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

Mar 16, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: freerepublic.com

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.

Comments (Page 20)

Showing posts 381 - 400 of1,829
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#388
Apr 22, 2013
 

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#389
Apr 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

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

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#391
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#392
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#393
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#394
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#395
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#398
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#399
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

If a body is dead, it bleeds both blood and water, a yellow like substance.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#401
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No evidence for atheism what-so-ever.
No scientific evidence.
Funny philosophy
LOL

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 381 - 400 of1,829
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••