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

Mar 16, 2013 Full story: freerepublic.com 1,829

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.

Full Story

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#368 Apr 15, 2013
Oh I know what you are saying and I agree. You must admit though some of the atheist comebacks on here have been nothing short of amazing laugh out loud material, even if you don't admit on the board :)

While we need to press the believers on their beliefs and failed arguments we don't want to descend into mere sht slinging. Mockery is great as it illustrates how useless their arguments are.

Another thing I caught a great video today where the atheist was explaining the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. Often I see the theist posters on here equate atheist as the exact same thing as an anti-theist but the two are quite different. Perhaps we need to educate our theist friends on the difference between the two.

If they were educated on the difference the more reasonable ones may have a better dialog and experience on here. What do you think?
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>It's a peculiar human trait. For some reason, we then to believe that we understand our adversaries better than they understand themselves, or at least well enough to expound to the forum at large on their motivations. We all do it, but I think that we atheists really ought to know better. We don't really know why other anonymous writers behave the way they do on this forum, and we ought to stop pretending that we do. It is so tempting to counter ever attack with accusations that match the tenor of those aimed at us, but it's a temptation that leads us into endless cycles of just making stuff up. the easiest place to stop i at the beginning of the cycle. Let them hurl their baseless accusations--everyone except (maybe) their cronies will see those jibes for what they are--and who the adults are.

Transactional analysis identifies three basic human roles: child, parent, and adult. Communicating from a child role evokes either a child or parent response; the parent role is designed to put others in a child role. But relentlessly adult responses short-circuits both approaches, forcing others to either respond as adults or be seen as petty squabblers or arrogant bullies. In the end, the relentlessly adult invariably prevail. Refusing to descend to the levels of those who make personal attacks is a winning strategy.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#369 Apr 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh I know what you are saying and I agree. You must admit though some of the atheist comebacks on here have been nothing short of amazing laugh out loud material, even if you don't admit on the board :)
While we need to press the believers on their beliefs and failed arguments we don't want to descend into mere sht slinging. Mockery is great as it illustrates how useless their arguments are.
Another thing I caught a great video today where the atheist was explaining the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. Often I see the theist posters on here equate atheist as the exact same thing as an anti-theist but the two are quite different. Perhaps we need to educate our theist friends on the difference between the two.
If they were educated on the difference the more reasonable ones may have a better dialog and experience on here. What do you think?
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, we don't see many reasonable believers here. We seem to attract so many of the other kind that it would be tempting to think that they predominate if we didn't see how rare they actually are in our daily lives. But the ones we see here are so entrenched in their views that few attempts to explain distinctions such as the one between atheists and anti-theists gain any ground.

But the fringe believers that we see here do provide us with the opportunity to write about issues that might not come up an other contexts, and we've seen some excellent work in that regard. When we're not ducking flying bits of excrement, that is.
Rush

Columbus, NE

#370 Apr 15, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you deny creationism all together because you wanted to be as different and seperate as possible from the parents who beat you, for God?
Your parents must have hated you.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#371 Apr 15, 2013
True very true.

But even in general when I see or participate in these lively discussions I find time and time again people mixing up atheist and anti-theist. While they are similar there are subtle differences.

I have brought a Christian to red faced tears in person by having to interrupt them and say... Sorry but no... Atheism means we do not believe in god, we reject the theist claim due to lack of observable evidence or even a sound fallacy free argument. It does not mean we know 100% for sure a god doesn't exist, your god existing is just as likely as mystic, celestial, pink leprechauns who created the universe is.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Unfortunately, we don't see many reasonable believers here. We seem to attract so many of the other kind that it would be tempting to think that they predominate if we didn't see how rare they actually are in our daily lives. But the ones we see here are so entrenched in their views that few attempts to explain distinctions such as the one between atheists and anti-theists gain any ground.

But the fringe believers that we see here do provide us with the opportunity to write about issues that might not come up an other contexts, and we've seen some excellent work in that regard. When we're not ducking flying bits of excrement, that is.
Rush

Columbus, NE

#372 Apr 21, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
Plants are asexual, like KittenKodder. Except KittenKodder is only pretending to be asexual, KittenKodder is actually a trangender, and a male, as well as a gay homosexual.
Because you are, you think everyone else is.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#373 Apr 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
True very true.
But even in general when I see or participate in these lively discussions I find time and time again people mixing up atheist and anti-theist. While they are similar there are subtle differences.
I have brought a Christian to red faced tears in person by having to interrupt them and say... Sorry but no... Atheism means we do not believe in god, we reject the theist claim due to lack of observable evidence or even a sound fallacy free argument. It does not mean we know 100% for sure a god doesn't exist, your god existing is just as likely as mystic, celestial, pink leprechauns who created the universe is.
<quoted text>
It's that "fallacy free" requirement that trips them all up. So few of them really understand what logical fallacies are, why they invalidate their arguments, or even which fallacies their arguments contain. The few who do understand often use them anyway, hoping to fool the unwary. I have never seen an argument for theism that is free of them and have rarely found a theist who doesn't "lose it" in one way or another when challenged on them.

Logic is such a powerful tool. Pity more people don't use it.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#374 Apr 21, 2013
Watch a William lane Craig debate sometimes. Try to keep count of how many times he employs appeal to authority, ad hom and band wagon logical fallacies. He had a debate with Carrier and he was so unhinged and so insulting I am surprised Carrier remained. Carrier by the way never insults Lane once even though Lane is constantly hurling insults.

Don't make the Lane fallacy argument a drinking game or you'd be dead 15 minutes in.

But apologetics look up to him and try to mimic him which as we see doesn't turn out well for them.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>It's that "fallacy free" requirement that trips them all up. So few of them really understand what logical fallacies are, why they invalidate their arguments, or even which fallacies their arguments contain. The few who do understand often use them anyway, hoping to fool the unwary. I have never seen an argument for theism that is free of them and have rarely found a theist who doesn't "lose it" in one way or another when challenged on them.

Logic is such a powerful tool. Pity more people don't use it.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#375 Apr 22, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a peculiar human trait. For some reason, we then to believe that we understand our adversaries better than they understand themselves, or at least well enough to expound to the forum at large on their motivations. We all do it, but I think that we atheists really ought to know better. We don't really know why other anonymous writers behave the way they do on this forum, and we ought to stop pretending that we do. It is so tempting to counter ever attack with accusations that match the tenor of those aimed at us, but it's a temptation that leads us into endless cycles of just making stuff up. the easiest place to stop i at the beginning of the cycle. Let them hurl their baseless accusations--everyone except (maybe) their cronies will see those jibes for what they are--and who the adults are.
Transactional analysis identifies three basic human roles: child, parent, and adult. Communicating from a child role evokes either a child or parent response; the parent role is designed to put others in a child role. But relentlessly adult responses short-circuits both approaches, forcing others to either respond as adults or be seen as petty squabblers or arrogant bullies. In the end, the relentlessly adult invariably prevail. Refusing to descend to the levels of those who make personal attacks is a winning strategy.
I agree. That is fairly insightful.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#376 Apr 22, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, we don't see many reasonable believers here. We seem to attract so many of the other kind that it would be tempting to think that they predominate if we didn't see how rare they actually are in our daily lives. But the ones we see here are so entrenched in their views that few attempts to explain distinctions such as the one between atheists and anti-theists gain any ground.
But the fringe believers that we see here do provide us with the opportunity to write about issues that might not come up an other contexts, and we've seen some excellent work in that regard. When we're not ducking flying bits of excrement, that is.
Most of the believers on topix are probably fairly isolated.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#377 Apr 22, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
It's that "fallacy free" requirement that trips them all up. So few of them really understand what logical fallacies are, why they invalidate their arguments, or even which fallacies their arguments contain. The few who do understand often use them anyway, hoping to fool the unwary. I have never seen an argument for theism that is free of them and have rarely found a theist who doesn't "lose it" in one way or another when challenged on them.
Logic is such a powerful tool. Pity more people don't use it.
I am fairly different from most believers. I don't believe in God for any emotional reason whatsoever, but merely because I have actual historical evidence and such that points towards God.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#378 Apr 22, 2013
Do show this historical evidence that points to a god

Thanks
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>I am fairly different from most believers. I don't believe in God for any emotional reason whatsoever, but merely because I have actual historical evidence and such that points towards God.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#379 Apr 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Do show this historical evidence that points to a god
Thanks
<quoted text>
Evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and the Bibles historical accuracy.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#380 Apr 22, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
I am fairly different from most believers. I don't believe in God for any emotional reason whatsoever, but merely because I have actual historical evidence and such that points towards God.
What would really make you different would be admitting that this "historical evidence" is equivocal and that others may reasonably find it less than convincing.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#381 Apr 22, 2013
Rise from the dead? We don't even have historical evidence he existed let alone what he did.

The bible is about as historically accurate as scrolls about Zeus and slightly less accurate as writings about Hercules.

Jospehus mentions Hercules over a dozen times in his works but not once of Jesus of Nazareth or even Nazareth itself which didn't even exist at the time Jesus was said to live.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and the Bibles historical accuracy.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#382 Apr 22, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and the Bibles historical accuracy.
Another story...

..of Biblical accuracy.
(Actually 2:52mins)
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#383 Apr 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Rise from the dead? We don't even have historical evidence he existed let alone what he did.
The bible is about as historically accurate as scrolls about Zeus and slightly less accurate as writings about Hercules.
Jospehus mentions Hercules over a dozen times in his works but not once of Jesus of Nazareth or even Nazareth itself which didn't even exist at the time Jesus was said to live.
<quoted text>
Actually there were records from the Romans of the Roman leaders and Roman goverment looking for this "Jesus".

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#384 Apr 22, 2013
Jesus was a common name but where are these documents? Do provide a link to them I would find it most interesting thanks.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>Actually there were records from the Romans of the Roman leaders and Roman goverment looking for this "Jesus".
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#385 Apr 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Jesus was a common name but where are these documents? Do provide a link to them I would find it most interesting thanks.
<quoted text>
I've read it from the book called the resurrection factor. And there is proof the disciples accounts were honest, which points towards the fact that Jesus resurrected and that he existed(And exists today therefore, since the bible is probably true).

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#386 Apr 22, 2013
:Smh:
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>I've read it from the book called the resurrection factor. And there is proof the disciples accounts were honest, which points towards the fact that Jesus resurrected and that he existed(And exists today therefore, since the bible is probably true).

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#387 Apr 22, 2013
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.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min waaasssuuup 235,794
The Consequences of Atheism 20 min Uncle Sam 824
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Chimney1 16,896
Turkey blocks website of its first atheist asso... 44 min emanuel 2
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 1,667
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 hr ChristineM 4,892
Religiosity 4 hr NightSerf 1
More from around the web