellation into gales of laughter or fits of apoplexy.
No, it doesn't use the Bible as evidence for itself, that would be impossible. It uses logic and observations of the Bible as proof of the Bibles verifibility.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#394 Apr 23, 2013
Exactly.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>That argument is inherently flawed in its circularity, i.e., "The Bible is evidence that the Bible is accurate." It would send any logician worthy of the appellation into gales of laughter or fits of apoplexy.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#395 Apr 23, 2013
Just because you word a logical fallacy in a reasonable sounding way doesn't make the logical fallacy true.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>No, it doesn't use the Bible as evidence for itself, that would be impossible. It uses logic and observations of the Bible as proof of the Bibles verifibility.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#396 Apr 24, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and the Bibles historical accuracy.
So you believe Spiderman is real.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#397 Apr 24, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't use the Bible as evidence for itself, that would be impossible. It uses logic and observations of the Bible as proof of the Bibles verifibility.
That's using the bible as evidence for itself.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#398 Apr 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's using the bible as evidence for itself.
You are obviously wrong, although you hate to admit it. We know the feeling, child.

Now, the point to be remembered by your youthfully stubborn brain is this, the disciples saw blood and water come from his as he was stabbed in the side. This is scientifically correct, proof that the disciples account was authentic, and true.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#399 Apr 24, 2013
If a body is dead, it bleeds both blood and water, a yellow like substance.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#400 Apr 24, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously wrong, although you hate to admit it. We know the feeling, child.
Now, the point to be remembered by your youthfully stubborn brain is this, the disciples saw blood and water come from his as he was stabbed in the side. This is scientifically correct, proof that the disciples account was authentic, and true.
So you have no real evidence supporting your bible, nothing, thus, your bible is nothing but mythology.
Lincoln

United States

#401 Apr 24, 2013
No evidence for atheism what-so-ever.
No scientific evidence.
Funny philosophy
LOL

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#402 Apr 24, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
No evidence for atheism what-so-ever.
No scientific evidence.
Funny philosophy
LOL
So John, why do you have to rip off other nicks?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#403 Apr 24, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
If a body is dead, it bleeds both blood and water, a yellow like substance.
No, it's red, yellow substance from the body is usually fat congealing, often fat cells are bled with the blood. Blood is mostly water, actually, most of the body itself is water, that's pretty much what we're made of and why dehydration is worse than starvation, comparative health-wise, though usually if you eat enough you will get enough water from your food.

The only other time blood is yellow is when it's rotten.
Lincoln

United States

#404 Apr 24, 2013
Epistemology questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent to which a given subject or entity can be known.

Atheists often reject limitation on their knowledge?

Is this a problem?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#405 Apr 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
No evidence for atheism what-so-ever.
No scientific evidence.
Funny philosophy
LOL
Another proofless creationist whiner who doesn't know how to pick up a biology book.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#406 Apr 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Epistemology questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent to which a given subject or entity can be known.
Atheists often reject limitation on their knowledge?
Is this a problem?
Creationists don't know when to shut the f*ck up about the god they cannot prove?

Is this the problem?

Yes.
Largelanguage

Flint, UK

#407 Apr 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's red, yellow substance from the body is usually fat congealing, often fat cells are bled with the blood. Blood is mostly water, actually, most of the body itself is water, that's pretty much what we're made of and why dehydration is worse than starvation, comparative health-wise, though usually if you eat enough you will get enough water from your food.
The only other time blood is yellow is when it's rotten.
It was a yellowy red substance. It was called blood and water because fat within water, which contains minerals like fat, was there, as well the blood.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#408 Apr 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a yellowy red substance. It was called blood and water because fat within water, which contains minerals like fat, was there, as well the blood.
You know, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, hoping this is all just some act, but now I am wondering if you ever had a working brain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr cpeter1313 309,861
News Tennessee Republican who pressured mistress to ... 7 hr Halle Berry Sister 10
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 12 hr NoahLovesU 7,453
News Anti-Catholic Salon Cheers Church's Decline as ... 15 hr nOgOd 3
News New abortion controversy hits Congress Sat goonsquad 75
News Why Josh Duggar's Past Will Hurt Social Conserv... Fri serfs up 4
News Analysis: In minority, junior Texas House Democ... May 21 bouncing bob 4
More from around the web