Prove there's a god.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#778447 Sep 9, 2014
Roll Tide wrote:
<quoted text>
How did a god you claim doesn't exist cause those deaths?
Explain your inconsistencies and hypocrisy please
No inconsistency and no hypocrisy.

Just a little sarcasm to point out yours.

Off to the gym.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778448 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
They're all paying a price. None of them seems happy, nor do any seem to be living life well. Just look at the level of rage on this thread over this parasite thing - yet another argument against Christianity, which plays them like fiddles. It winds them up to explode over its wedge issues.
On this issue, the Christian's make a more truthful case than the secularists.

None of them have resorted to distorting science.

In fact, as science advances, the argument of the Christian gains strength. Candidates for the abortion procedure statistically become less inclined to proceed when informed of the science as it relates to their fetus, particularly when they see an ultrasound image.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778449 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not like you're burning right now. Sorry, but it's you own fault. You chose hate, and it consumes you like battery acid.
Why aren't you following your own rule of engagement?

"Nobody has to confine their comments to ideas about ideas, but when they cross the line and make it personal, they don’t get a free k*ck."

Why are you crossing your own line and making it personal?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778450 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to think or speak for me. You do so poorly for yourself.
Why aren't you following your own rule of engagement?

"Nobody has to confine their comments to ideas about ideas, but when they cross the line and make it personal, they don’t get a free k*ck."

Why are you crossing your own line and making it personal?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778451 Sep 9, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Hey did you know that you will persist as a Christian until death? Chrissy says so.
Once Christian, Always Christian. Sorry...
<quoted text>
Clearly she did.
Again, sorry. I know you didn't expect that from a fellow atheist. I knew you'd take it hard.
Hitler had no choice. He was forced by the RCC to be a Christian because they didn't excommunicate him.

So Hitler said, "Hell with 'em. I'm going to kill the Jew-worshipping sonsubitches anyway".

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778452 Sep 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No inconsistency and no hypocrisy.
Just a little sarcasm to point out yours.
Off to the gym.
Can you get me some of that free pot the government is giving away in Berkeley?

No stems, please.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778453 Sep 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's some great science - human fetus as parasite - when it isn't.
I'll return the favor and teach you some science.
A human fetus is actually an Irish Setter.
Noting the obvious similarities - a head, a heart, appendages, and eventually, hair.
Just as obvious, nobody should be required to keep an Irish Setter they don't want, any more than a parasite. We don't want a bunch of unwanted Irish Setters running around.
Some kooks from the SPCA will object, but what do they know. We're scientists here.
Are we doing science?

&sn s=em

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778454 Sep 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No inconsistency and no hypocrisy.
Just a little sarcasm to point out yours.
Off to the gym.
It wasn't sarcasm, it was clear Christianophobia.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#778455 Sep 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
You are wrong about a fetus being a parasite.
I am correct. Rocco has provided multiple definitions that would include a fetus.

Parasite

A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see symbiosis.

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

An organism that lives in or with another organism, called the host, in parasitism, a type of association characterized by the parasite obtaining benefits from the host, such as food, and the host being injured as a result.

An organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism. An obligate parasite is one that depends entirely on its host for survival.

A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see also symbiosis.
Buck Crick wrote:
It shows a disrespect for science to persist in that line of argument.
You are the one showing the disrespect for science to refuse to accept its definition.
Buck Crick wrote:
A parasite is a heterospecific relationship.
That is not a requirement. Read the definitions above. None of them include that limitation.
Buck Crick wrote:
A fetus is an obligatory homospecific relationship.
And that relationship is called parasitism.
Buck Crick wrote:
You are sacrificing science for the sake of applying a pejorative to a human fetus
That's your take. I don't consider the term "parasite" pejorative unless it is used in a metaphorical sense, as with Joyful and the clergy. In it's scientific sense, the term is merely descriptive- just like fetus.
Buck Crick wrote:
nobody is fooled.
Agreed.
Anonymous

Worcester, UK

#778456 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
“The Ten Commandments fit the United States like $10 shoes, from the first, where we install the "almighty" dollar as an idol, to the last, when we rely on covetousness to turn the wheels of commerce. We keep the Sabbath holy by shopping for bargains and allow and excuse false witness for advertising and political spin. We have been casual about killing for a nation that believes in "Thou shall not kill." And as for adultery, we apparently couldn't have a Congress without it. Beyond all that, we revere the Ten Commandments to shreds.” Tom Blackburn
I think you are quite right Tom B. We do live in exceptionally difficult times. How to end it though? So many jobs and so much of our "culture" seems to depend on free market capitalism. We can even make money by singing about the woes or writing learned books / articles about the woes facing us. I think I am rather out of synchronisation with much of the rest of the human race. Of course I welcome so much of the advances in medical sciences / travel opportunities / labor saving devices for example but I do not like the rampant greed / alienation which seems to have made these changes possible. We need to develop "rocket science" I am sure to defend our planet possibly and / or to give our descendants a chance to move away to a different planet way off into the future I should think. Science and politics have served us well enough it seems but it does seem as though we are lacking what I can only conclude is "spiritual awareness."

Since: Aug 14

Location hidden

#778457 Sep 9, 2014

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#778458 Sep 9, 2014
Roll Tide wrote:
<quoted text>
How did a god you claim doesn't exist cause those deaths?
Explain your inconsistencies and hypocrisy please
How did a god that you say does exist cause that storm to kill so many people?
Why would a god with any power what so ever allow that to happen.
Yes, we throw the acts of your imaginary god back at you and ask for an explaination. For instance. God loves all the little children....right so far?.....then why would he have us give birth to deformed babies, babies with cancer, born without limbs, babies with their heart on the outside, babies born to people who will kill them before their first birthday. If that is love, he can keep it to himself.
Anonymous

Worcester, UK

#778459 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to think or speak for me. You do so poorly for yourself.
"Only Christians are Faith based thinks?" How did you come to that conclusion? What about members of all the other religions? What about atheists who seem to put their Faith in rationality, science, in the future, in attacking believers? Atheism makes no sense to me. There must be very few alive now who can really remember WW1. Where are all those who caused the war and all those who fought in it? There will come a time when all of this generation, the people alive right now, will be no more. What do we still have to learn? Nothing except to get drunk / drugged, get lots of sex, abort the products of sex when inconvenient, lament over broken hearts? Is that all life is about for us?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#778460 Sep 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
fetus = parasite ... atheism = lack of belief ... People with a losing argument trying to win by word manipulation.
That would be you. I don't frame this in terms of winning or losing. I don't expect any of you to relent. What has transpired here is tow things:

[1] The unbelievers who weren't clear on what parasitism is in the scientific sense, or who hadn't noticed that fetuses fit the definition, are now up to speed.

[2] What a show from the theists! We all got a chance to witness another example of how wedge issues work. They are sold in terms of outrage to get believers out too the voting booths to choose Christian candidates. It's obviously manufactured outrage, not authentic or organic. Genuine outrage cuts across multiple demographics, as when Egyptian police were filmed from overhead about three years ago beating a Muslim girl dressed in a burqa, stripping her down to her blue brassiere in public. I was pissed. You were likely pissed. Yusef was pissed, Kwang Ho was pissed, Francisco was pissed. Zbignew was pissed. Gian-Carlo was pissed. Lindsy Lo... you get the point. The outrage was across the board.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the rank-and-file Christians themselves are faking their outrage. They really are outraged, enough to detonate bombs at abortion clinics and murder staff. But it's manufactured outrage. They were trained to feel that way, which is why it's almost exclusively the one group that is outraged. You can condition people to be outraged at anything : "I'm no ape!" "White shoes after labor day? You Neanderthal!" "The innocent babies!" What's the difference? Only conditioned people object to any of those.

As I noted earlier, we embrace dialectic, which is the cooperative method that seeks common ground and mutual understanding. When we disagree, we go back one step prior to the point of departure where we last agreed to find shared premises, and work forward in good faith according to our separate understandings, offering arguments to one another why this path or that one is more valid. Hopefully, if we share the same values regarding how evidence is to be interpreted and how to apply reason to it without fallacy, one of us may be swayed by the other. That's the spirit of science and scholarship.

What you do doesn't resemble that at all. You simply want to make the other guy wrong by any means possible. Your goal is not to cooperate or learn, but to prevail, and not to communicate, but to obfuscate. You'll conflate distinct ideas, find distinctions that aren't there, ignore all but the definitions that you would like to impose on the discussion, put words into the mouths of others, challenge the integrity of your collocutor, impute impure motives for him, then declare yourself the victor. That's the spirit of verbal manipulation used by demagogues, apologists, propagandists, and advertisers.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778461 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am correct. Rocco has provided multiple definitions that would include a fetus.
Parasite
A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see symbiosis.
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
An organism that lives in or with another organism, called the host, in parasitism, a type of association characterized by the parasite obtaining benefits from the host, such as food, and the host being injured as a result.
An organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism. An obligate parasite is one that depends entirely on its host for survival.
A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see also symbiosis.
<quoted text>
You are the one showing the disrespect for science to refuse to accept its definition.
<quoted text>
That is not a requirement. Read the definitions above. None of them include that limitation.
<quoted text>
And that relationship is called parasitism.
<quoted text>
That's your take. I don't consider the term "parasite" pejorative unless it is used in a metaphorical sense, as with Joyful and the clergy. In it's scientific sense, the term is merely descriptive- just like fetus.
<quoted text>
Agreed.
I wasn't born yesterday.

Show me a fetus on any list of human parasites.

Use scientific sources - the more scientific the better.

Here's a scientific source - a textbook on parisitology.

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).- Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7,

With definitions, which is more useful - the more specific one or the least specific one?

In medicine, do you go with the least specific terms to communicate the true science of a thing?

Nobody is fooled by this tactic.


ROCCO

Indio, CA

#778462 Sep 9, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not it.
What troubles me is the lengths people will take to justify abortion, even going to the extent of reducing a human fetus to the level of parasite and the mother to the level of "host".
Essentially, it's the misuse of words to push an agenda that really troubles me.
At no time have I been promoting abortion. My personal preference would be that no woman becomes pregnant who is not ready, willing, and prepared to carry a child to term, whether that means with the intention, desire, and ability to raise it properly, or to ensure its adoption - although adoption is not always a certain future for a child.

No matter what I prefer, or think, however, is going to make a difference in what women decide to do with their body relative to a new human being forming inside it. It is not my call, it is not the call of the biological donor of the genetic material that created the child, it is no one's but the mother.
And no one can hold the woman who becomes pregnant solely responsible for the pregnancy occurring in the first place - men engaging in sex should be no less careless in causing an unwanted pregnancy than the woman, who should not be held to a different standard. It is a given in human nature that not all men and all women will successfully recuse themselves from a sexual encounter and deny their sexual urges, nor engage in safe sex. That is true in America, Canada, Switzerland, Swaziland and anywhere on the planet.

Men and women need to be educated, but there is no reasonable expectation that unwanted pregnancies will not occur. The decision to terminate the pregnancy, or carry it to birth, lies solely with the woman, IMO. No other person, or entity, should have any right to tell her what to do. And we must realize that there are currently 132 million orphans in the world, approximately (some sources say 16 million worldwide, of which only 1.5% are ever adopted). Even a single unadopted child is too many.

Clearly, the answer is avoidance of pregnancy altogether. Safe sex, or sexual abstinence. But the data, IMO, suggests that is not a realistic goal, unwanted pregnancies will occur, and they will result in children being born to a woman who will raise it, despite her circumstances; the father will take responsibility and raise it, or some family member will adopt and raise it, or the pregnancy will be terminated.

We don't like it, but there will always be valid reasons to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not inclined to think that there aren't times when abortion is the better choice. And I'm not inclined to believe that anyone or any entity should have the right to interfere with the mother's decision.

How many children have you adopted?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#778463 Sep 9, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Hahaha. Dumb atheists.
I'm picturing drool flowing over the fleshy butt of your upturned palm as you wedge it into your buck teeth and laugh in grunts .
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#778464 Sep 9, 2014
no less careless s/b no less responsible

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#778465 Sep 9, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who has had people residing inside my body, I agree.
Most moms won't admit it unless in confidence but we've all thought it.
It's exhausting, it's also beautiful and totally worth it but yeah, foetuses can be accurately described as parasitic.
<quoted text>
Agreed on all you said, Buck.
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who has had people residing inside my body, I agree.
Most moms won't admit it unless in confidence but we've all thought it.
It's exhausting, it's also beautiful and totally worth it but yeah, foetuses can be accurately described as parasitic.
That explains a lot.
Ummmm, that is BS. How do you know that we've all thought it? I, for one, have never ever thought that, nor would I, ever. It is a vile, disgusting, worthless, evil being that would ever think or say that.
Yes, pregnancy is beautiful and totally worth it, but no, fetuses/babies are not parasites.
So now I am vile, disgusting, worthless and evil. The only person who tried to help you keep out of the deep do do and learn how to post and argue here. And you had something to say the other day because someone made a stupid remark and I should not use those kind of words. But you can call me names and it is okey? Don't think so. I have deliberately stayed out of the arguments you have had, hoping you would learn and not to add fuel to the fire. But I will not stay silent another minute.

Yes indeed, I brought up the parasitic relationship of mother/child while it is in the womb because that Is exactly what it is. You can dress it up in all the fancy loving names you want to hang around its neck, but it is what it is. Until the day it is born, it is drawing all it nutrients from its mother, despite any adverse effects it has on the mother. I have had twice as many kids as you have. So I know how wonderful it is. I know the joy, and love.

But I am a down to earth realist. The nuts and bolts of having babies isn't all joy and love.
Its feeling lousy, no balance, back aches, throw ups, and the birth itself is absolutely gory, and do you know what happens if they cant give you an emema before birth? You and the baby are covered in sh*t. And what about that big lump of afterbirth. Think we should frame it? So romantic the think of the cocoon of our young just being thrown away. Other animals eat it, but we are too civilized for that, so maybe we should freeze dry and then have it bronzed and put on the mantle with the day of birth and the childs name that was harbored inside it.

Grow up a little Joyful.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778466 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be you. I don't frame this in terms of winning or losing. I don't expect any of you to relent. What has transpired here is tow things:
[1] The unbelievers who weren't clear on what parasitism is in the scientific sense, or who hadn't noticed that fetuses fit the definition, are now up to speed.
[2] What a show from the theists! We all got a chance to witness another example of how wedge issues work. They are sold in terms of outrage to get believers out too the voting booths to choose Christian candidates. It's obviously manufactured outrage, not authentic or organic. Genuine outrage cuts across multiple demographics, as when Egyptian police were filmed from overhead about three years ago beating a Muslim girl dressed in a burqa, stripping her down to her blue brassiere in public. I was pissed. You were likely pissed. Yusef was pissed, Kwang Ho was pissed, Francisco was pissed. Zbignew was pissed. Gian-Carlo was pissed. Lindsy Lo... you get the point. The outrage was across the board.
Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the rank-and-file Christians themselves are faking their outrage. They really are outraged, enough to detonate bombs at abortion clinics and murder staff. But it's manufactured outrage. They were trained to feel that way, which is why it's almost exclusively the one group that is outraged. You can condition people to be outraged at anything : "I'm no ape!" "White shoes after labor day? You Neanderthal!" "The innocent babies!" What's the difference? Only conditioned people object to any of those.
As I noted earlier, we embrace dialectic, which is the cooperative method that seeks common ground and mutual understanding. When we disagree, we go back one step prior to the point of departure where we last agreed to find shared premises, and work forward in good faith according to our separate understandings, offering arguments to one another why this path or that one is more valid. Hopefully, if we share the same values regarding how evidence is to be interpreted and how to apply reason to it without fallacy, one of us may be swayed by the other. That's the spirit of science and scholarship.
What you do doesn't resemble that at all. You simply want to make the other guy wrong by any means possible. Your goal is not to cooperate or learn, but to prevail, and not to communicate, but to obfuscate. You'll conflate distinct ideas, find distinctions that aren't there, ignore all but the definitions that you would like to impose on the discussion, put words into the mouths of others, challenge the integrity of your collocutor, impute impure motives for him, then declare yourself the victor. That's the spirit of verbal manipulation used by demagogues, apologists, propagandists, and advertisers.
That's rich.

You insist on a definition of parasite that glosses over the scientific distinctions between it and a fetus, so that you can call a human fetus a parasite, then hurl accusations of demagoguery, while claiming to be educating people on the science.

And all this occurs while a better, more specific biological definition is freely available.

The persistence in calling a fetus a parasite is the exact opposite of educating.

My effort has not been to "make" someone wrong. They simply are wrong.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min USAsince1680 87,507
The American Dream is DEAD DEAD DEAD. (Oct '17) 34 min Hock Fung Soc Tu 23
Looking to finally settle down. Need some sugge... 59 min Plock Yan Yuk Foo 2
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr residualcash 703,573
Why are women from USA prefer casual dating ove... 2 hr MGTOW 2
The Good Man Donald Trump 3 hr MexicoWill Pay4Wall 2
Prostitutes at Taiji Massage in Port Charlotte 3 hr FredG5 1