Prove there's a god.

[It aint necessarily so]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>It can be argued that it is my opinion that life begins at birth; most anti-choicers are of the opinion that life begins at conception.
But LEGALLY, all rights afforded to a PERSON begin at BIRTH.

What do you think of this:

Life is a biological status. The sperm and the egg were alive, and continue to live as a zygote and through all other stages of human life until old age and senility.

Personhood and citizenship - the basis of human and civil rights respectively - are each a legal status.

You're a living human organism from conception, but you're not a person with rights until your culture says you are.

[It aint necessarily so]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. SHe became my ex-wife because she wouldn't stop getting fat, stopped cleaning my house, never had a job & was a total bitch.

It sounds like it was all taking and no giving on her part. What a parasite, huh?

Catholics might blame you for taking the easy way out and murdering your marriage vows with a convenient divorce on demand, but I sure don't.

[nanoanomaly]

Happy Lesbo wrote:

<quoted text>
.. do you think/believe women should have the right to abortion in cases of rape or incest ??..

I do understand WHY they may not want to carry their attacker's baby to term.

[nanoanomaly]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you are calling all humans parasites. "sigh"

He's a sick, twisted bastard.

[It aint necessarily so]

Mylan wrote:

Wow, you're as as quick as a tortoise on Prozac.

Consider Haldol or Thorazine for that joke instead.

Check out how Haldol in the neck of this woman gently calms her: http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2012/...

[It aint necessarily so]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

See what happens when more & more people stop believing in God?

Less of this:

"Nevada: Parents beat son to death for not reading Bible"
http://www.examiner.com/article/nevada-parent...

[It aint necessarily so]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

The lost influence of God & His love have very much to do with the downfall of American society.

I'm pretty sure that it all began following the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. <cough-post.hoc-cough>

Perhaps the real creators of the universe were offended and decided to take their wrath out on America.

[JOEL]

I want to convert to Christianity? What should I do?

(smiles)

[It aint necessarily so]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

The lost influence of God & His love have very much to do with the downfall of American society.

According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.h... , the murder total in America peaked in 1991 at 24,700,and fell to a modern minimum of 14,612 in 2011. There were 252 million Americans in 1991 compared to 311 million in 2011 making the respective murder rates 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991, and 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011 - less than half.

At the same time, according to the American Religious Identification Survey at http://www.dawahskills.com/skills-tools/ameri... , the total number of adults identifying as Christian fell from 151 million out of 175 million adults (86.2%) in 1990 to 173 million out out of 228 million adults (76.0%) in 2008.

During the same period, "nones" and "no religion" rose from 14 million (8.2%) to 34 million (15.0%)-almost double.

Our numbers doubled, and the murder rate halved. At this rate, I think that we could stand to lose a little more of your god's influence and love, don't you?

[KittenKoder]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.
The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.

Because you are making the choice for someone else, thus, you are taking that choice from them. You are also, therefore, claiming responsibility for the ENTIRE outcome of the situation, including financial responsibility as well as any ethical responsibility of harm to the woman/offspring resulting from removing that choice, any bad choices the child makes as well resulting from a poor upbringing. That's too much responsibility for me to take on myself, so it is better to leave it up to the actual mother, thus it is not my responsibility, not my choice one way or the other. The person getting the abortion has make the choice and deal with the consequences of that choice on their own.

[It aint necessarily so]

JOEL wrote:

I want to convert to Christianity? What should I do?(smiles)

There's little medical procedure that can help:
http://www.paddedcell.com.au/psychosurgery_du...

[It aint necessarily so]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

Wrong! A parasite isn't beneficial the host, remember?

You are correct.

[UR BS]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Because you are making the choice for someone else, thus, you are taking that choice from them. You are also, therefore, claiming responsibility for the ENTIRE outcome of the situation, including financial responsibility as well as any ethical responsibility of harm to the woman/offspring resulting from removing that choice, any bad choices the child makes as well resulting from a poor upbringing. That's too much responsibility for me to take on myself, so it is better to leave it up to the actual mother, thus it is not my responsibility, not my choice one way or the other. The person getting the abortion has make the choice and deal with the consequences of that choice on their own.

Not arguing on who gets to make the choice legally. My point is and remains that it is a choice between life and death. Those are the two options no others. You want to have the baby yuou choose life you want to kill the baby you choose death.
Really simple.
It is just the PC thing to dehumanize the child so there is the assumption that it was nothing anyway so we can flush it.

[It aint necessarily so]

Freebird USA wrote:

1. The guns "probably" were the reason

Yes.

And we can tell how likely it is that the hypothesis is correct by statistical analysis. We call the value that represents this the p-value, and it tells us what the likelihood is that the apparent correlation is due to an actual relationship between guns in the home and gun death, also called rejecting the null hypothesis. Statistical significance is said to occur when confidence levels are above 95% or 99%, depending on the need to be correct, which is notated as p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

Freebird USA wrote:

2. The issue of who decides what constitutes a life "saved " by a gun? As an example one could argue that George Zimmermans life was saved by a gun. See?

That's decided by the relative number of deaths. For example, let us say that the two groups suffered the same number of gun deaths, maybe 10,000 each. Let's also say that in the group with guns, half of the deaths were due to accidents, suicide, and family members murdering one another, with the other 5000 being due to murders caused by intruders, while in the second group, there were only 1000 such internally caused deaths, all caused by people going out and finding a gun, and 9000 caused by intruders.

It would be apparent from such statistics that the guns saved 4000 lives in the homes that had them relative to the ones that didn't. It would also be apparent that having those guns at home also cost 4000 lives compared to the homes where somebody had to go out and find a gun. In such a case, we would call it a wash. The benefit of gun ownership exactly equaled the cost.

The actual statistics show many more deaths in the gun homes. It doesn't really matter why, does it? If the gun homes suffer say 3000 more deaths, does it matter if the 3000 extra deaths break down as 1000 lives saved and 4000 lives lost by those guns vs. 2000 lives saved and 5000 lives lost by them?

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes.
And we can tell how likely it is that the hypothesis is correct by statistical analysis. We call the value that represents this the p-value, and it tells us what the likelihood is that the apparent correlation is due to an actual relationship between guns in the home and gun death, also called rejecting the null hypothesis. Statistical significance is said to occur when confidence levels are above 95% or 99%, depending on the need to be correct, which is notated as p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
<quoted text>
That's decided by the relative number of deaths. For example, let us say that the two groups suffered the same number of gun deaths, maybe 10,000 each. Let's also say that in the group with guns, half of the deaths were due to accidents, suicide, and family members murdering one another, with the other 5000 being due to murders caused by intruders, while in the second group, there were only 1000 such internally caused deaths, all caused by people going out and finding a gun, and 9000 caused by intruders.
It would be apparent from such statistics that the guns saved 4000 lives in the homes that had them relative to the ones that didn't. It would also be apparent that having those guns at home also cost 4000 lives compared to the homes where somebody had to go out and find a gun. In such a case, we would call it a wash. The benefit of gun ownership exactly equaled the cost.
The actual statistics show many more deaths in the gun homes. It doesn't really matter why, does it? If the gun homes suffer say 3000 more deaths, does it matter if the 3000 extra deaths break down as 1000 lives saved and 4000 lives lost by those guns vs. 2000 lives saved and 5000 lives lost by them?

Actually
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

[It aint necessarily so]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

Ya, because of a crazy man.

You mean because of a crazy man with access to an assault weapon, don't you? Remember, guns don't kill people. People with guns do.

How many such crazy men do you suppose there are in America right now? Thirty-one? Eleven? Fourteen?

How many will have easy access to assault weapons the hour that they crack?

[Jesus IS Almighty God]

If God doesn't exist, then who or what dictates the dimensions and attributes of everything in existence?

Who or what is to say that anything should be as it is?

And if such things are based entirely on chance alone, then would that not infer a finite range of possibilities?

It must, for if everything were possible, nothing would be possible. It is self-refuting, as is attempting to draw a number from infinity.

Therefore, if something is finite, it must have boundaries. Boundaries can only exist in regards to something greater. By default, it's boundaries are set in relation to that greater something. The natural world as we know it consists of various elements interacting within finite ranges. The natural world as a whole is itself also finite. It has boundaries, dimensions, and limited space. If, however, the natural world constituted all of all, no thing would be possible within it, for there would exist an infinite range of scenarios, and as such could never allow for the number 1.

Without a self-sustaining, intelligent, transcending prime-mover, the world as we know it would not and could not exist. It is self-evident.

The Lord Jesus loves you all very much.

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean because of a crazy man with access to an assault weapon, don't you? Remember, guns don't kill people. People with guns do.
How many such crazy men do you suppose there are in America right now? Thirty-one? Eleven? Fourteen?
How many will have easy access to assault weapons the hour that they crack?

1. No assault rifle was used in the shooting and in fact, they only recovered 4 hand guns from inside the school.
Add to the fact that the car they found the gun in is not that of Adam Lanza or his mothers and in fact belongs to Christopher A Rodia .

2. Prohibition = Blackmarket, period. If a "crazy person" wants an assault weapon they can get one or make their own.

[UR BS]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>1. No assault rifle was used in the shooting and in fact, they only recovered 4 hand guns from inside the school.
Add to the fact that the car they found the gun in is not that of Adam Lanza or his mothers and in fact belongs to Christopher A Rodia .
2. Prohibition = Blackmarket, period. If a "crazy person" wants an assault weapon they can get one or make their own.

A perfect example of what you say is in the recent attacl on the first responders to the fire set by a nut bag.
The guy was a convicted felon, a murderer, and yet still had his guns to ambush the fire fighters. Being a covicted felon of a violent crime there ius no way possible that he could have obtained those weapons legally.
Prohibit the weapons and the criminals will still get them

[It aint necessarily so]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

It's up to lawmakers to decide what stages of humanity can and cannot be called murdered when killed. If the legislatures want to afford the protection of the state to fetuses, they pass a law declaring feticide murder. That does not make the fetus a baby.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

But murder is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person. If an uborn child, a fetus, is NOT a person then they could not be charged with murder.... But since a fetus IS a child, the murder charges are possible.

You're confused. We were discussing whether abortion is the murder of a baby or not, which is asking whether a fetus is a baby or not,and whether its deliberate death is murder.

You seem to be toggling from whether a fetus is a baby to whether a fetus is a child and to whether a fetus is a person. What exactly are you arguing?

Incidentally, I am no more willing to accept your premise that a (human) fetus is an unborn child than I am to accept that it is an unborn baby. It's a fetus, which is one type of unborn human organism, the others being zygotes and embryos.

If you try to put that mess of yours into syllogistic form, the conclusion is not that a fetus is a child or a baby, but a person.

Major premise : Unlawful killing of a person is murder
Minor premise : Killing a fetus can be declared murder.
Conclusion : A fetus can be declared a person (not a child or baby).

But even this is flawed, because it is possible to declare the killing of a beloved pet murder. If that happened, we could also argue this:

Major premise : Unlawful killing of a beloved pet is murder
Minor premise : Killing a fetus can be declared murder.
Conclusion : A fetus can be declared a beloved pet.

This is obviously invalid, which tells you that the first conclusion is invalid as well for the same reason, even though it is less obviously so.

FWIW, logic, statistics, semantics (definitions), science - there is a right and a wrong way to deal with them all, and one must learn how to do so properly. This takes an education in these areas, meaning a protracted period of focused study and practice with an ability and desire to learn them. These are not things that one can do well because one has looked at a few apologetics sites. They're not hobbies.

You should recognize that, and acquire the wisdom to know when to assert yourself, and when to defer to the expertise of others.