7 Tips for Arguing With a Chance of Changing Someone’s Mind

KKK

Daryl Davis is an African-American man who is fascinated by American hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. In researching the Klan in America, he sought out members and met with them. And befriended them. And was the cause of some of them leaving the Klan. He can prove it with the Klan robes they gave him after they left.

He has advice for talking with people with a very different viewpoint (which I’m hoping will inform our approach to Christians), but I can’t resist first giving one anecdote. There are different approaches to dealing with hate groups, and engaging with and befriending (as in making a Klansman an invite-him-to-your-wedding kind of friend) is pretty radical.

Daryl got pushback from someone from the NAACP:

[The NAACP guy said,] “We’ve worked hard to get ten steps forward, and here you are sitting down with the enemy having dinner, and you’re putting us twenty steps back.” I pull out my robes and hoods and said, “Look, this is what I’ve done to put a dent in racism. I’ve got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who’ve given up that belief because of my conversations and sitting down to dinner and they gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected?” And then they shut up. (Source)

Philosophy

Daryl’s focus is on members of hate groups, but I think the advice also informs the atheism/Christianity debate. He begins with general advice. (I’m pulling out highlights from the “How to Argue” interview on the Love + Radio podcast.)

First, give the other person the safe space to express themselves. Ask honest questions, but don’t attack. You’re having a conversation.

Respect their right to speak, even if you don’t respect what they’re saying. By engaging, by simply being there, they open themselves up to new ideas that might grow in their minds.

He gives dogs as a parallel. If you beat a mean dog, it becomes meaner. The same is true for a hateful or closed-minded person. Push back directly, and the backfire effect comes into play. You’re attacking who they are, so they dig in their heels and cling to their beliefs even more. Instead of hate, you should rely on logic, respect, and patience.

1. Know your opponent

Learn your opponent’s position. Know it as well as they do, so well that they would accept your statement of their argument. If you begin not knowing their position well, compensate with humility and listening.

What you hear may be hateful or illogical, but don’t overreact. When in doubt, listen rather than fight back. Remember that you’re playing the long game.

2. Make it a conversation, not a debate

A debate needn’t be angry, but it’s zero-sum. It’s a fight, and you can’t have two winners. Instead of a debate, you want a conversation. A conversation is an invitation for someone to share their position, and most people are happy to oblige. Create a welcoming environment.

3. Find common ground

Use small talk and look for overlap in your lives. Do you both have dogs? Are you in similar professions? Do you have similar attitudes about health care, education, or foreign policy? You’re finding common ground.

This is a marathon, not a sprint, so don’t think that chitchat is a waste of time—you’re working on a relationship, maybe a friendship. If Christianity comes up in conversation, that’s great. But if kids or pets or career comes up, that’s great, too.

4. Talking is better than the alternative

The conversation may occasionally get heated. It may seem like you’re getting nowhere. But the more conversation, the more common ground you’ll find. (In the case of Daryl Davis’s discussions with Klansmen, talking is better than violence, which can be the alternative, though that’s probably not an issue for those of us in discussion with Christians.)

5. Be patient

It takes time to learn Christian arguments (or the particular variants that this antagonist uses), especially when tangents can be wide ranging—the religions of Mesopotamia, Greece, or Egypt; the role of fiction during the time of Jesus; the history of Israel, including the forced exiles and invasions of Palestine; the religious movements in the Ancient Near East during the intertestamental period, such as Gnosticism, Apocalypticism, and Marcionism; and so on.

Knowing the material earns respect, but don’t get overwhelmed. Listen and learn. Let your antagonists teach you—you’ll get smarter, and they’ll appreciate your humility.

Put yourself in the way of a discussion. Attend an Alpha Course. Find an interesting Sunday school class at a local church. Find a local Reasonable Faith or Reasons to Believe chapter. You’ll learn far more by hanging out with Christians than with fellow atheists. And, while you’re learning about them, they can’t help but learn about you.

Put some effort into your first impression. A Christian acquaintance won’t say, “We’ve got an interesting class at my church—you should come” if you’re a jerk.

6. Watch your tone

Make your point, correct errors in logic or facts, or get annoyed at rhetorical gamesmanship, but don’t be insulting or condescending. State your correction, but don’t delight in their failure or make them feel stupid.

7. Give them space to make their argument

Give them their turn, and don’t cut them off when they make a point. Once they’ve made a point, look for authentic clarifying questions to ask. They will appreciate your interest, and your questions may force them to confront problems that they hadn’t been aware of when it was just an idea in their head.

Don’t put words into their mouth, and let them explain their point. Pay careful attention so that you’re responding to the strongest interpretation of their point, not a caricature or strawman version.

If this approach is useful for atheists talking to Christians, is the reverse also true? Perhaps. The shrewd Christian might try to make this an emotional discussion—wouldn’t you want for there to be a benevolent god looking out for you? Doesn’t it only seem fair for there to be an afterlife where the Hitlers of the world got justice? And so on.

Still, Christians engaging in a long-term relationship with the goal of discussing Christianity’s truth claims put themselves in the way of atheist ideas. And that has to be a good thing.

Related posts:

There is a cure for ignorance. The cure is called education.
Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupidity.
— Daryl Davis

Image credit: Adrianne Mathiowetz, used with permission of Love + Radio

"i'm pretty sure he was applying his characteristic incompetence at any form of word-based interaction ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"And the fact that the claims of Jesus being a first century person who was ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"She hasn't responded to me for a few weeks. I assume she blocked me. Which ..."

What Makes a Good Prophecy (and ..."
"Jan Brady: "Meta, Meta, Meta...!""

William Lane Craig Replies to My ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bob Jase

    A Smith & Wesson still beats four aces.

  • RichardSRussell

    4. Talking is better than the alternative

    “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.”—Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) neurologist, founder of psychoanalysis

  • Halbe

    This reads a bit like the ‘X tips for effective evangelizing’ posts that are ubiquitous over at the Evangelical channel. “Befriending” people, but with a clear agenda is also their favourite MO nowadays. Not my cup of tea.

    • Cady555

      I’m pretty sure that members of the KKK are not being tricked when a black man wants to have a conversation. It appears he is being honest that this is about.

      This is different from christians tricking people and not being honest, which I agree is nasty.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        I’ve heard that the “love bombing” phase is short lived. You’re loved into the church, but then you’re expected to get out there and get more converts. Collection plates don’t fill themselves, y’know.

        But Davis is focused on a much longer timeframe.

  • igotbanned999

    It must be awkward when he has company over and they see all the KKK robes in the closet…

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “Oops! Sorry–let’s use this other closet.”

  • masteradrian

    Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? And who actually supports actions and practices that are out to throw me from a high building, or slice my throat?
    I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual and are condemned by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of their god and claim to be acting on behalf of their god, then I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!
    I accept their right to to have their opinion, their faith, their religion, and their attitude, BUT what I do not accept is that these people deny me the right to have my opinion, my faith, my religion and my attitude! When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the ight even to exist!
    These people should be well aware that when living according to the book we know as the bible, obviously being the guide to and of their existence, that same book tells us to live to the principle an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, and a life for a life…….. There will be a certain time and moment that I (and I do not speak for other people) will no longer accept being humiliated by individuals who claim to be speaking on behalf of someone divine and therefore are trying to kill me!
    When I follow that book I have the right to prevent being killed or to be harassed by individuals who claim I am doing wrong in the eye of their so-called higher power!
    In general I feel that those who consider themselves better then other people (because of skin, orientation, background, heritage or whatever) are the lowest of the lowest, and attempts should be made to prevent these people to be procreating, or even to exist in our communities!
    My opinion!

    • TheNuszAbides

      Davis may be taking substantial risk, but what do the robes he’s been given represent? Tease out all the implications and you have the “why”. he’s not preaching that everybody has to follow his lead or anything, either. but the results are relatively indisputable.

      prevent these people to be procreating

      so, turnabout is fair play? that’s a damn sight heavier than mere opinion. at least Davis is fighting fire with water.

    • Ameribear

      Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? And who actually supports actions and practices that are out to throw me from a high building, or slice my throat?

      Seriously? Do you really believe all Christians wish you dead? Is that what you’re saying?

      I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual and are condemned by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of their god and claim to be acting on behalf of their god, then I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!

      Do you really believe that all Christians are out there acting this way?

      When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the right even to exist!

      What leads you to believe this is actually being done by all Christians?

      In general I feel that those who consider themselves better then other people (because of skin, orientation, background, heritage or whatever) are the lowest of the lowest, and attempts should be made to prevent these people to be procreating, or even to exist in our communities!

      How would you react if someone said exactly the same thing about you?

      • Kodie

        Poor illiterate victim Ameribear. Wouldn’t those kinds of Christians be the ones whose minds some people might be most interested in trying to change? Can you read, because I didn’t see masteradrian condemn all Christians, but you, you putrid, self-centered fuck, can’t help but make it about you.

        And by the way, you are an asshole, this has been determined by your stupidity and hatefulness, that you are the kind of Christian who thinks everything would be much better if we were all close-minded bigots like you. Why would anyone want to sit and try to have a reasonable conversation with your kind?

        • Ameribear

          Poor illiterate victim Ameribear. Wouldn’t those kinds of Christians be the ones whose minds some people might be most interested in trying to change?

          Poor brainwashed victim Kodie. No cupcake, it would be your kind of atheist that so clearly demonstrates that you can’t think for yourself because you’ve so eagerly lapped up the BS atheist narrative you’ve been fed about Christians. It would also be your kind of atheist that by constantly repeating the aforementioned narrative clearly demonstrate that you really aren’t interested in actually talking to Christians because what you just said reveals that you haven’t ever done so. It would also be your kind of atheist that so robustly demonstrates that atheism is utter BS because it turns people into your kind of atheist.

          And by the way, you are an asshole, this has been determined by your stupidity and hatefulness, that you are the kind of Christian who thinks everything would be much better if we were all close-minded bigots like you.

          And by the way you are the kind of atheist who is so full of yourself you’ll never realize you’ve just shown the world what a jaw dropping hypocrite you are.

          Why would anyone want to sit and try to have a reasonable conversation with your kind?

          Learn how to have a reasonable conversation and maybe you’ll find out.

        • Susan

          Poor brainwashed Kodie.

          You’ll have to demonstrate that Kodie is brainwashed. As far as I can tell, Kodie just exists outside of the cult you take for granted. You can’t show a distinction of any merit between your cult, islam, mormonism, alliens abducted me types or Elvis lives types.

          by the way you are the kind of atheist who is so full of yourself you’ll never realize you’ve just shown the world what a jaw dropping hypocrite you are.

          Sproing!

          You can’t follow through on A/T metaphysics. You abandoned the conversation when you realized that you can’t. You can’t show any knowlege of biology or personhood. You are the brainwashed person who just reiterates talking points that you haven’t questioned.

          Learn how to have a reasonable conversation and maybe you’ll find out.

          I would ask you what you consider a reasonable conversation and you would accuse me of being brainwashed for asking. Without demonstrating that I am.

          You make claims and when those claims are reasonably scrutinized, panic and accuse people of being brainwashed if they don’t accept them.

          You’ve NEVER supported a single claim.

          Never.

          Meh.

        • Pofarmer

          Meh, indeed.

      • Greg G.

        Seriously? Do you really believe all Christians wish you dead? Is that what you’re saying?

        Do you really believe that all Christians are out there acting this way?

        What leads you to believe this is actually being done by all Christians?

        There you go, straw-manning again. He did not say all Christians. There are too many Christians who would kill him as others in his situation have been killed by people because of religion.

        How would you react if someone said exactly the same thing about you?

        He probably wouldn’t try to kill the person while quoting a Bible verse. It doesn’t have to be all Christians, just a few bad eggs, thinking they are doing God’s work.

        • Ameribear

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead. I invite Masteradrian to clarify that himself and until he does your putting words in his mouth.

          There are too many Christians who would kill him as others in his situation have been killed by people because of religion.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian. Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

        • Susan

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          I think you mean “implying” and no, not necessarily. I don’t know. He’s new here (to me). But he didn’t say “someone christian”. He said “someone christian who wishes me dead”.

          That many christians across the world (and throughout history) wished homosexuals dead is basic. That they wished it based on religious belief is basic. That they carried it out is basic.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          They are if they say they are. It’s all made up. So, you can “infer” almost anything you’d like when you claim a deity backs you up.

          what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) strawmanning

          No. Real humans who claim they’re christians support violence, sometimes to the point of death, of homosexuals.

          and b) a hypocrite

          Nope.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I think you mean “implying”

          ugh. ‘bear has already proven itself incredibly dim on nuance, but i didn’t think it had that deep a vocabulary problem.
          i started out merely being fussy about infer/imply, but after a few years in the wider atheosphere i’ve noticed that confusion/conflation of them can be quite a marker for far more significant obliviousnesses.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          Oh fer fuck sake…not more of your nonsense. It’s inferring nothing of the sort. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Masteradrian actually does sit down with Christian’s, just not bigoted ones that abhor his lifestyle and sexuality to the point of open persecution. So no, not any Christian he sits down with at all.

          I invite Masteradrian to clarify that himself ..

          Yeah, we can do that. But until he does, it is a reasonable position to assume he isn’t as daft as you are and is asserting all Christians, a word only you have used in your straw man characterisation. Furthermore, the most charitable interpretation of his comments is not the one you, a Christian, is affording him.

          …and until he does your putting words in his mouth.

          Spoooing!….the only words being put into his mouth are by you, ya feckin’ idiot.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          Ah, the NTS…how typical. And you get to say this because? In the meantime…history is replete with fuckwit Christians wanting homosexuals put to death, you Catholics were at the forefront of it too…

          In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans decreed the death penalty for any male who “marries [a man] as a woman… [a situation in which] gender has lost its place”. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males “acting the part of a woman”, condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.

          ….

          “Go away! We know who you are. We don’t want you in our country. If we see you, we’ll burn you to death.” Melanie Kiwagama reads out the text messages she received last year, after Uganda’s notorious anti-homosexuality bill came into effect. Since then, she says the flow of threats towards her and her partner have been constant.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html

          Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

          You don’t half come off with some asinine ballix.

        • Ameribear

          Your NTS fallacy is BS and I would expect nothing less from our favorite paid propagandist hack than bringing up crap that occurred hundreds of years ago as if it still mattered today. Your tactics are so predictable and so feckless.

        • Greg G.

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “

          The phrase “someone christian who wishes me dead” is a subset of all Christians. He made a qualified statement. If I say I hate all green apples, that does not mean I hate all apples or red apples.

          That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          He isn’t “inferring” nor is he implying. You are making a biased inference as you typically do.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          Some Christians read the Bible.

          Leviticus 20:13 (NAS)
          ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

          Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

          You apparently don’t know the meaning of either word you use. There are radical Christians. Here are some headlines from one incident:

          Westboro Baptist Church says, ‘God sent the Orlando shooter’ in hate-filled anti-gay rant

          Tempe Pastor Hails Orlando Massacre for Leaving ’50 Less Pedophiles in This World’

          New York preacher: Gays are a bigger threat to America than ISIS

          Pastor: Orlando Was ‘God’s Wrath’ On Gays

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christian-extremists-orlando-shooting_us_576ad4f7e4b0c0252e7805ba

        • Ameribear

          There are radical Christians.

          There are radicals who call themselves Christians. The WBC is a crackpot cult. They and anyone else who goes around spouting that kind of vitriol to their flock is in serious trouble.

          MT 7:19-21. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruit you shall recognize them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

        • Greg G.

          The WBC says the same things about Catholics and they can point to scripture to support their views.

          The word “Christian” is what people arbitrarily call themselves. It is not like there is some teleological meaning to it. The significance is mostly pretending.

        • Ameribear

          The WBC says the same things about Catholics and they can point to scripture to support their views.

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses
          the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          The word “Christian” is what people arbitrarily call themselves. It is not like there is some teleological meaning to it. The significance is mostly pretending.

          That’s true only in atheist circles. Christ warns us numerous times that following him is going to come at a cost and those who are unwilling to accept that aren’t fit to be His disciples.

        • Greg G.

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses
          the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          Will you abandon your position on when life begins or will you ignore Leviticus 17:11?

          The WBC is of the sola scriptura school of thought and they think the reliance on tradition and the words of church fathers by the Catholic Church is ignoring the Bible.

          That’s true only in atheist circles. Christ warns us numerous times that following him is going to come at a cost and those who are unwilling to accept that aren’t fit to be His disciples.

          Christians of all stripes make those same claims. They are just as certain as you are that they are Jesus’ favorite disciples. You all look silly pointing at others as being the ones who are wrong.

        • Ameribear

          Will you abandon your position on when life begins or will you ignore Leviticus 17:11?

          I will never abandon my position on when life begins and Leviticus 17:11 does nothing to disprove it. This is another colossal fail on
          your part.

          The WBC is of the sola scriptura school of thought and they think the reliance on tradition and the words of church fathers by the Catholic Church is ignoring the Bible.

          Doesn’t matter because history and scripture refutes sola scriptura and supports Sacred Tradition. The church existed and thrived for 300 some years before the bible was even compiled. Sola scriptura contradicts the bible so it’s heresy.

          Christians of all stripes make those same claims. They are just as certain as you are that they are Jesus’ favorite disciples. You all look silly pointing at others as being the ones who are wrong.

          Another completely missed point or a stupendously weak attempt
          at a diversion. It doesn’t matter who is striving to draw closer to Christ. Christ made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that those following him had better be prepared to produce what he requires because ultimately getting into heaven is contingent on it. What one believes and how one acts has everything to do with being a Christian so the NTS fallacy does not apply.

        • Kodie

          They aren’t fake believers, you dipshit. If they believe something different than you believe is the “truth”, they believe it because they were sold the same way you were, and believe it as sincerely as you do, that what they believe is the truth, the true Christianity, and that they will be saved by Jesus Christ and you won’t. I don’t care, I really don’t give a shit what Christians think the bible says about that. We’re operating from a self-reporting perspective. They call themselves Christians because they feel themselves to be so, sincerely. You are not operating from any different perspective whether they are true Christians or not, you pretend to know for god, but that’s not even the subject here. It’s about using the bible to interpret whatever one believes to be the words god means to communicate to them, and sincerely so. Whether or not it is true? None of it is fucking true. God doesn’t have any part in this whatsoever.

        • Greg G.

          Here is a Christian who mostly agrees with you except for the part about the Catholics being correct.

          http://disq.us/p/1mnv9tf

        • Ameribear

          The only problem is that anyone who subscribes to any specific interpretation of scripture makes themselves a denomination. There’s
          no such thing as non-denominational.

        • Greg G.

          If John’s Jesus wasn’t the biggest prayer failure of all-time, there would not be different interpretations.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          For that to not be a prayer fail, Christians would have to agree so much that it would impress the rest of the world into believing. That has never happened. Paul had disagreements over circumcision with the “circumcision faction” even before his letters were collected.

        • Ameribear

          That prayer was said right after the last supper which was when Christ instituted the Eucharist, one of others He instituted before His ascension. That prayer was one act in the founding of the only Church that can legitimately claim Christ as it’s founder and is still unified to this day.

        • Greg G.

          Then why isn’t the rest of the world so impressed that they join it? That is part of the failure. The prayer is an obvious failure.

          It cannot be the Catholic Church. It was supposed to bring unity by impressing everybody but it used wars and inquisitions instead. Martin Luther was right to call them out for their hypocrisies. Did the Catholic Church ever refund the money they collected for indulgences?

        • Ameribear

          Then why isn’t the rest of the world so impressed that they join it? That is part of the failure. The prayer is an obvious failure.

          Because the rest of the world still has free will. Christ knew there were going to be divisions (See MK 9: 38-39) and you fail to take
          into account that He could allow them for other reasons.

          It cannot be the Catholic Church. It was supposed to bring unity by impressing everybody but it used wars and inquisitions instead.

          Irrelevant. The church’s unity is still intact to this day and is not contingent on the behavior of its members.

          Martin Luther was right to call them out for their hypocrisies.

          Yes, you’re right he was. He had no right to rewrite scripture
          and declare himself to be his own authority though.

          Did the Catholic Church ever refund the money they collected for indulgences?

          Indulgences are a legitimate thing in the church and they don’t have to involve money.

        • Kodie

          Because the rest of the world still has free will. Christ knew there
          were going to be divisions (See MK 9: 38-39) and you fail to take
          into account that He could allow them for other reasons.

          This is an example of why religion snatches up the gullible – the bible is not a magic book where Jesus said original things. I mean, of course the bible is going to use tactics to gain followers like any marketing scheme. Of course one of those tactics is “some people are not going to believe this bullshit, but they are the fools!”

          Yes, you’re right he was. He had no right to rewrite scripture
          and declare himself to be his own authority though.

          I have no idea why you think anyone can’t read the bible and interpret it to serve their own purpose just like the Catholic Church has. It doesn’t make his beliefs or interpretations any less sincere than yours. Believing you have the correct interpretation doesn’t make it valid, or more valid than any other interpretation. It just speaks to how much there is going on in the bible that fools people into thinking it is the word of god for having so much stuff in it! I’m not going to say none of it resonates, but like I explained to warped Fred Knight, it was written by humans, observing many angles of human life and human interaction. It’s not going to sound like it was from Mars – people are going to pick the parts they relate to and feel in agreement with, and if they think it’s a magical book from Jesus, they’re going to build a fucking religion out of it instead of behold it as just another compilation of human thoughts and ideas, some that work, others that are outdated or specific to the region or the culture, but not magical at all. It’s like, you could take Dark Side of the Moon to be a religion because it resonates with humans of all ages, does that make Pink Floyd magical? Some people probably would argue that it is their religion, but then get into arguments with people who think Pet Sounds is way better, and some people who have never heard of either one of them, and those people need some fucking culture, right?

          Religion, including your Catholicism, is just a matter of taste. There is no call to take it dead serious at all or pretend it’s an authority and Luther was just some hack. That’s your opinion, it’s not a fact.

        • Greg G.

          Because the rest of the world still has free will.

          That cannot be the reason. For the prayer to not be a failure, the agreement between Christians has to be enough to impress the world enough to believe. That belief has to be caused by the impressive agreement of Christians, not lack of free will. The prayer is a failure. Jesus’s faith must be less than a mustard seed.

        • Ameribear

          Are you saying that the agreement has to be between a sufficient number of Christians to impress the world?

        • Greg G.

          Read the passage. All I am saying is what the prayer says. Per separate statements in verse 21 and verse 22, Christians should be as one as the Father and Jesus are one. It is stated and restated in the passage.

          We have neither agreement among Christians, that is, they are not one, nor does the world believe the Father sent Jesus. The failure of either condition means the prayer is a failure. The failure of both conditions makes the prayer a great, big failure. If God doesn’t answer Jesus’ prayers, why pray in his name? Doesn’t that tell you why you have to make so many excuses to yourself for all of your prayer failures?

        • Ameribear

          Per separate statements in verse 21 and verse 22, Christians should be as one as the Father and Jesus are one. It is stated and restated in the passage.

          You mistakenly believe that Christ is praying for all Christians at that moment and He is not. He is specifically praying for the apostles present with Him at that moment. Read verse 12. Those apostles were the original recipients of His authority and the moment He was praying for them was the beginning of a series of events that culminate on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. You’re also ignoring the context of this prayer which took place immediately after the last supper which was a Jewish Seder meal where Christ instituted the first Eucharist. You are tearing a couple of scripture passages out of the context of a pivotal series of very important events that established the first Christian church. This was the birthday of the Catholic Church which is still present today, still unified and still stands as proof that the prayers and promises Christ made regarding her clearly did not fail.

          Doesn’t that tell you why you have to make so many excuses to yourself for all of your prayer failures?

          How do you know which prayers fail and which don’t? If you conclude that prayers you may have prayed in the past that were not granted exactly as you made them failed, then you are the one who has failed, not God.

        • Susan

          How do you know which prayers fail and which don’t?

          The claims, on their surface, don’t bear out. If you define “prayer” to be unverifiable, then you might as well be reading tarot cards.

          You mistakenly believe that Christ is praying for all christians.

          It’s a story, Ameribear. You can claim authority over the story all you’d like. You can’t show it. No reason to call an itinerant preacher “Christ” and assume that you know what he meant.

          It’s as convincing as someone claiming they understand the real significance of the Moon being in the 7th house.

          Provide something better than bluster about castles on clouds.

          And personal attacks when that bluster is questioned.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I heard a remark on the telly last night in reference to Trump fuckwittery on praying for the victims of Las Vegas and his attitude to weapons control…the claim is…

          “Guns don’t kill people, people do”

          …the reply….

          “prayers don’t help people, people do”

          That fuckwit Trump also implied that it is the mentally ill that is the problem. When they get their hands on weapons there is not much one can do about it.

          When Mr Trump was asked if the shooting was an act of domestic terrorism he replied: “He was a sick man, a demented man.”

          “Lots of problems, I guess, and we’re looking into him very, very seriously, but we’re dealing with a very, very sick individual,” he said.”

          This is the same arsehole that the NRA spent over $30 million to get elected and who revoked plans to make it harder for very, very sick individuals, to get their hands on weapons.

          “DONALD Trump revoked plans that made it harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns just seven months before the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it has been revealed.

          The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year.”

          Not that there is any evidence implying that Paddock was mentally unstable…apart from the fact that only a lunatic would do such a vile thing.

          *BTW, those that know, guns are artillery pieces.

        • Greg G.

          “DONALD Trump revoked plans that made it harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns just seven months before the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it has been revealed.

          The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year.”

          Trump also wants to roll back access to mental health care.

        • Pofarmer

          I’d just like to note that if the Catholic Church were unified, there wouldn’t be an Orthodox Church, or a protestant Church. Was “You will know them by their dishonesty” ever used in a parable?

        • Greg G.

          You mistakenly believe that
          Christ is praying for all Christians at that moment and He is not. He
          is specifically praying for the apostles present with Him at that
          moment. Read verse 12.

          I am not the one who is mistaken about who the prayer is for. Haven’t you read the passage? Verse 20 explicitly says it is not just those present but also those who come to believe on their word. I have explained to you that for the prayer to not be a failure:

          1. All Christians must be “as one”.
          2. The rest of the world must believe because of all Christians being “as one”.

          You have neither so it’s a failure. You can’t even read it correctly. Is that how you read the whole Bible? Just making up what you want it to say? Even if you had been correct, the prayer was a failure because the whole world didn’t believe at any point because of it.

          Other Christians should be as one knowing you are a failure.

        • Ameribear

          Verse 20 explicitly says it is not just those present but also those who come to believe on their word.

          All those who came to believe on THIER word would have been instructed and united to the only Christian church that existed at the time which was and still is Catholic. All those who today still come to believe on THIER word are still being instructed and united to the SAME CHURCH BY THE SAME WORDS that were used two centuries ago AND ARE STILL ONE TO THIS DAY! Christians who come to believe on the basis of all the protestant heretics out there are the ones who by their own ignorance or pride or both have NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THIER WORD so are still separated. The prayer didn’t fail, you did.

          Is that how you read the whole Bible? Just making up what you want it to say?

          I can’t read it correctly? You gotta be joking! You are tearing a tiny fraction of scripture out of context of much bigger picture. You are also failing to use all the other guides Catholics have been given for over two thousand years to correctly interpret scripture. You are also failing to recognize that it was the Catholic church that gave us the bible to begin with so I’m sure as hell not going to believe what some 21st century half-assed atheist BS artist says he thinks the bible is saying. The evidence that you’re dead wrong stares you and the rest of the world in the face every day but your either to brainwashed or dimwitted (or both) to acknowledge it. No, it’s you that can’t read it correctly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          All those who came to believe on THIER word would have been instructed and united to the only Christian church that existed at the time which was and still is Catholic.

          Demonstrating either your ignorance or stupidity. Either you don’t know what you are talking about, making you ignorant, or you know you are talking shite, which means you are being stupid….and lying. There was never one Christian sect that can be verified.

          What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison.

          Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be written by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed they had been forged.

          This book is about these texts and the lost forms of Christianity they tried to authorize. Bart Ehrman,”Lost Christianities”, Introduction, pp. 2-3.

          All those who today still come to believe on THIER word are still being instructed and united to the SAME CHURCH BY THE SAME WORDS that were used two centuries ago AND ARE STILL ONE TO THIS DAY!

          Two centuries ago?

          Wise up and learn something.

          Christians who come to believe on the basis of all the protestant heretics out there are the ones who by their own ignorance or pride or both have NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THIER WORD so are still separated. The prayer didn’t fail, you did.

          Just as many others would’ve said about those who held orthodox beliefs during the first, second, and third centuries…it took the power of an emperor under the influence of the African Christian teacher and apologist, one Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, in order for one group out of the plethora of competing Christianites to gain control. But even then there was never one Christianity.

          You are also failing to use all the other guides Catholics have been given for over two thousand years to correctly interpret scripture.

          Math is not your strong point, is it? Try doing some sums. Which scripture are you talking about? What other guidelines did the proto-orthodox use…no Catholics back then a have to inform you.

          You are also failing to recognize that it was the Catholic church that gave us the bible to begin with…

          Which buybull?

          Technically, it was the Reformation that gave us the Catholic buybull and that didn’t happen until the 16th century. Look up the Council of Trent.

          …so I’m sure as hell not going to believe what some 21st century half-assed atheist BS artist says he thinks the bible is saying.

          That’s the problem with the buybull. It is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that it makes everyone a bullshit artist in the end. Catholics are the biggest bullshit artist of the lot of us. The fucking stupid book wasn’t available to everyone for starters. Folk just had to soak up the bullshit that all those Catholic clerical bullshit artists pumped out. I think you are jealous that Greg knows more about your bullshit buybull than you do.

          Btw, “21st century half-assed atheist BS artist” is an ad hominem fallacy you stupid clown. And Greg wasn’t always an atheist. It was learning the contents of the buybull that was somewhat instrumental in abandoning his faith afaicr.

          The evidence that you’re dead wrong stares you and the rest of the world in the face every day but your either to brainwashed or dimwitted (or both) to acknowledge it. No, it’s you that can’t read it correctly.

          Spoiiiing!

          The irony meters are exploding on this forum like they are going out of fashion ffs.

          When are you going to dispense with the No True Scotsman fallacious arguments, that’s what I wanna know? It is mindwankery of the highest order. Catholicism was not the first Christianity.

          Catholicism grew out of Pauline Christianity. Paul himself related to the problems of divisions in the faith. First Corinthian’s 1:10-12.

          I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas (Peter)”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

          Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

          Paul’s advice failed miserably…as did the prophecy put into the mouth of Jesus by the gospel writers. You really need to brush up on current scholarship in these areas, it seems to me that you have been sold a pup.

        • Greg G.

          Ha ha ha! Even with your twisted reading, Judas Iscariot didn’t believe so the prayer was a failure. The whole world was not impressed and the whole world never believed. You have not shown the least bit of success but your brainwashing won’t let you think through your stupid apologetics. It’s like you are trying to make Jesus the second greatest failure of all time.

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          Oh, wait! You are using all caps… I guess that convinces me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          It never even got started.

          Judas Iscariot gets all the bad press, but he was the hero of the day in the yarn.

          Have you read Ehrman’s, “The Lost Gospel of Judas”….or even listened to it, as my copy is on audio book?

          Here’s a lecture on it…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIXwSjyxe88

        • Ameribear

          Ha ha ha! Even with your twisted reading, Judas Iscariot didn’t believe so the prayer was a failure.

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank. Damn are you dense.

          The whole world was not impressed and the whole world never believed….It’s like you are trying to make Jesus the second greatest failure of all time.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture. Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron. It didn’t disappear after the first schism. You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank.

          What? Before being ordained?

          And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, ~Mark 3:14

          It was my understanding that the 12 were ordained at the Last Supper…and at least one well placed Roman Catholic agrees with me.

          https://gerardnadal.com/2012/03/19/were-the-apostles-the-first-deacons/

          Judas died by hanging?

          Did he now?

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/judas.html

          Or maybe Papias had the correct manner of death?

          http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/07/28/papias-on-judas-iscariot-as-reported-by-apollinaris-of-laodicea/

          Or maybe Judas was just a fictional character in a book as a literary device.

          How can anybody know? Paul knew fuck all about a Judas Iscariot.

          Damn are you dense.

          Yeah…you really are.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture.

          Says the man that thinks the 12…sorry, 11…got ordained after Judas, ahem, hung himself…ya plank.

          Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          What is it with you dumb as fuck christers and dumb as fuck analogies?

        • Ameribear

          It was my understanding that the 12 were ordained at the Last Supper…and at least one well placed Roman Catholic agrees with me.

          You fail to take into account John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 neither one of which Judas was present for. The Apostles ordinations took place in stages (just like they do today) and culminated at Pentecost.

        • Greg G.

          They were all sanctified three verses before the prayer failure:

          John 17:17-19 (NRSV)17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

          I guess the sanctification didn’t take, which is another prayer failure, but not as great of a failure as the next four verses.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You fail to take into account John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 neither one of which Judas was present for.

          Nope…irrelevent.

          You are failing to take into account First Corinthians 15:5 & 7…

          And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

          After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

          Now I have no problem with Paul’s version of the “appearances” being visions, but you then you can’t eat yer cake and have too.

          The Apostles ordinations took place in stages (just like they do today) and culminated at Pentecost.

          Even if you could demonstrate that was the case, why was the Lord’s Supper not the culmination of the process? You have to ignore what the first gospel writer makes plain in order to contort your square apologetic peg into a round hole.

          You see, by your logic we can definitively say only a couple of apostles were “officially” ordained, because only a few of them are mentioned by name who seen Jesus post resurrection.

          The Bible says that Jesus made a number of appearances after His death. They were to a number of different people over a forty-day period. The Bible specifically says that on Easter Sunday Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the women that came to Jesus tomb (Mary the Mother of James, Salome, and Joanna), Peter, and two disciples on the Emmaus road. He also appeared to the remainder of the Twelve Disciples with Thomas absent. Later he appeared to them with Thomas present. There was also an appearance to seven disciples on the Sea of Galilee. On another occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at the same time. There is also an appearance to James. Finally Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus – the man who became the Apostle Paul.

          The whole yarn is so ambiguous that any amount of nonsense can be pulled out of it. When is Judas alleged to have died…vague…was it after the crucifixion…well after, according to the early Christian patriarch Papias.

        • Ameribear

          Even if you could demonstrate that was the case, why was the Lord’s Supper not the culmination of the process?

          Because there are two more instances of the imposition of the Holy Spirit that happened after the last supper took place. Duh!

          You see, by your logic we can definitively say only a couple of apostles were “officially” ordained, because only a few of them are mentioned by name who seen Jesus post resurrection.

          No, that’s by your logic. Your attempting to make a false connection between the ones Jesus ordained and the ones that are named.

          You don’t get it. You are attempting to impose own your personal interpretation of scripture which is complete BS. Your doing exactly what you criticize all the other denominations of doing and you don’t even realize it. You have no idea what a colossal ass you make of yourself by actually believing that all Christians get the bible wrong so it’s got to be up to the atheists to set them straight and then insulting our intelligence in the process.

          No, I don’t have to listen to a dumb-ass hypocrite who gets paid to copy and paste atheist BS. Your personal interpretation of scripture is worthless, the mountains of crap you post here have more errors in it than I can count and I don’t have the time and energy to refute it all. Thank you once again for demonstrating that atheism is a pathetic joke.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus is still the greatest prayer failure of all time. You haven’t addressed that. All you do is point at squirrels.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because there are two more instances of the imposition of the Holy Spirit that happened after the last supper took place.

          Well, even if ya are such a dumb cunt that you believe every bit of bullshit in the buybull, The Acts, seriously, so fucking what?

          The “imposition” for ordination is a later doctrine.

          Duh!

          Let’s see if you can be hoist by yer own petard?

          Rather than pull made up bullshit from my arse, I’ll stick with what the texts say…Mark 3…

          13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. 14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15 and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 and Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphæus, and Thaddæus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

          But let’s see what real Roman Catholics believe….not ignorant imbeciles like you…

          The answer, according to the Council of Trent, lies in Jesus’ command, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The Council fathers declare:

          Council of Trent, session 22, ch. 1

          Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,–that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,–declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.

          Why? Here’s the explanation given by Catholic Answers…

          Did Jesus Make the Apostles Priests at the Last Supper?

          https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-jesus-make-the-apostles-priests-at-the-last-supper

          According to your beloved Church, you are anathema…ohhhhps, a bet ya didn’t see that coming ya stupid fuckwit?

          You don’t get it. You are attempting to impose own your personal interpretation of scripture which is complete BS.

          Haaaa haaaa haaaa….am pishing myself laughing here…two armadillo’s…ya fucking Dime Bar.

          The irony is rank.

          Your doing exactly what you criticize all the other denominations of doing and you don’t even realize it.

          I’m playing devil’s advocate ya stupid Coco…as far as I’m concerned…it’s all made up bullshit in order to sell snake oil to gullible knuckle dragger’s like you.

          You have no idea what a colossal ass you make of yourself by actually believing that all Christians get the bible wrong so it’s got to be up to the atheists to set them straight and then insulting our intelligence in the process.

          Ameribear, history is cluttered to fuck with Christians interpreting their religious texts in contradictory ways, even within the denominations. So if some can be wrong, which they must be by definition, then they can all be wrong. Atheists are merely trying to point out this fuckwittery. It’s pretty hard to insult an intelligence not on display. I’ll leave it to those looking on to decide who it is that is making the colossal ass of themselves…you are in no position to make that judgement.

          No, I don’t have to listen to a dumb-ass hypocrite who gets paid to copy and paste atheist BS.

          Ah…yes…the strawman fallacious method of argumentation.

          Yet, here you are, “listening”, so whose the dumb-ass? Demonstrate hypocrisy, or shut ta fuck up. Demonstrate that someone you don’t have to “listen” to, is getting paid to copy & paste atheist BS, or shut ta fuck up. Demonstrate that what you are being provided here, is indeed atheist and/or bullshit, or shut ta fuck up.

          Your personal interpretation of scripture is worthless,…

          Not once have I expressed a personal interpretation of scripture, you’ve been doing that as far as I can determine. I take the interpretation I post from your fellow believers, or scholars in the field. If it doesn’t gen with your personal interpretation…take it up with them.

          …the mountains of crap you post here have more errors in it than I can count and I don’t have the time and energy to refute it all.

          And yet, in the few that you attempt to refute, you fail miserably. What is one to deduce from your complete and utter failure to refute anything? That you are a gullible ignorant dolt that thinks he knows more than actually does and can’t even do the basic due diligence before spewing shite? Yeah, we do.

          Thank you once again for demonstrating that atheism is a pathetic joke.

          Au contraire, thank YOU once again for demonstrating what pathetic joke that defenders of religion that come onto places like this turn out to be. Believers with a wee bit of sense steer clear, because getting a new arse tore at every hands turn gets painful after a time and they have the gumption to realise their nonsense is indefensible.

          On this occasion, you have shown that you are ignorant of the teachings of your own cult. That even on this issue there is no agreement, ergo, no unity…you have been right royally pwned. Try again.

        • Ameribear

          No kidding He intended to make them priests, show me where I denied that. Your presuming the ordination was completed at the last supper and you haven’t proven that. You missed my point again. If ordination was a one time event then why did Christ ordain them on the mountain, then at the last supper, then in the upper room and then again in Acts chapter 2? All the time and effort you spent copying and pasting this mound of manure and you still haven’t answered the question of why there are so many instances of ordinations taking place including the two that took place after the resurrection.

          On this occasion, you have shown that you are ignorant of the teachings of your own cult.

          On this occasion you’ve show that you are an aptly named lying sack of crap.

        • Kodie

          Everyone interprets the bible. You have your personal interpretation of it, but you bought the idea from the Catholic Church that their interpretation is the only correct one. That doesn’t set you or your beliefs apart from other denominations. It’s a popular book and a popular religion because the way you can read it is so malleable. You can make it mean anything and support any belief, and you all get to go to heaven, according to all Christians. Nobody thinks they’re believing the wrong way.

        • Pofarmer

          The whole yarn is so ambiguous that any amount of nonsense can be pulled out of it.

          Welcome to Catholic Theology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Something Ameribear is not grasping…either through ignorance, stupidity, or both…I’m opting for the later, given the evidence on display here.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m going with Catholic brainwashing, combined with Dunning Krueger. Let’s face it, the great thinkers aren’t in the Catholic Church any more.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That prognosis fits the evidence well also.

        • Pofarmer

          Hey, do you have that link for the late dating of the Gospels handy?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry Po…Disqus is not playing ball, so I’m getting notifications as old as a few days at the same time I’m getting one a few hours.

          Is it this one ya mean?

          http://commonpaine.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/dating-gospels.html

        • Pofarmer

          Yep. That’s it. Thanks!

        • Ignorant Amos

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron.

          But it wasn’t there from the get go, it was never united, and it is not united today ya moron.

          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Schisms

          And there is the risk of more schisming…

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/30/catholic-church-schism-pope-francis-liberal-conservative

          It didn’t disappear after the first schism.

          But it isn’t a unified Church ya fucking doughball. Do you know what schism means?

          schism:- a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.

          You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

          Spoooiiiinnnng!

        • Ameribear

          But it wasn’t there from the get go, it was never united, and it is not united today ya moron.

          Yes it is ya moron. The Catholic church is still unified under one Pope with one teaching authority and is the only one that can legitimately trace it’s practices and teachings back to the time of Christ. It’s also the only one that can prove Christs promise that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” is true.

          And there is the risk of more schisming…

          First of all that article you linked to gets so much wrong it makes my teeth hurt which is what I’ve learned to expect from our resident propaganda minister. Secondly it doesn’t matter how many schisms occurred because no schism throughout history has ever done away with the original church.

          But it isn’t a unified Church ya fucking doughball.

          Yes it is meathead. There’s still only one Catholic church.

        • Kodie

          You have still never answered any of my posts that explain to you how other Christians who are not Catholic are nevertheless “true Christians” by the fact that they sincerely believe an interpretation of the bible and the salvation of Jesus Christ. You can keep repeating your dumb self about how they are not really Christians according to your personal Catholic beliefs, but you don’t have an explanation why they are just as brainwashed as you are with a different flavor of Christianity than you are, and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon either. I thought the original idea was that the world was supposed to be so impressed with the unity of the Catholic Church they couldn’t believe anything else, but you have yet to explain it, you only make excuses for how your church didn’t dissolve into nothing (yet), and pretend over and over that those other Christians aren’t really Christians, and whatever the other people all over the world who failed to be impressed to this day with Catholicism.

          None of this shit is sinking in for you yet.

        • Ameribear

          You have still never answered any of my posts that explain to you how other Christians who are not Catholic are nevertheless “true Christians” by the fact that they sincerely believe an interpretation of the bible and the salvation of Jesus Christ.

          Becoming a Christian is not a one time event. It is a lifelong process that requires believing and practicing everything Christ and His apostles taught. There are dozens of times in the bible that Christ made it very clear who the true Christians are and aren’t.

          You can keep repeating your dumb self about how they are not really Christians according to your personal Catholic beliefs…

          And you can keep displaying you acute ineptitude involving anything having to do with Christianity which is the main reason I’ve been ignoring your posts.

          I thought the original idea was that the world was supposed to be so impressed with the unity of the Catholic Church they couldn’t believe anything else,

          No Tinkerbell, you aren’t thinking. You’re repeating BS atheist talking points just like you always do. None of this is sinking in for you yet.

        • Kodie

          No, it just went over your head again. How can people believe they are true Christians but you don’t understand that? They are as Christian as you, not by the way they follow, but in the sincerity of their beliefs. I don’t care who you judge to be a true Christian, or even if there were a god, who he decides is a true Christian. Anyone who has fallen for any of the garbage in the bible, no matter which brand of cult they belong to, considers their interpretation correct, and can find dozens of times in the bible where Christ makes it very clear to them that they are the true Christians and you’re not.

          You keep avoiding this! Answer it!

          And B, you are settling for a mediocre outcome and making excuses. I know that’s what all Christians have to do in order to maintain their beliefs. The Catholic Church didn’t wow everyone, and in fact, many are disgusted by their “true” interpretation of the bible, especially making up shit like saints, stealing infants, raping children, and harboring criminal rapists. The “true” interpretation led to this. Believing that you act in righteousness leads all in any religion to perpetrate awfulness. Trying to please god, a fictional character, leads all people in any religion to justify violence and cruelty. Hiding behind god when someone accuses you, pretending well god said I’m better than you, look the bible says I’m living correctly because I believe this version of the horseshit. You’re not better than me. I’ve seen the things you write, how up your own ass you are, how hateful you are, how ugly you are on the inside, poisoned by your religion.

          You’re not responding to me because you can’t. I don’t think you’re smart or sensitive enough to be avoiding me because you realized all you had to offer was bullshit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes it is ya moron. The Catholic church is still unified under one Pope with one teaching authority and is the only one that can legitimately trace it’s practices and teachings back to the time of Christ. It’s also the only one that can prove Christs promise that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” is true.

          I know you believe that pup you’ve been sold, but it is unfortunate that the evidence just doesn’t support your nonsense. So bang the drum as load as ya like, it is just gonna make the same noise ad nauseam. Be a god boy, go do some research and learn something.

          First of all that article you linked to gets so much wrong it makes my teeth hurt…

          That might well be true, but since you don’t demonstrate your assertion with support, I can ignore it as nonsense, so pah!

          …which is what I’ve learned to expect from our resident propaganda minister.

          Seriously? You are a funny guy. I’m not so sure you know how propaganda works, or what the word even means.

          Because Christianity has never pushed propaganda, and of all the Christian propaganda bullshit artists, the Catholic Church is not the worst offender, historically? //s

          Oh, wait a wee minute….what’s that? It means a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. Ya don’t say?

          Propaganda is a modern Latin word, the gerundive form of propagare, meaning to spread or to propagate, thus propaganda means that which is to be propagated. Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic church (congregation) created in 1622, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its activity was aimed at “propagating” the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries.

          Wise ta fuck up Ameribear and go take your head for a shite, because it is constipated.

          Secondly it doesn’t matter how many schisms occurred because no schism throughout history has ever done away with the original church.

          Try reading for comprehension Ameribear, ffs.

          In the first place, the Roman Catholic Church was not the original Church, that is the propaganda you’ve sucked out of the tit you imbibe from. Insisting that it is in the face of the scholarship is just embarrassing yourself.

          Secondly, those that schismed claim they are the original Church of Jesus and what you believe is not. That’s why a schism happens ya ignorant fuckwit. You can’t demonstrate why they are wrong, because just like all the rest of their nonsense, you lot make it up as you go along too.

          The argument here is whether the Christian faith is united as per the prayer in John. No it’s not.

          You tried to pass it off as a prayer for the apostles alone…but your reading comprehension and apologetics are so contorted and fucked up, nobody can take you seriously anymore. Verses 1-19 do focus on the apostles. But then the prayer fucks you right up the arse and you need all the excuses.

          Jesus Prays for All Believers

          20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:6-26

          Now, in your mindwankery you are hinging on the premise that the word “THEIR” saves yer arse. That the only believers the “all” refers to is the believers who were preached to by the disciples. It doesn’t, because straight away the Christology of the different “apostles” diversify. But even then, we are using the modern canon. There were many texts used as scripture during the first few centuries…supposedly, with apostolic authority. The Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter were used as scripture at least until the 6th century, even though they where proscribed as heretical by Serapion and known to be pseudepigraphal. Like many other texts used as scripture in the early century,including those that are in the NT.

          It is clear that there were conflicting Christianities from the get-go. The orthodox version cobbled together in the fourth century was not one of them. Talk about buying into the propaganda…stupid is, as stupid does.

          The Diversity of Early Christianity

          From the beginning, early Christians struggled to define for themselves the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his message.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

          ETA sarcasm icon…//s…just in case.

        • Greg G.

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank. Damn are you dense.

          You are grasping at straws. That happened after Jesus was arrested and only in Matthew. The prayer was a failure from the beginning because of Judas Iscariot. Ordainment is irrelevant.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture. Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          I thought maybe the Bible had changed in the last two days but, no, verse 21 still says, “so that the world may believe that you have sent me” and verse 23 still says, “so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” You can’t read so it is no wonder that you are having so much trouble with Bible interpretation.

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron. It didn’t disappear after the first schism. You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

          Which one is the Catholic Church? There have been many splits with each side believing they had the correct superstitions. All or them have changed over the centuries with the invention of “progressive revelation”. Adopting Augustine and Aquinas superstitions have dispelled many of the old superstitions.

        • Ameribear

          You are grasping at straws. That happened after Jesus was arrested and only in Matthew.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          You can’t read so it is no wonder that you are having so much trouble with Bible interpretation.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          Which one is the Catholic Church? There have been many splits with each side believing they had the correct superstitions.

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          Adopting Augustine and Aquinas superstitions have dispelled many of the old superstitions.

          Adopting what Augustine and Aquinas taught has helped catholic doctrine develop through the centuries and has done nothing to compromise the unity of the church or undermine the magesterium.

        • Greg G.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          Jesus anticipated Judas’ betrayal in chapter 12. The prayer failure was in chapter 17. Judas Iscariot asked Jesus a question in John 14:22, then Jesus talks almost continuously, taking only a few questions from the disciples until the end of chapter 17, which ends three verses after the prayer failure. Then Jesus crossed the creek to go to the garden while Judas then goes to get the soldiers and officers. So Judas was there when Jesus spoke three and a half chapters including the prayer failure.

          So, it is a failure under your interpretation that he meant only the disciples because they all didn’t believe and under my interpretation that it means all Christians as “those who hear their word”, which seems to imply that their word does not have to be heard directly from them. I would expect a Catholic to agree with that due to apostolic succession. But no matter how that part is interpreted, the latter half fails, also, as the whole world does not believe because of their agreement.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          Really? Why do I have to point out to you what the Bible actually says?

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          The original churches were house churches that were separate entities. The Catholic Church was one Christianity of many. Any branches from a schism have the same history as your branch and would be able to claim the same history and roots. It’s kind of like how Hebrews 7 justifies the Levite priests as being part of Abraham when he tithed to Melchizedek:

          Hebrews 7:9-10
          9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

        • Ameribear

          So Judas was there when Jesus spoke three and a half chapters including the prayer failure.

          Judas was not there when Christ appeared to the apostles in the upper room which happened after the resurrection. He also wasn’t there on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.

          So, it is a failure under your interpretation that he meant only the disciples because they all didn’t believe

          No it isn’t. The apostles were in a period of preparation the entire time they followed Christ. That preparation wasn’t completed until Pentecost which was after Christ ascended and that means Judas failed to complete the preparation and missed out on two more imputations.

          and under my interpretation that it means all Christians as “those who hear their word”, which seems to imply that their word does not have to be heard directly from them. I would expect a Catholic to agree with that due to apostolic succession.

          “Their word” means starting at the original disciples and proceeding through their successors.

          But no matter how that part is interpreted, the latter half fails, also, as the whole world does not believe because of their agreement.

          This is more of your own personal interpretation which means it’s still baseless.

          Really? Why do I have to point out to you what the Bible actually says?

          You aren’t. You’re trying to tell me what you think the bible says and failing miserably at it.

          The original churches were house churches that were separate entities. The Catholic Church was one Christianity of many.

          The original church was founded by Christ himself on the authority he gave to St. Peter, the original apostles and their successors. The writings of the early church fathers show that the church in the first centuries was united in distinctly Catholic beliefs and practices that are still taught today.

          Any branches from a schism have the same history as your branch and would be able to claim the same history and roots.

          BS. Christ established His Church with Peter and his successors as it’s visible head for all time. When the others separated they broke off from apostolic succession and the Holy see. No valid priesthood, no valid sacraments, no Magesterium, no unity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          BS. Christ established His Church with Peter and his successors as it’s visible head for all time. When the others separated they broke off from apostolic succession and the Holy see. No valid priesthood, no valid sacraments, no Magesterium, no unity.

          And your fuckwittery continues.

          We know you think it is bullshit. We know you are biased on the issue. We know other flavours of Christianity believe different things and think yours is bullshit. We know those other flavours claim the right to call your flavour bullshit for various authoritative reasons including apostolic succession too. We know that apostolic succession was invented to give your flavour of the nonsense, and those others, a false authority.

          You can rattle on about this until you are blue in the face…it is the No True Scotsman fallacy epitomised. The problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claim. Apostolic succession is made up Catholic bullshit and being a Catholic, you’ve invested in the snake oil.

          One aspect of Apostolic Succession that is frequently ignored by those who trumpet it is the issue of how exactly did this succession begin? One book that discusses this issue is From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, by Francis A. Sullivan, a Catholic priest and theologian. While I have not yet finished reading this book (which I will review at a later date), it is clear to me that Sullivan rightfully believes that Apostolic Succession is something that is not readily provable in conception, and therefore must be accepted as a matter of faith. Sullivan concludes in the first chapter:

          “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today…such scholars (me: Catholics convinced that there is evidence of apostolic succession) agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles “by divine institution”.“

          https://cath2lds.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/the-problem-of-apostolic-succession/

          Here we come across yet another Roman Catholic fantasy. (Also read article on Peter). The idea of apostolic succession is built on nothing more than liberal guesswork, as a basis for persuading loyal Catholics (and others) that popes are descended spiritually from Peter. Or (forgive the jocularity), “Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it!”

          http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/heresy-and-error/1291-apostolic-succession

          The Second Vatican Council therefore affirms that apostolic succession was put in place by “divine institution”. The question is, where is this “divine institution” recorded? As Father Sullivan states in his book, “Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish”.

          https://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Bishops-Development-Episcopacy-Church/dp/0809105349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266093842&sr=8-1

          For some inexplicable reason you think your bullshit is a done deal, but even Roman Catholic clerics know it is not.

          Even the Wiki page on the subject makes a nonsense of your asinine claims.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

        • Ameribear

          The problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

          https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/as-the-father-has-sent-me-so-i-send-you

          https://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic-authority-succession/

          http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_apostolic_succession.htm

          I take the interpretation I post from your fellow believers, or scholars in the field.

          You take interpretation from the first dissident hack you come across without ever bothering to find out if it’s true because you’re a lying intellectual slug.

          For some inexplicable reason you think your bullshit is a done deal.

          For a very explicable reason I think your bullshit is a done deal. Thank you once again for demonstrating that you and atheism are pathetic jokes.

        • Greg G.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          This is still irrelevant. The prayer is still a failure in every way.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          You can bring in all irrelevant passages you can find, but the prayer is still a failure.

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          You are worshiping the church. You be you. I don’t care.

          Adopting what Augustine and Aquinas taught has helped catholic doctrine develop through the centuries and has done nothing to compromise the unity of the church or undermine the magesterium.

          If the doctrine has developed, it is not the same as it was before. The church has changed. All the different off-shoots have changed. None are the original church.

        • Ameribear

          This is still irrelevant. The prayer is still a failure in every way.

          Only in the context of your screwed up personal interpretation.

          You can bring in all irrelevant passages you can find, but the prayer is still a failure.

          Those passages were completely relevant and you failed to refute them just like you failed to refute the personhood argument. You cannot stand there and criticize all the other Christian denominations for having so many different interpretations of scripture and then turn around and try to impose your own. The moment you do, you’ve once again exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are. You interpretation carries zero authority so
          you can stick it right back where you pulled it out from.

          You are worshiping the church.

          Another one of your personal opinions I have no use for. I worship no one but Christ.

          If the doctrine has developed, it is not the same as it was before. The church has changed. All the different off-shoots have changed. None are the original church.

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Only in the context of your screwed up personal interpretation.

          Spooiiiing!…..and there goes another one.

          Those passages were completely relevant and you failed to refute them just like you failed to refute the personhood argument.

          Ballix.

          You cannot stand there and criticize all the other Christian denominations for having so many different interpretations of scripture and then turn around and try to impose your own. The moment you do, you’ve once again exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are.

          More asinine mindwankery.

          You don’t understand the concept of playing Devils Advocate, do ya?

          Greg’s personal view on this is that it is ALL a loada made up ballix, but for the sake of this particular interaction with you, he is taking a particular line for the sake of argument. In doing so, he is trying to do the impossible in trying to get you to look objectively, not through those biased Roman Catholic spectacles. He thinks it’s worth the effort, but at this stage I think he should stick to the “it’s all a loada ballix” line with you.

          You interpretation carries zero authority so you can stick it right back where you pulled it out from.

          Ohhhh noes, there goes another meter up in smoke.

          Around here, ya know, the place where you are trying to peddle your bullshit nonsense? Your interpretation carries less than zero authority, so you can stick it right back where you pulled it from. You are a cretin. Furthermore, in many other circles not non-believing, your bullshit nonsense also carries zero authority, so pah!

          Another one of your personal opinions I have no use for. I worship no one but Christ.

          Liar!

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

          Spoooiiing! Fuck sake, the irony meters are going thick and fast here. How can you be so asinine with just the one head? You have come here, made a complete prat of yerself by talking out of yer arse, and because you failed miserably, this is your reply…what Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

        • Ameribear

          In doing so, he is trying to do the impossible in trying to get you to look objectively, not through those biased Roman Catholic spectacles.

          Now it’s the meters on my side that are going up in smoke. I can think of a lot of ways to describe the lot of you but one word I would die before I used is objective. Holy crap, after the mountain of BS you posted here over the last couple of days, you’ve got to be putting me on with that one. I guess it really is true about getting the last laugh in because I’m certainly enjoying myself right now. What a gobshite!

          You have come here, made a complete prat of yerself by talking out of yer arse, and because you failed miserably, this is your reply…what a Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

          Yeah, it sure as hell looks like you did.

        • Greg G.

          The prayer is that all the world would believe. That has never happened. Therefore the prayer is a failure. The world coming to believe would have to believe because of the agreement of Christians but you are trying to parse it down to an unimpressive number of select Christians. But the point of the prayer is still a failure. The question becomes “why would someone try to defend that?”

          The answer would be that you have been brainwashed by Catholicism:

          We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.
              –Ignatius of Loyola

          That is the kind of thinking that rational people find repugnant. It makes you defend sexual abuse of children, the covering up by the hierarchy, and allowing the spread of AIDS in Africa with a campaign against condoms. You see horrible things as good because it is the Church. You see lies as truth because the Catholic Church tells you to.

          Your crap is what repels people and ensures that Jesus is a prayer failure.

        • Ameribear

          The prayer is that all the world would believe.

          https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120125.html

          “The third part of this priestly prayer extends to the end of time. In it Jesus turns to the Father in order to intercede for all those who will be brought to the faith through the mission inaugurated by the Apostles and continued in history: “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their world”. Jesus prays for the Church of all time, he also prays for us (Jn 17:20).”

          http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P9T.HTM

          “Jesus fulfilled the work of the Father completely; his prayer, like his sacrifice, extends until the end of time. the prayer of this hour fills the end-times and carries them toward their consummation.”

          The answer would be that you are an intellectual garden slug.

          You see horrible things as good because it is the Church. You see lies as truth because the Catholic Church tells you to.

          Once again I remind you that you who defend the intentional ending of innocent human lives in the womb have absolutely zero grounds for criticizing the behavior of any other institution. You are the one who see’s and defends horrible things as good and that makes you the most egregious hypocrite because you are so brainwashed you don’t even realize it when you make statements like this. There are no words to adequately describe your level of hypocrisy.

          Your crap is what repels people and ensures that Jesus is a prayer failure.

          Your crap is what ensures your worldview gets exposed as utter BS and reinforces the extreme likelihood that it is rapidly headed straight for the garbage dump of history. I personally can’t wait to see that.

        • Greg G.

          So now you repudiating all your other bullshit explanations about the prayer being directed at the (ordained) disciples. You are just punting to the future. Your claim is now, “Sure, the prayer has been a failure for two thousand years, but just you wait another ten or twenty thousand years, then you’ll see.” It’s a perfect scam. They never have to produce results and the scammed are too stupid to wise up.

          In the meantime, the Church is going to keep taking your money.

          The Bible tells us that Paul was telling everyone that the Messiah was coming any second now. He fully expected to be alive when it happened. That was two thousand years ago but still believers keep believing that Jesus is coming within their lifetime.

        • Ameribear

          Your objection has two parts. A) The ones being prayed for remain united and B) the world would come to believe God sent Jesus.

          The one’s He prayed for are indeed still united and Jesus never put a time limit on how long He expected it take for the world to come to believe. There is no repudiation of what I said earlier.

          The Bible tells us that Paul was telling everyone that the Messiah was coming any second now. He fully expected to be alive when it happened. That was two thousand years ago but still believers keep believing that Jesus is coming within their lifetime.

          We believe we should live as though His return is eminent but also reminded that no one knows when that will actually take place. This teaching is intended to prevent us from becoming lazy or complacent.

          https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/12/07/second-coming-still-coming/

        • Greg G.

          Your objection has two parts. A) The ones being prayed for remain united and B) the world would come to believe God sent Jesus.

          That is a rather sociopathic view of it. The ones being prayed for would be the unsaved of the world. Don’t you have some kind of Christian love for everybody or is empathy not part of your religion? The means of their salvation is that the believers should agree in order to impress them enough to join up.

          Why are you still banging on this? The prayer is a failure. It was done by the Son of God for everyone in the world and published in the best selling book of all time. If you disagree that it is the greatest prayer failure of all time, then present a greater one. If it is a prayer by anyone not worthy of unbuckling Jesus’ shoe, then it will be unlikely to make the case.

          The prayer was for the whole world to become believers. That never happened. Therefore, the prayer was a failure. Either it was because some significant number of Christians didn’t agree enough to impress the world, which would be a secondary failure, or the idea that the agreement of Christians would impress people enough to become believers was wrong, which would be a major fault in the construction of the prayer that caused it to be a failure.

          The world population has been roughly a half billion or so on average from the first century until recent centuries and, being generous to make the math simpler, let’s say the average life span was 50 years so there were roughly a billion deaths per century so close to 20 billion since the prayer was supposedly made. Most of them were not Christians and fewer were Catholic. Now there are about 7.5 billion people and let’s put the life span at 75 years meaning there will be about 10 billion deaths in the next century, mostly non-Christian and non-Catholic.

          If everybody at some imaginary time in the future finally believes because there is agreement among Christians, all those deaths before that time makes it a failure, unless you want to be so sociopathic that the prayer was not intended to save everybody from the time of the prayer forward.

        • Pofarmer

          Don’t you have some kind of Christian love for everybody or is empathy not part of your religion?

          I’m going to assume that’s rhetorical.

        • Ameribear

          Why are you still banging on this? The prayer is a failure.

          You’re the one who keeps banging. The prayer is a failure only by your personal imaginary criteria.

          The prayer was for the whole world to become believers. That never happened.

          Or it could be that the game hasn’t ended yet.

          If everybody at some imaginary time in the future finally believes because there is agreement among Christians, all those deaths before that time makes it a failure, unless you want to be so sociopathic that the prayer was not intended to save everybody from the time of the prayer forward.

          You cannot presume all those deaths resulted in all those who died going to hell either.

        • Greg G.

          You cannot presume all those deaths resulted in all those who died going to hell either.

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell. That means that if your future wet dream happened, it would still be a failure. Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

        • Ameribear

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell.

          On what basis?

          That means that if your future wet dream happened, it would still be a failure.

          Only by your contrived personal interpretation of the issue.

          Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

          He was most certainly praying for everybody.

        • Greg G.
          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell.

          On what basis?

          Most people are not Christian, let alone Catholic.

          Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

          He was most certainly praying for everybody.

          Since many people died without believing because they never got the chance to be convinced by the unity of Christians.

          This should be obvious to you. Why bother to ask such stupid questions?

        • Ameribear

          Since many people died without believing because they never got the chance to be convinced by the unity of Christians.

          You are presuming that most or all those people went to hell
          because of that. You’re saying they ended up in hell because they weren’t catholic. Sorry, that is about as separated from church teaching as it gets. The Church does not teach that only Catholics are going to heaven.

          This is what happens when people who have no business trying
          to interpret scripture attempt it anyway. The crap you come up with isn’t any different than the WBC or any other crackpot cult. There are over two centuries of material the Church has drawn on to develop the correct understanding of scripture and you haven’t availed yourself of any of it. You cannot simply rip scripture passages out the many different contexts necessary to correctly interpret them and then base some hair brained dogma on it.

        • Greg G.

          Can you prove they wouldn’t go to hell? Can you prove there is a hell? If people don’t need to be Catholic or Christian to not go to hell, then why bother with it?

          There are over two centuries of material the Church has drawn on to develop the correct understanding of scripture and you haven’t availed yourself of any of it.

          Two centuries trying come up with a self-consistent fairy tale is a waste of time. You are no better off from it than the Egyptians were 4000 years ago. See what happens with two centuries of effort is given to understanding reality with “no need of that hypothesis*”, by comparing the science of 1800 with the science of 2000.

          *Whether or not LaPlace actually said that, the quote has been quoted many times since at least the 1820s.

        • Ameribear

          Two centuries trying come up with a self-consistent fairy tale is a waste of time.

          Then stop trying to impose your ridiculous interpretation of scripture on me.

          See what happens with two centuries of effort is given to understanding reality with “no need of that hypothesis*”, by comparing the science of 1800 with the science of 2000.

          Science is never going to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is more of your BS atheist dogma.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Kodie

          There’s a huge difference between a sentient 10-year-old boy and an 8-week non-sentient embryo. If you think that is hypocrisy, you’re still stalling on explaining why they are the same. You can’t keep giving emotional answers like “innocent”.

        • Ameribear

          Where does sentience come from? What causes it? At what point does an unborn human become sentient? Hint: It’s well before birth.

          What level of sentience constitutes a person? If your standard is complete sentience then anyone who’s ability to sense the environment is impaired or undeveloped (blindness, deafness) isn’t a person.

          If sentience determines personhood then anyone in a coma isn’t a person.

        • Kodie

          You need a brain first to have sentience. You don’t seem to have sentience.

        • Ameribear

          You need a brain first to think about and resolve the logical consequences of your latest failed attempt to justify murder before you post it. You don’t seem to have a brain.

        • Kodie

          What murder?

        • Ameribear

          The intentional ending of the life of another human being. Which is what you have yet to prove that abortion isn’t.

        • Kodie

          I just want to ask if you think killing an enemy in war is murder, if you think executing a violent criminal is murder, or if self-defense is murder, or is removing someone whose brain is dead from life support, is that murder? Was Saddam Hussein murdered? Was Osama bin Laden murdered? Was Timothy McVeigh murdered? Was Ted Bundy murdered? Was John Wayne Gacy murdered?

          Just asking.

        • Ameribear

          There are legitimate reasons to justify taking the life of another human being. Abortion isn’t and will never be one of them.

        • Kodie

          Oh, so we can separate some kinds of ending of human lives and call them something other than murder. Abortion definitely is one of those things.

        • Ameribear

          Abortion is the intentional ending of an innocent human life which is something you have repeatedly failed to disprove. There’s a big difference between that and ending the life of an aggressor who intends to take yours.

        • Kodie

          It’s the loophole that it isn’t a person. You allow for other loopholes, and this is a decision a woman can and should make for herself. I’d consider something inside my own body an “aggressor” who intends to take up all my life and attention and money. I see what parenting is like, and don’t have a romanticized vision of it.

        • Ameribear

          Because you are a spoiled, selfish little adolescent brat who never grew up. The human race would absolutely be finished if it were left to people like you. The blessing in all of this is people like you will inevitably eliminate yourselves from the gene pool. Problem solved.

        • Kodie

          That is only your demented opinion. And how fucking demented it is – nobody said everyone should have an abortion, it’s about CHOICE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKING MORON. Also, this isn’t a hereditary condition. Sharing information, facts, and opinions is not something we can eliminate from the gene pool. Furthermore, plenty of people who already have children get abortions, or who have had abortions go on to have a family. How stupid are you? That’s pretty stupid that you think this is a way to get rid of pro-choice people. I mean, pretty goddamned motherfucking absolutely how fucking stupid does your religion make you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          If Christians followed the teachings of Jesus and Paul on celibacy and marriage to the letter, there’d have been no Christians early on, but then both those fuckwits didn’t think reproducing was at all important, given that the end of the world was nigh, 2000 years ago.

          And being a eunuch was something to aspire to also.

          12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

          The early Christian sects, the Marcionites, practiced extreme celibacy, as did the Montanists.

          And if everyone were to give Ameribear a perpetual hardon by becoming Roman Catholic tomorrow, and decided to give themselves to YahwehJesus and take holy orders, the human species would be well fucked. But that’s dumb fuck Ameribear who doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does, and writes shite before thinking it through.

        • Ameribear

          No cupcake it’s about placing your personal gratification above the lives of other human persons. Those of you who recoil at the thought of having to take responsibility for your actions and want nothing to do with caring for and raising the children you are responsible for bringing into existence are your own worst enemy. You suffer from the worst form of sickness which is the inability to put anything or anyone before your own pathetic, narcissistic existence. We pro-lifers are perfectly happy to stand back and allow you to eliminate yourselves from the human race. No assistance is necessary.

        • Kodie

          I don’t put any imaginary things before reality. That’s how it is here. You clearly have no idea how biology works if you think pro-choicers eliminate ourselves from the human race. How does that work in your fantasy world?

        • Ameribear

          I am speaking specifically about people like you who refuse to have any children because your afraid of them taking up too much of your time. You place your personal gratification above everything else and because you refuse to accept the gift of children you will die and leave no one else around to further your priorities. That’s your problem not ours.

        • Kodie

          Wow, aren’t you judgmental and ignorant of what I do with my life.

        • Ameribear

          You keep completely missing or ignoring my point because you can’t or won’t understand how shallow and vain you are.

        • Kodie

          No, you keep making obscene judgments about who I am and what I do, because you have a stereotype in mind for your hatred of women.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Maybe you should imagine that nonfertile Christian couples are going to hell.

        • Ameribear

          That isn’t necessarily true either.

        • Susan

          Where does sentience come from? What causes it?

          A cleaner question to Kodie would be “what is sentience?”

          What level of sentience constitutes a person?

          Good question. What is “sentience”? What constitues a “person”?

          If sentience determines personhood then anyone in a coma isn’t a person.

          Sentience. You can find other versions of the definition but we can start here: I think it’s roughly what Kodie is getting at. She can correct me if I’m wrong.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sentient?s=t

          Coma. Again, it’s just a start. Comas don’t seem to preclude sentience.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/coma?s=t

          Single cells do seem to.

        • Ameribear

          I agree to that definition of sentience.

          That definition of coma certainly seems to preclude sentience.

          If you define personhood by sentience the first problem you are faced with is establishing some level of sentience to define the existence of a person. Such a standard must encompass all born humans because we do not all possess the same level of sentience.

          Single cells do seem to.

          I knew it wouldn’t take long for you to spit up another abortion industry talking point.

          What comes into existence after conception is in the form of a single cell but does not have the same nature as any other single cell. Also everything needed to give rise to sentience is present in it’s earliest stage of development at that time.

          The second problem you’re faced with is that science has shown that unborn humans are sentient well before birth.

        • Susan

          That definition of coma certainly seems to preclude sentience.

          I don’t see how.

          https://www.webmd.com/brain/coma-types-causes-treatments-prognosis#3

          If you define personhood by sentience

          No one has. The point is that sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          Also everything needed to give rise to sentience is present in it’s earliest stage of development at that time.

          No. It requires a host body from which it takes everything it needs to develop. ..

          It is not sentient. It is a cell.

        • Ameribear

          There are different types of coma’s. There are type’s where
          patients are not sentient and that still pertains to my point.

          What else is necessary to define a person?

          Implantation does not change the nature of the organism.

          Either refute the description science uses to define what comes into existence after conception or stop referring to it as a cell. I’ve pointed out the distinctions to you many times and you conveniently keep ignoring them. Your being intentionally misleading.

        • Susan

          There are different types of coma’s. There are type’s where
          patients are not sentient and that still pertains to my point.

          No. If it’s just lungs and a heart and no sentience… pick your coma.

          Don’t just say “a coma”. If there is no sentience, is it a person? Is a corpse a person?

          Implantation does not change the nature of the organism.

          No idea what your point is. Originally, you said:

          Everything needed to give rise to sentience is present

          If that were true, you could send a zygote into outerspace and it would become sentient. You’re ignoring what’s needed from an actual person.

          Either refute the description science uses to define what comes into existence after conception or stop referring to it as a cell

          I don’t have to refute anything. Science doesn’t say it’s a person. Science DOES say it’s a cell.

          That it’s a special snowflake cell to you comes from your forced pregnancy sites that ignore real consequences for real persons.

        • Ameribear

          No. If it’s just lungs and a heart and no sentience… pick your coma.

          From the page you linked to. “A coma is a prolonged state
          of unconsciousness. During a coma, a person is unresponsive to his or her environment. The person IS ALIVE and looks like he or she is sleeping. However, unlike in a deep sleep, the person cannot be awakened by any stimulation, including pain.”

          Is a corpse a person?

          No, a corpse is dead.

          You’re ignoring what’s needed from an actual person.

          I am not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the distinctions I’ve made over and over again.

          I don’t have to refute anything. Science doesn’t say it’s a person. Science DOES say it’s a cell.

          No, YOU are the one who keeps gacking up your talking points
          by calling it a cell. Science say it’s a human organism in its earliest stages of development and you have repeatedly and intentionally refused to acknowledge that and you haven’t offered a shred of evidence refuting it. It’s in the form of a cell for a very short period of time. By the time the mother even realizes she’s pregnant it’s developed way, way past that point. Most abortions take place around 18 weeks which means it’s not anywhere near a being just a cell.

          http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php

          You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

        • adam

          “You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.”

          But still less so than The Church

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/121670126727fb70083ce9688c4d61a65733742a289d1710ab2e6475100ee6eb.png

        • Susan

          the person cannot be awakened by any stimulation, including pain.

          Which implies that they can feel pain.

          Brains are complicated, which is why the medical ethics on the subject are difficult.

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14891-some-coma-patients-feel-pain/

          With a zygote, there is no brain present.

          gacking up your talking points
          by calling it a cell.

          It is a cell. No brain. No sentience.

          Most abortions take place around 18 weeks

          Your argument is that a cell is a person. So, that’s irrelevant to your point.

          You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

          Sproing!!

        • Ameribear

          With a zygote, there is no brain present. It is a cell. No brain. No sentience.

          There is a brain present in it’s earliest stage of development just like everything else. The brain does not get added to it from the outside.

          Your argument is that a cell is a person. So, that’s irrelevant to your point.

          What comes into existence after conception is in the form of a single cell but is a person in it’s earliest stage of development. My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

        • Susan

          There is a brain present in it’s earliest stage of development

          No. There isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is not a sentient being.

          in the form of a single cell but is a person in it’s earliest stage of development.

          So, you keep asserting.

          My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

          That wanders away from your point that a cell is a person.

        • Ameribear

          No. There isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is not a sentient being.

          Another denial with nothing backing it up.

          So, you keep asserting.

          So you keep ignoring and or denying.

          That wanders away from your point that a cell is a person.

          That demonstrates that you don’t understand that I’m making two separate points.

        • Kodie

          Sentience requires a brain, not the cells that will, with physical blood and tissue contribution from its host, become a brain much later.

        • Susan

          Another denial with nothing backing it up.

          You say a cell has a brain. Back it up. It’s outrageous as far as I can tell. I don’t have to deny it. You haven’t supported it. Cells don’t contain brains. Ask a neuroscientist.

          So you keep ignoring and or denying.

          No. I keep pointing out that you have nothing but assertions and have done nothing to support those assertions. That’s not ignoring. And it doesn’t merit denying. I don’t accept your claims because they’ve been plucked from your rectum forced-birther propaganda.

          That demonstrates that you don’t understand that I’m making two separate points.

          You’ve lied about eighteen weeks. So, that’s not a point made. You haven’t even acknowledged that you’ve got that completely wrong.

          Your line of demarcation as far as personhood goes is a zygote. The rest is irrelevant. And you can’t make that point either. You just assert it.

        • Ameribear

          You say a cell has a brain.

          You keep coming back to referring to it as a cell when I’ve made the repeated distinction that science has defined it as something else entirely which you have never refuted. You are intentionally being misleading by continuously hacking up your talking points and then demanding that I prove them rather then what I actually said. I never said a cell has a brain so your lying about that too. I said it’s a new separate genetically distinct human organism in it’s earliest stage of development which is what you insist on ignoring. You are intentionally being deceitful and dishonest because you cannot even acknowledge what I’ve said let alone refute it.

          I don’t accept your claims because they’ve been plucked from your forced-birther propaganda.

          I can’t accept your claims because they aren’t claims. They’re intentional diversions made to attempt to hide the fact that you cannot refute what science has declared for some time. You’ve offered nothing but regurgitated abortion industry agitprop that you’ve clearly proven you can’t think beyond.

          You’ve lied about eighteen weeks. So, that’s not a point made. You haven’t even acknowledged that you’ve got that completely wrong.

          The number of weeks is completely immaterial to the point I made and you missed. The fact that you’re still obsessing over a number instead of actually refuting the point is even more proof of your abject intellectual bankruptcy.

          Your line of demarcation as far as personhood goes is a zygote. The rest is irrelevant. And you can’t make that point either. You just assert it.

          I’ve made my points repeatedly. I backed them up with quotes from 40 textbooks on embryology and links to detailed fetal development material. I must have made the form/nature distinction at least half a dozen times and not once have you even responded to it. That’s plenty more than just assertions and all I’ve gotten back from you is “it’s a cell”. You’ve got nothing. Thank you once again for proving your worldview is an empty lie and has no future.

        • Susan

          You keep coming back to referring to it as a cell

          Because it’s a cell. The subject is personhood which requires at the very least sentience.

          when I’ve made the repeated distinction that science has defined it as something else entirely

          I’ve never seen “science” claim it is something else entirely than a cell. It’s a cell. It is not sentient.

          I never said a cell has a brain

          You said:

          There is a brain present in its earliest stage of developent.

          What did I get wrong? Make your point clearly. There is a brain “present” is what you said. There clearly isn’t.

          The number of weeks is completely immaterial.

          Then don’t parrot bullshit statistics from forced-birth propaganda and pretend you’ve said something useful. Especially don’t do that and ignore that you have no support for those statistics and then fail to acknowledge the error when it’s pointed out that your statistics are erroneous.

          I’ve made my points repeatedly

          Find one of your comments where you’ve made a single point to support your assertions, copy/paste the comment by right-clicking on it. So far, all you’ve done is make assertions..

          I must have made the form/nature distinction at least half a dozen times.

          The form/nature distinction is not a disnction at all when it comes to the subject of personhood. You point at an arbitrary cell and ignore the biological implications, fail to make progress on the philosophical question of personhood and completely ignore the consequences on real persons (women/broodmares).

          By the way, man up. 18 weeks is demonstrably wrong. That you can’t acknowledge something so obvious says everything about you.

          You’ve got nothing.

          All I’ve got is:

          You haven’t made a dent on the subject of personhood and you seem to have studied your biology exclusively from forced-birth arguments.

          .You are forced to appeal to sentient beings in order to assert the personhood of your arbitrary cell. .

          You’ve shown no progress on the personhood of your arbitrary cell and you’ve dismissed requests that you address the personhood of the established person whose life and health you find irrelevant.

          0 for those 3.

        • Ameribear

          Because it’s a cell.

          It’s a human organism. That is a singular point you haven’t even acknowledged yet.

          The subject is personhood which requires at the very least sentience.

          You cannot just cite sentience as a criteria for determining personhood.

          Sentience is a property that continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age.

          Sentience is something each one of us possesses in varying degrees over our life time.

          If sentience is your criteria then any one who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery are not persons.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood?

          I’ve never seen “science” claim it is something else entirely than a cell. It’s a cell. It is not sentient.

          Then you’re deliberately ignoring what has been taught in numerous embryology text books for some time now.

          What did I get wrong? Make your point clearly.

          One more time. It is a human organism in it’s earliest stage of development which is a universe apart from just a cell and a definition you still have not refuted. The brain is present in it’s earliest stage of development just like all the other vital organs.

          The form/nature distinction is not a disnction at all when it comes to the subject of personhood….fail to make progress on the philosophical question of personhood

          Being a human and a living being are the minimum set of characteristics sufficient to make an entity a person. A zygote qualifies as being both of these from conception even in the form of the cell it starts out in. Personhood cannot be predicated on any varying property or on a continuum. If you deny this you must offer a third or more criteria to this set that aren’t arbitrary.

          You point at an arbitrary cell and ignore the biological implications,

          I keep correcting your brain dead talking point by pointing to a living human organism because you are the one ignoring the biological implications. It’s painfully obvious by now that you have no choice but to ignore the biological implications because they blow your pathetic talking point out of the water. If you believe it’s not what science says it is, then offer something better than the same feeble talking point repeated ad-nauseam.

          and completely ignore the consequences on real persons

          You are the one ignoring the consequences on the real persons that are present from conception on which you have offered zilch proving otherwise.

          You are forced to appeal to sentient beings in order to assert the personhood of your arbitrary cell.

          I specifically said sentience cannot be used to assert personhood and that’s the 4th of 5 times you’ve repeated the same stupid talking point with nothing refuting the scientific definition in this post.

          and you’ve dismissed requests that you address the personhood of the established person whose life and health you find irrelevant.

          No that’s what you’ve been doing. Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

          All I’ve got is:

          One continuously regurgitated worthless talking point or in other words…nothing.

        • Susan

          It’s a human organism. That is a singular point you haven’t even acknowledged yet.

          It is a cell which, if it feeds off the resources of a sentient being can become either no person, a person or part of a person. People have tried to explain the biology to you but you’ve ignored them.

          Personhood is the issue and you haven’t established personhood for your pet cell.

          So fuck off with your “biological implications”. Science does not say it’s a person. Nor can it.

          You are the one ignoring the consequences on the real persons that are present from conception

          You haven’t established that a cell is a person.

          In the meantime, all women (and their families and their children and their significant others) can just suck it, according to you Note that the people I listed there are unquestionably “persons”. The consequences for them are real. They are sentient.

          I specifcally said that sentience cannot be used to assert personhood

          Then, stop using terms like “murder”, “genocide”, “innocence” etc., all of which are based on sentient models.

          Being a human and a living being are the minimum set of characteristics sufficient to make an entity a person.

          No. I disagree. *Human* is a biolgical term. And a fuzzy one on thte contiuum of sentient earthlings. “Person” is a moral term.

          “Persons” are those who are worthy of moral consideration.

          Sentience is basic for moral consideration or you wouldn’t appea endessly to terms (see above) that are basic for sentient beings.

          No. That’s what you’ve been doing.

          No. I haven’t. But you have.

          You have made no efforts to study either biology or pesronhood.

          An arbitrary point of human tissue is not necessarily a person.

          You can assert it until you’re blue in the face. That is not an argument.

          You haven’t even had the decency to retract your claim that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks” even though it’s clearly false.

          “Personhood” (i’e. moral consideration( and sentience are complicated and I’d be happy to roll up my sleeves with an honest person to address them.

          But not with you.

          Because you’ve shown no interest in either biology or the phiosophy of personhood and you don’t even have the decency to retract the statement that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks”.

          One continuously regurgitated worthless talking point

          Right back at you bro.

          You’re claiming a zygote is a person.

          But you’ve made no progress.

          Your church’s arguments address neither the science of biology nor the philosophy of personhood.

          They just talk about souls and when confronted, bullshit about biology and personhood.

          And you just repeat their bullshit.

        • Ameribear

          Sentience is basic for moral consideration or you wouldn’t appeal endlessly to terms (see above) that are basic for sentient beings.

          If you’re going to use sentience as a criteria for determining personhood then answer the questions and points in my previous reply.

          Sentience is a property that arises well before birth, continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age.

          Sentience is something each one of us possesses in varying degrees over our life time.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for determining personhood?

          If sentience is your criteria then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery are not persons and are therefore
          by your standard not worthy of moral consideration.

          These are the logical consequences of your assertion. You can pick any continuous property and these questions would still apply. Address the consequences of your assertion or find something else to base personhood on because sentience cannot be it.

          You’ve accused me of failing to make progress on the issue of personhood and then you turn around and do exactly the same thing. Once again you are the one who’s failed to do what you accuse me of.

        • adam
        • Susan

          If you’re going to use sentience as a criteria for determining personhood

          We all do. Give me an example of a moral problem that isn’t based on the short or long term consequences of a sentient being.

          Sentience is a property that arises well before birth, continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age

          It also applies (based on the definition you said you accepted) in varying degrees to billions of non-human earhlings. It applied to hominids that went extinct and it applies to trillions of life forms that have populated this planet for hundreds of millions of years.

          It does not apply to a zygote, your magical point of “personhood” that you have yet to support.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for determining personhood?

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”, there is no reason to restrict “worthy of moral consideration” to humans..

          If sentience is your criteria

          I’ve said straight out (and others have said the same thing less directly) that sentience is not my “criteria”. Just that sentience is basic. That sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          If sentience is not basic, then stop using terms like “murder” “babies” and “genocide” all of which push buttons that are connected to our mirror neurons sympathizing with fellow sentient beings.

          then anyone who is comatose

          I’ve addressed this. There are so many ways of being in a coma. Only some of them preclude sentience. Brains are complicated. Zygotes don’t have them.

          or anaesthetized for surgery

          We’ve been through this too.

          Back to your point about a microscopic, brainless bit of tissue being a person.

          If you would like to discuss potentially sentient beings, be prepared to address all of them. Not just the human ones.

          “Personhood” is complicated.

          But as I’ve always said, you can’t make an argument in any other situation that any “person” has a right to use another “person’s” body against their will. I’ve made these two points repeatedly.

          1) One has to achieve sentience at least, in order to have moral worth. In order to be a person.

          2) Even if one is a “person”, they can’t force another “person” to donate their body to sustaining them.

          Are you going to address either one of those points?

          Ever?

        • Ameribear

          It does not apply to a zygote, your magical point of “personhood” that you have yet to support.

          It does apply because all humans possess the ultimate capacity for sentience, or any type of human mental activity from conception. The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge what embryology clearly defines a zygote as shows just how feckless your defense of abortion is.

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”, there is no reason to restrict “worthy of moral consideration” to humans..

          I reject that definition outright. Animals and inanimate sacred
          objects are worthy of moral consideration so that cannot be what
          defines a person.

          I asked you a direct question that you haven’t answered so I’ll
          repeat it.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at
          every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood? How about a straight answer instead of an evasion?

          I’ve said straight out (and others have said the
          same thing less directly) that sentience is not my “criteria”.
          Just that sentience is basic. That sentience is necessary but not
          sufficient.

          And I say straight out that personhood cannot be based on
          sentience nor any other continuous property because you inevitably end up having to regard some humans as non persons because they don’t possess it.

          If sentience is not basic, then stop using terms like “murder” “babies” and “genocide” all of which push buttons that are connected to our mirror neurons sympathizing with fellow sentient beings.

          Sentience cannot be the basis for personhood and I will not stop
          using those terms because they describe exactly what abortion is.

          I’ve addressed this. There are so many ways of
          being in a coma. Only some of them preclude sentience.

          I pointed out to you that there is at least one form of comatose
          described in the link you posted that fits. All of them do not have
          to preclude sentience in order for my point to be valid.

          We’ve been through this too.

          Where?

          Back to your point about a microscopic, brainless bit of tissue being a person.

          Langman, J. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition:

          The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

          Larsen, WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd edition:

          This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

          O’Rahilly, RR and Müller, F. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition:

          [F]ertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is
          thereby formed….

          Moore, KL. Essentials of Human Embryology:

          This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.

          Carlson, BM. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology:

          Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

          Gilbert, S. Developmental Biology. 7th edition:

          Fertilization: Beginning of a New Organism

          Back to you about being wrong for the umpteenth time. You continue deny reality by ignoring the real scientific definition that proves you’re wrong and have offered nothing else to counter it.

          If you would like to discuss potentially sentient beings, be prepared to address all of them. Not just the human ones.

          I would like to address that human personhood begins at conception without you trying to evade and divert the issue you’ve repeatedly failed to disprove.

          “Personhood” is complicated.

          Any definition of personhood must include every living human being at every stage of development. I said that being alive and a human being is all that’s needed to be a person because that definition does exactly that.

          But as I’ve always said, you can’t make an argument in any other situation that any “person” has a right to use another “person’s” body against their will. I’ve made these two points repeatedly.

          I’ve already answered your worthless objection multiple times.
          Embryology declares unequivocally that a new human being is present from the moment of conception and that two peoples willful actions are responsible for that happening. That new persons right to the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival cannot be trumped by any imaginary bodily autonomy.

          1) One has to achieve sentience at least, in order to have moral worth. In order to be a person.

          Wrong. Sentience is achieved by other non human life forms so that cannot be it.

          2) Even if one is a “person”, they can’t force another “person” to donate their body to sustaining them.

          A newborn requires the use of both parents bodies for several
          years to continue to provide a baseline level of care necessary for
          ordinary survival so by your screwed up logic parents can kill their
          children or aged parents simply because they’ve become to big of a burden.

        • Susan

          It does apply because all humans possess the ultimate capacity for sentience

          No,it doesn’t because a cell is not even sentient.

          The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge what embryology clearly defines a zygote as shows just how feckless your defense of abortion is.

          It decidedly does NOT define it as a person.

          I reject that definition outright.

          Take that up with moral philosophers. I don’t know whether they’ll care nor why they should.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI&t=17s

          Animals

          You mean otheranimals. Yes, Ameribear. We are animals. It’s not unreasonable to consider our fellow non-human earthlings worthy of moral consideration. It’s not immoral to kick a rock but it is to kick a kitten. The rock won’t suffer and the kitten will.

          and inanimate sacred objects are worthy of moral consideration

          No. They’re not. The sentient beings who created them and the sentient beings who care about them are worthy of consideration. Inanimate objects themselves are not worthy of moral consideration.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at
          every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood?

          What is special about humans? Anyway,any sentience at all. Something a zygote cannot have.

          Sentience canot be the basis for personhood.

          No. It is not the basis for personhood. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is necessary but not sufficient..

          I would like to address that human personhood begins at conception

          But you’ve never addressed it. You’ve just asserted it. You just keep asserting it.

          That new persons right to the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival cannot be trumped by any imaginary bodily autonomy.

          It’s not imaginary if the state forces you to give blood or donate a piece of your liver, or even just mandate that you donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

          You are special pleading. You can’t force a woman to go through pregnancy and labour just because you say so. Unless you’ll consent to being forced to give blood, donate a piece of your liver and donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

        • Ameribear

          No,it doesn’t because a cell is not even sentient.

          I have said repeatedly it’s a human organism and provided abundant evidence to back it up but you continue to ignore that because it blows your entire argument out of the water. You are being deliberately misleading and dishonest in the face of very clear evidence that your wrong.

          It decidedly does NOT define it as a person.

          It is living and it is human which means it’s a person.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person?s=t

          You mean other animals. Yes, Ameribear. We are animals. It’s not unreasonable to consider our fellow non-human earthlings worthy of moral consideration. It’s not immoral to kick a rock but it is to kick a kitten. The rock won’t suffer and the kitten will.

          Then being worthy of moral consideration is not reserved strictly for humans. It cannot define personhood it can only be something that is demanded by the nature of what it’s directed at.

          What is special about humans? Anyway,any sentience at all. Something a zygote cannot have.

          What is it about you that you can’t give me a straight answer to that question?

          Since you can’t answer that question I’ll do it for you. Sentience is a continuous property that all humans possess in varying degrees over our lifetimes so it, just like every other continuous property, can never be a basis for personhood because it would be impossible to decide on a level of sentience that includes all living persons at all stages of development.

          No. It is not the basis for personhood. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is necessary but not sufficient..

          Then what makes it sufficient?

          But you’ve never addressed it. You’ve just asserted it. You just keep asserting it.

          I have done way more to back up my points than you have with yours.

          It’s not imaginary if the state forces you to give blood or donate a piece of your liver, or even just mandate that you donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

          The state cannot force person A to meet the state of need of person B if person A is not directly responsible for person B being in that state of need. This does not apply to unborn persons because the parents of the unborn person are directly responsible for his or her state of need.

          This is a big fat red herring on your part.

          You can’t force a woman to go through pregnancy and labour just because you say so.

          Just like the state can’t force anyone to assume the responsibility for their actions right?

        • Susan

          I have said repeatedly it’s a human organism

          Yes. That doesn’t make it a person. It is a cell that if it feeds off the body of a sentient being can become no person, a person, part of a person or multiple persons.

          That does not make it a person. You have to make your case. And you don’t. Repeating that being a human organism is equivalent to being a person is a category error.

          Then being worthy of moral consideration is not reserved strictly for humans

          Exactly. If you kick a rock down the sidewalk, you are bored. If you kick a kitten down the sidewalk, you are a contemptuous monster.

          Personhood is complicated.

          What is it about you that you can’t give me a straight answer to that question?

          It’s not a straight question. There is no reason to restrict “moral consideration” to humans. And no reason to provide it for a cell.

          There’s not even any other case you’ve argued where someone should be forced to give blood, donate a piece of their liver or donate their body to science. That is, to have their choice removed about their own body.

          But you want to give a cell priority over a person’s right to choices about their body, over the needs of her children and her spouse You want her to have to take on the short and long-term health risks (which include death) because a brainless cell has rights to her body.

          You believe in little souls. Somehow, you think “human organism” will effectively replace that belief in a conversation about personhood. That is begging the question.

          You also belong to a church that does a terrible job at sex education and is against access to reliable methods of birth control

          This does not apply to unborn persons

          Until you establish that a cell is a person, you need to stop calling them persons.

          because the parents of the unborn person are directly responsible for his or her state of need.

          If you caused a terrible collision because you were texting and driving and the person you injured desperately needed a blood transfusion and you were a match, you would not be forced to donate blood.

          That’s when it’s an actual person in the actual world. An established person. With a brain and usually a family and friends.

          Hint: When you say “I keep saying”… note that I keep explaining why you don’t have an argument. I don’t just assert it.

          And you keep ignoring me and repeating yourself.

        • Ameribear

          That doesn’t make it a person.

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development. You cannot add anything else to those criteria without excluding some members.

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”

          Exactly. If you kick a rock down the sidewalk, you are bored. If you kick a kitten down the sidewalk, you are a contemptuous monster.

          Then your definition of a person as a being worthy of moral consideration isn’t valid because humans aren’t the only thing worthy of moral consideration.

          Yes. That doesn’t make it a person. It is a cell that if it feeds off the body of a sentient being can become no person, a person, part of a person or multiple persons.

          I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell. Unless you can provide arguments or evidence that embryology gets it wrong then stop repeating that talking point.

          That does not make it a person. You have to make your case. And you don’t. Repeating that being a human organism is equivalent to being a person is a category error.

          Then give me an example of a person that is not a human
          organism.

          It’s not a straight question. There is no reason to restrict “moral consideration” to humans. And no reason to provide it for a cell.

          It is a straight question and this is the third time you’ve evaded it.

          There’s not even any other case you’ve argued where someone should be forced to give blood, donate a piece of their liver or donate their body to science. That is, to have their choice removed about their own body.

          You’re once again ignoring the key distinctions I already pointed out that render your bodily autonomy argument invalid.

          But you want to give a cell priority over a person’s right to choices about their body, over the needs of her children and her spouse You want her to have to take on the short and long-term health risks (which include death) because a brainless cell has rights to her body.

          I want to shatter the self-absorbed lies that people like you insist on propagating and that you still haven’t proven aren’t lies.

          You believe in little souls. Somehow, you think “human organism” will effectively replace that belief in a conversation about personhood. That is begging the question.

          Show me where I’ve ever mentioned souls.

          You also belong to a church that does a terrible job at sex education and is against access to reliable methods of birth control

          Why don’t you stick to the topic at hand instead of attempting to divert attention from the fact that you have no arguments or evidence.

          Until you establish that a cell is a person, you need to stop calling them persons.

          You never established that it isn’t. I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell. Until you can establish that embryology gets it wrong and that you’ve got it right then stop repeating your feckless talking points.

          If you caused a terrible collision because you were texting and driving and the person you injured desperately needed a blood transfusion and you were a match, you would not be forced to donate blood.

          The person who needs a blood transfusion in your case would not, in order to survive, have to get it from the one who caused him or her to need it. An unborn child does not have that option.

          Hint: When you say “I keep saying”… note that I keep explaining why you don’t have an argument. I don’t just assert it.

          You do assert it because you haven’t come up with squat to explain anything you said. All you have is talking points and I’ve refuted every one. You just keep denying what I’ve said, ignoring me, and repeating yourself.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development. You cannot add anything else to those criteria without excluding some members.

          Every single cell in your body is human in some stage of development and nearly every one of them is alive. Not one single cell of your body is a person.

        • Ameribear

          What comes into existence after conception according to embryology is a new, distinct human organism in the form of a cell. It is nothing like any other cell in our bodies. It’s not even close to being just another cell. You missed a crucial distinction once again.

        • adam

          “What comes into existence after conception according to embryology is a new, distinct human organism in the form of a cell”

          Or a number of cells or the cell just DIES.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • Greg G.

          It is a single cell. Most every cell has a dozen or so mutations so they are all distinct human organisms but they are not people. You are imagining distinctions so you can stick your nose into other people’s business for religious reasons.

        • Ameribear

          It is in the form of a single cell but it’s nature is that of a new human being in it’s earliest stage of development so it is a member of the human race. No other types of cells can or will ever develop into a human being. It’s not just another cell. This is a very important distinction that embryology points out and not something I’m imagining.

        • Pofarmer

          So? If it doesn’t implant it will simply be flushed out. Or it could be absorbed. Or it could twin or more for about the first 2 weeks. At any stage of gestation it could fail for any number of reasons. Even some Catholic philosophers realize that saying something is a person before implantation is problematic. Some also realize it’s problematic before the point of twinning is past at about 14 days. Some realize that it’s impossible to be a person without a nervous system. Some don’t think you can he a person if that nervous system never fires, which is around 25 weeks. But you know all this, and you ignore it and go round and round, so you can control other people

        • Ameribear

          So? If it doesn’t implant it will simply be flushed out. Or it could be absorbed. Or it could twin or more for about the first 2 weeks. At any stage of gestation it could fail for any number of reasons.

          It’s true that many pregnancies don’t make it to full development but that doesn’t change what embryology has defined it as.

          Some realize that it’s impossible to be a person without a nervous system. Some don’t think you can he a person if that nervous system never fires, which is around 25 weeks.

          That still doesn’t change anything. According to embryology the
          zygote contains everything necessary to form all the vital organs and systems. It’s still a human person in it’s earliest stage of development that under normal circumstances will become a fully developed human. Because things go wrong during the early stages of development of some persons does not justify intentionally ending the lives of others.

          But you know all this, and you ignore it and go round and round, so you can control other people

          Does forcing people to take care of their born children constitute controlling them?

        • adam

          ” Because things go wrong during the early stages of development of some
          persons does not justify intentionally ending the lives of others.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          “That still doesn’t change anything. ”

          Most certainly it does. Whether or not something is conscious changes things a great deal.

        • Ameribear

          Then any born human who isn’t conscious isn’t a person.

        • adam

          So a dead born human isnt a person.

        • Pofarmer

          A born person who can be conscious would be a person. A zygote or embryo doesn’t have a developed nervous system. They cannot be conscious.

        • Ameribear

          Zygotes and embryos have the capacity for consciousness from the start. You cannot link personhood to development.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Capacity? So it’s all just an argument from potential.

          The twinkle in your eye has the potential to be a living, breathing human. Did you and your wife have every possible child you could’ve? I certainly hope so. It would’ve been heartless to deny that potential.

        • Susan

          So it’s all just an argument from potential.

          Not even thinly disguised. He hasn’t progressed a micrometer past that.

          A lot of bluster and derision since. But no actual argument.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I realize that Ameribear has made a thousand comments already, so my few words in response are chaff in a windstorm. But sometimes it’s hard to resist.

        • Susan

          my few words are chaff in a windstorm.

          Not in terms of the actual discussion.

          I wish more people jumped in.

          Ameribear has nothing BUT an argument from potential.

          And repetition.

          If this were about changing Ameribear’s mind, I wouldn’t bother.

          But it isn’t so we should.

        • Pofarmer

          I’ve been reading a little bit about the philosophy of personhood and the ethical arguments surrounding abortion the last few days. Philosophically it seems pretty clear cut that an embryo is not a person. It is somewhat less clear cut that an embryo is a human being, depending on qualities given thereof. Then you get into the argument from potential. That because a zygote will be a person some day, it should have the full rights of personhood from the point of fertilization. Except it’s pointed out that we don’t do that with anything else. A 12 year old is potentially an 18 year old, but they can’t vote or drink. Etc. Etc. Etc. Now it would seem a little sticky, except for the issue that the zygote, despite protestations elsewhere, is 100% reliant on the mothers body for it’s growth and developement. It changes and uses it in permanent and significant ways. The zygote, even though it may have a right to life, also does not have the right to use another’s body against their will. None of us do. So the mothers rights take precedence. This is the way I see it and I beleive is correct. Folks like Ameribear are trying to drag us back a few hundred years on the ideas of personal freedoms and individual rights. Thru discount the rights of the mother for the perceived rights of the state, and I think this could be particularly dangerous and far reaching.

        • Pofarmer

          You Guys may be interested in this short Paper from MU.

          http://ethics.missouri.edu/personhood.html

          “The Concept of Personhood”

        • Kodie
        • Pofarmer

          No, they don’t and yes, you can. That’s how you do it. They don’t have the capacity for consciousness until the develop stable brain wave patterns.

        • Ameribear

          Yes they do and no you can’t.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          What level of brain waves constitutes a person? How will you measure that? If stable brain waves are what determines a person then any born human with unstable or erratic brain waves isn’t a person. If you insist on linking development to personhood then anything short of a perfectly developed fully functioning human isn’t a person. Linking personhood to development means your defining a person by what they can do instead of who they are. No one can function as a person unless they are a person to begin with. If you insist on defining a person based on what they can do, how do you justify your own existence?

        • Pofarmer

          This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          Or a cat, or a dog, or a pig, or a butterfly.

          Linking personhood to development means your defining a person by what they can do instead of who they are.

          You’re not defining by a who, you’re defining by a what, and not even a full what.

          What level of brain waves constitutes a person? How will you measure that?

          My consistent criterion has been sentience. It’s not some one off opinion.

          No one can function as a person unless they are a person to begin with.

          Yep.

          If you insist on defining a person based on what they can do, how do you justify your own existence?

          Why should I have to? I’m sentient and exist in society.

        • Ameribear

          Or a cat, or a dog, or a pig, or a butterfly.

          But it isn’t going to develop in to a cat, dog, pig, or butterfly is it? It’s a human organism.

          You’re not defining by a who, you’re defining by a what, and not even a full what.

          Alright then what they are. The point is that what a person can do still can’t be what defines them as a person. What is your standard of what persons should be able to do going to be to determine if they’re a person because anyone who can’t meet it isn’t a person.

          My consistent criterion has been sentience. It’s not some one off opinion.

          Then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized isn’t a person. Animals are sentient and are not persons. Sentience varies over our life time so personhood must vary as well. What level of sentience are you going to use that includes all persons at every stage of develelopment?

          Yep.

          Then personhood is present from conception.

          Why should I have to? I’m sentient and exist in society.

          May it never happen but what if you suffered a brain injury or a stroke that left you with only enough brain capacity to sustain a basic level of survival without external aids? Will you no longer be a person then?

          No, a world run by your world view is one where people reserve the right to decide who lives and who dies by allowing the will of the strong to be forced on the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. This is also a world with no future.

        • Pofarmer
        • epeeist

          Have a look at the references in his link, including the places where information was published.

        • BlackMamba44

          The first paragraph of their mission:

          MISSION

          The goal of the Charlotte Lozier Institute is to promote deeper public understanding of the value of human life, motherhood, and fatherhood, and to identify policies and practices that will protect life and serve both women’s health and family well-being. Our profound conviction is that the insights available through the best science, sociology and psychology cannot help but demonstrate that each and every human is not only “fearfully and wonderfully made” but blessed to be born at this time in human history

          We desire and seek that the benefits of modern medicine and the wealth of nations be put to the service of human life and that the scourges of abortion, physical disease, euthanasia and human exploitation will be diminished and ultimately overcome. Our intention is to work closely with the full array of existing groups dedicated to parallel purposes – to provide them with information of the highest quality that will assist them in their tasks of public advocacy, legal argument, and social action. We will do so while remaining faithful to the best methodologies and standards, inviting and accepting debate in the pursuit of our goals so that our work earns the highest degree of public trust and respect.

          Skimming through their news link also gives them away. A pro-life “institute”.

        • epeeist

          Skimming through their news link also gives them away. A pro-life “institute”.

          Who equivocate between “human” and “person” in exactly the same way as Ameribear.

        • Pofarmer

          I did. I also noted that the author is a member of the “Pontifical academy for life.” Arguing to a predetermined conclusion?

        • Kodie

          If you can pull the plug on someone who is being kept alive by heart and respiration machines but is brain-dead, you can pull the plug on a fetus.

        • Greg G.

          Neither has the capacity for consciousness. They need lots more material that must be taken from someone else’s bloodstream to develop the capacity for consciousness, not unlike a carbon atom that needs to form a hydrocarbon and become part of a zygote that has the potential to become a conscious entity. A zygote is closer to the carbon atom than to having the capacity for consciousness.

        • Ameribear

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          Newborns continue to rely on the use of their parents bodies for years after birth and the state can compel them to do so under penalty of prison. So by your reasoning based on the feckless talking point you keep vomiting up, we should rescind all the child protection laws and allow parents to end the lives of their born children simply because their to much of a burden.

        • Greg G.

          Newborns continue to rely on the use of their parents bodies for years after birth and the state can compel them to do so under penalty of prison. 

          Parents can relinquish custody to someone else who will take responsibility if they do not want to become parents. They face prison if they do not provide care without relinquishing responsibility. The children are cared for by people who are willing to do it.

        • Ameribear

          Then the law can still compel someone else to donate their bodies to the care of the child.

        • Greg G.

          The law can compel the death penalty for picking up sticks on one particular arbitrary day of the week but who wants that?

          Parents can say they do not want to or that they cannot care for their children, and society can relieve them of the responsibility. If they do not say that, society will leave them alone as long as the children are not being deprived of care.

          This is another losing argument for you. All of your arguments are failures but you are too stupid to shut up.

        • Pofarmer

          Isn’t Ameribears world just lovely?

        • Ameribear

          My point is the state can and does legally compel humans to donate their bodies to the responsibility of caring for children. You can’t go around whining about not being forced to donate your body because it can and is done. Your feckless bodily autonomy talking point is the king of losing arguments and the fact that you keep hacking it up proves how badly your losing the abortion debate and that you’re the one who’s too stupid to shut up.

          Without it, you do not have personhood.

          Then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized isn’t a person and that means it’s ok to kill them.

          Lack of sentience means lack of personhood.

          You’ve just affirmed my point and you probably don’t even realize it. If sentience is required for personhood and it varies then the level of personhood has to vary as well. What level of sentience should be the standard for personhood then? What level of sentience covers every living person at every stage of development? You never answered that exact same question when I asked it in reply to your stupid brain activity standard either.

        • Greg G.

          My point is the state can and does legally compel humans to donate their bodies to the responsibility of caring for children.

          Then you have no point because it is not true. A person can hire a nanny and not care for the kid personally. If a person accepts responsibility for the care of the child, then they are responsible for the care of the child. But they can revoke the responsibility and put the child up for adoption or let someone else care for the child. As long as the child is getting minimal care, the state is OK with it. If a pregnant woman wants to have the child, she can, but if she does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do it.

          hen anyone who is comatose or anesthetized

          Depends on the coma but an anesthetized person has a functioning brain capable of sentience.

          You’ve just affirmed my point and you probably don’t even realize it. If sentience is required for personhood and it varies then the level of personhood has to vary as well. What level of sentience should be the standard for personhood then?

          Bob posted an article with a dilemma for you. You are trying to escape a fire. There is a five year old that you can rescue on your way out and cooler with a thousand frozen human embryos, but you cannot carry both. Which do you save, the child or the thousand embryos or two embryos? If the child, is there some number of embryos that you would need it to be instead of the child. What if the choice was a puppy or a human embryo?

        • Ameribear

          As long as the child is getting minimal care, the state is OK with it.

          Then the state is still compelling someone to care for the child even though it may not be the birth mother. Some one has to take responsibility for the child or face the consequences if they don’t.

          If a pregnant woman wants to have the child, she can, but if she does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do it.

          Only in you deluded fantasy land.

          Depends on the coma but an anesthetized person has a functioning brain capable of sentience.

          They’re not sentient during surgery. You still haven’t answered the question of what level of sentience are you going to use to determine personhood. You also haven’t addressed the problem you yourself brought up of some humans becoming less of a person than others because their sentience is either impaired or underdeveloped.

          That asinine thought experiment is nothing but a rehashed false dilemma that you’re to dense to see through.

          http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20332/

        • Greg G.

          Then the state is still compelling someone to care for the child even though it may not be the birth mother. Some one has to take responsibility for the child or face the consequences if they don’t.

          The state does not force anybody to care for a child against their will. It will hire people to do the job but they can quit or take another job. It can pay foster parents to care for the child but they can return the child if they cannot handle that child for some reason.

          A sentient being that is temporarily not sentient is still recognized as a sentient being. I do not understand why you are pursuing this line of argument. If a fully sentient being requires another fully sentient being to survive, and the other being does not agree, the first being is out of luck in my view, as the second being cannot and should not be forced to keep the other being alive for any extended period.

          That page says that saving the five year old and leaving the embryos is the moral thing (“We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. “). Professor McCormick recognizes that a living child is more of a person than many embryos. The other examples have no bearing on the question.

          But you were too much of a chickenshit to answer the question.

        • Ameribear

          The state does not force anybody to care for a child against their will. It will hire people to do the job but they can quit or take another job. It can pay foster parents to care for the child but they can return the child if they cannot handle that child for some reason.

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time? The force of law compels both biological parents and any one whom the state hires to take the responsibility of caring for a child to act responsibly or suffer the consequences. Neither one of them can use the excuse that their bodily autonomy trumps the right of the child in their care to receive proper treatment. Absolute bodily autonomy is a myth.

          A sentient being that is temporarily not sentient is still recognized as a sentient being.

          Your assuming that all non sentience is temporary. Some comatose patients may never regain sentience.

          I do not understand why you are pursuing this line of argument.

          Because it intentionally narrows down the definition of personhood to exclude other persons.

          If a fully sentient being requires another fully sentient being to survive, and the other being does not agree, the first being is out of luck in my view, as the second being cannot and should not be forced to keep the other being alive for any extended period.

          A newborn requires another fully sentient being to survive for an even longer period of time and no one’s bodily autonomy is absolute to the point of justifying denying any child a proper environment. The only difference is that a child has no other means of survival available to it before birth. Absolute bodily autonomy is a feckless myth you cling to because you’ve run out of excuses. As if you had any to begin with.

          That page says that saving the five year old and leaving the embryos is the moral thing (“We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. “). Professor McCormick recognizes that a living child is more of a person than many embryos. The other examples have no bearing on the question.

          That article says they agree that “considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl.” Professor George goes on to say “However, this by no means shows that human embryos are not human beings or that they may be deliberately killed to produce stem cells, or in an abortion.”.

          Want to guess what that makes you for intentionally leaving that out?

        • Greg G.

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time?

          This has been answered to many times by me and by others. That you continue to use it shows that you are out of arguments. You are the Black Knight:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6frs86Szk_0

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t come anywhere near answering it. I asked you specific questions that exposed the speciousness of your argument that you never answered. Absolute bodily autonomy is a myth and existing child protection laws prove it.

        • Greg G.

          Answered many times. Perhaps you need to upgrade your intelligence. Escaping the hold religion has on you can help with that.

        • Pofarmer

          Ameribear thinks that since bodily autonomy isn’t absolute, it’s ok to make people slaves, for the good of the fetus, of course.

        • Ameribear

          Have a look at these.

          https://www.wonderslist.com/10-mothers-who-killed-their-kids/

          Now then weasel, since you and others here believe bodily autonomy is absolute, explain why these women are behind bars instead of roaming around Scott-free because their lawyers invoked the vaunted bodily autonomy defense? Number one, I think is, especially pertinent because her 3 month old son was interfering with her all-important bodily autonomy by keeping her away from her Farmville session.

        • Greg G.

          Every one of those cases, the mother had accepted responsibility for the child instead of giving it up for adoption or to family services. Not one of the cases is relevant. If that is the best you can come up with, then you have no argument.

        • Pofarmer

          None of those were fertilized eggs. Funny.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If that is the best you can come up with, then you have no argument.

          Colour me shocked, I tell ya, shocked….NOT!

        • Ameribear

          Those women are behind bars because they were convicted of refusing to accept their responsibilities by murdering their kids which proves your feckless absolute bodily autonomy concept is a myth.

          You aren’t missing the point I’m making, you’re intentionally ignoring it because it proves you’re wrong and you’re too much of an underhanded slime bag to admit it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Those women are behind bars because they were convicted of refusing to accept their responsibilities by murdering their kids which proves your feckless absolute bodily autonomy concept is a myth.

          How can you be so asinine with just one head?

          They are behind bars for neglect.

          I was a single parent, had I behaved the same, I’d be behind bars for neglect too.

          Those women decided to accept the responsibility of looking after those children, then neglected that duty. It isn’t the fucking same thing ya dopey bastard.

          Had those women gave up those children because they couldn’t cope, and the kids had subsequently died of neglect, they would not have ended up behind bars…because they are NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE…. MORON.

        • Ameribear

          They are behind bars for neglect.

          Except for #4 all of those stories are about women who committed first degree murder doofus. There’s a hell of a difference between that and neglect.

          Those women decided to accept the responsibility of looking after those children, then neglected that duty. It isn’t the fucking same thing ya dopey bastard.

          Neglected children could be found to be dirty, sick and or malnourished in which case they could still survive neglect. Murdered children are always found dead. Neglect involves inaction, first degree murder involves direct, willful action. It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          Had those women gave up those children because
          they couldn’t cope, and the kids had subsequently died of neglect,
          they would not have ended up behind bars…because they are NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE…. MORON.

          But they willfully murdered their children because they couldn’t cope so they are behind bars because they are responsible Ignorant Amos.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except for #4 all of those stories are about women who committed first degree murder doofus. There’s a hell of a difference between that and neglect.

          And all of them except number four are filicide and do nothing to uphold your argument ya fuckwit. Only case four is anywhere near relevant, and even then it isn’t.

          They are all behind bars because they neglected the responsibility they undertook to look after the children they decided to have and look after.. How the kids met there demise is academic to this discussion on accepting said responsibility and a mothers right to bodily autonomy.

          https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-horrific-cases-of-parents-who-killed-their-children/

          Neglected children could be found to be dirty, sick and or malnourished in which case they could still survive neglect.

          Jumping Jaysus on a fucking pogo stick, do you take courses in stupid?

          If you read what I wrote…S-L-O-W-L-Y… you just might get it.

          Murdered children are always found dead. Neglect involves inaction, first degree murder involves direct, willful action.

          And it isn’t exclusive to mothers looking for bodily autonomy, so it has fuck all to do with abortion.

          It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          Except when it is…. as in example four…or…

          http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/baby-dies-in-hot-car-after-mum-left-her-for-six-hours-to-go-get-her-hair-done-6790943/

          But they willfully murdered their children because they couldn’t cope so they are behind bars because they are responsible Ignorant Amos.

          Which is the very point I made. They couldn’t cope AFTER they accepted the responsibility to cope. they NEGLECTED their responsibility. How the kids met their death is a non sequitur to the discussion. that some mothers proactively engage in the harm, while others unintentionally cause harm, has diddly squat to do with this debate. Neglect of a duty of care after accepting it, is the point. A mother who gives up that responsibility, whether through abortion, or giving a child over to the care of another, is not guilty if harm comes to the youngster later.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

          Why you keep digging this hole you’ve started that has bugger all to do with pro-choice, is an enigma.

        • Ameribear

          You are saying the term neglect applies to the mothers of both the kids who died because of the direct action or inaction by their mothers which is beside the point. My point is that in either case the mothers right to bodily autonomy isn’t absolute to the point of absolving any of the them of their crimes.

        • Greg G.

          The women are in jail for killing someone. They would be in jail for killing the neighbor’s kid, the neighbor, the neighbor’s parent, or anyone else, provided that the deceased was not taking things from her without her consent, using her body without her consent, or threatening her in some way.

          A fetus uses the nutrients in the woman’s bloodstream and dumps toxic wastes into the same bloodstream. It the woman gives consent, then fine. If she does not give consent to that, you should not be able to force her to maintain that situation. The article you linked has nothing to do with that.

          It’s not that I am missing your point because your point is completely missing.

          Your religion is a sickness. You may need professional help to deal with the guilts and fears your religion has installed.

        • Pofarmer

          For all those watching at home, I just want to note that Ameribear is advocating investigating women who have miscarriages. He’d probably like to prosecute women who have more than one consecutive period, because their might have been a fertilized egg expelled.

        • Ameribear

          They would be in jail for killing the neighbor’s kid, the neighbor, the neighbor’s parent, or anyone else,

          Irrelevant! This is another attempt to divert attention away from the point.

          provided that the deceased was not taking things from her without her consent, using her body without her consent, or threatening her in some way.

          In case number one the deceased was doing exactly that. The care the 3 month old required from his mother was taking her time away from her internet gaming and she decided to make the little guy understand she wasn’t going to allow that. His mother believed her body and her time was hers to use for whatever she wanted and at that moment she decided her son was to much of a burden for her so she chose to exercise her right to bodily autonomy and now she’s in jail. The only difference between what she did and an abortion was the stage of development of the child.

          A fetus uses the nutrients in the woman’s bloodstream and dumps toxic wastes into the same bloodstream. It the woman gives consent, then fine. If she does not give consent to that, you should not be able to force her to maintain that situation. The article you linked has nothing to do with that.

          The weasel attempts diversion number two. The article I linked to is about mothers who are in jail for refusing to consent to providing the proper environment for the children they brought into existence which begins at conception and extends well past birth. They are going to be in jail a long time because they didn’t consent to donating their bodies to the proper care of their kids which means absolute bodily autonomy is a myth, no ones bodily autonomy trumps an innocent persons right to life, the article has everything to do with this subject and you’re still an underhanded weasel.

          BTW weasel, you never answered my question. Who would you save if it was your 5 year old and a neighbors five year old?

          Your brainwashing is a sickness. You may need professional help to stop being such an underhanded profligate.

        • Greg G.

          There is no point. The woman you mention accepted responsibility for a child but neglected the child. That principle has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

          I think your religiously-installed cognitive dissonance will not allow you to process that distinction.

        • Ameribear

          I never denied that the mothers are guilty of neglect in one form or another, that’s not my point.

          My point that you keep ignoring is that your insistence that bodily autonomy is absolute and inviolable is patently false. Any one of those women could have believed they were exercising their right to bodily autonomy when they committed those crimes but there’s no way that was going to keep them out of prison. The right to life of all those children trumped any bodily autonomy rights the mothers may have thought they had.

        • Greg G.

          I never denied that the mothers are guilty of neglect in one form or another, that’s not my point.

          It is not about neglect. Nine of the ten flat out murdered their children. The other was criminal neglect. The women should have been given free contraceptives and used them religiously.

          It is not about bodily autonomy, it is about mental disorders.

          Where was God when these things happened? If there was an omnipotent, benevolent god, these things would not happen. If you believe in God, then you would be forced to believe that these were not bad things in God’s judgement.

        • Ameribear

          It is not about neglect. Nine of the ten flat out murdered their children. The other was criminal neglect.

          I agree, it’s not about neglect and yes it’s painfully obvious that those women are indeed guilty of murdering their children but that’s still beside the point.

          The women should have been given free contraceptives and used them religiously.

          Contraceptives are already widely available and used and crap like this still happens. No amount of contraceptives is going to fix a problem like this. Contraceptives fail so how do you know they weren’t already using them?

          It is not about bodily autonomy, it is about mental disorders.

          The point I’ve been making is about bodily autonomy, specifically about the fact that these women’s bodily autonomy is nowhere near as absolute as you make it out to be. Your continuous attempts to change the subject must mean you can’t refute that.

          Where was God when these things happened? If there was an omnipotent, benevolent god, these things would not happen.

          An omnipotent and benevolent God can and does allow evil because he is omnipotent and benevolent enough to grant his creation free will and to respect the choices we make as a result of it.

          If you believe in God, then you would be forced to believe that these were not bad things in God’s judgement.

          No, not at all. Omnipotent or omniscience by it’s very nature means God can allow bad things to happen because he’s powerful enough to still bring good out of them.

        • Greg G.

          I agree, it’s not about neglect and yes it’s painfully obvious that those women are indeed guilty of murdering their children but that’s still beside the point.

          Beside what point? You don’t have one.

          The point I’ve been making is about bodily autonomy, specifically about the fact that these women’s bodily autonomy is nowhere near as absolute as you make it out to be. Your continuous attempts to change the subject must mean you can’t refute that.

          You brought up murder. That is changing the subject. Everyone has the right of bodily autonomy, not just women. People can’t borrow your organs without your consent. You can’t borrow a woman’s vagina without her consent. A fetus can’t use her uterus without her consent. A fetus can’t steal nutrients from her bloodstream without her consent. A fetus can’t dump waste products into her bloodstream without her consent. A fetus can’t inject hormones into her bloodstream to affect her psychology without her consent.

          An omnipotent and benevolent God can and does allow evil because he is omnipotent and benevolent enough to grant his creation free will and to respect the choices we make as a result of it.

          The free will excuse doesn’t fly. An omnipotent being could prevent suffering and allow greater free will than we have now. If the being cannot do that, then it is not omnipotent. You still haven’t come to grips with the problem of suffering and the claim of omnipotence.

          No, not at all. Omnipotent or omniscience by it’s very nature means God can allow bad things to happen because he’s powerful enough to still bring good out of them.

          If God is omnipotent, then he can bring whatever good without the suffering, therefore the suffering is superfluous and sadistic.If the suffering is necessary for the good, then the good is logically possible to do, yet God cannot do it without the suffering, so say goodbye to the concept of omnipotence.

          Your religions sucks. Find a better one if you can, but you should really get out of what you are stuck in.

        • Pofarmer

          You still haven’t come to grips with the problem of suffering and the claim of omnipotence.

          Is this really a surprise? Ameribear is spewing Catholic dogma because he’s afraid to think for himself.

        • BlackMamba44

          All this time and Ameribear still doesn’t understand what bodily autonomy means?

          In every one of those cases, the child was BORN.

          Ameribear just needs to give up on links.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is par for the course with Ameribear. He has a history of posting links that fuck over his argument even further, but is too much of a Coco to realise it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Another Catholic response to excess fertility was the foundling hospital. The foundling hospitals were equipped with a kind of “lazy Susan” wheel (ruota) where the child could be placed anonymously and then the wheel turned putting the child inside. The good intentions in this were not matched with resources and the vast majority of these infants, sometimes 90 percent of them, were dead within months. Because of the reliance on infanticide and abandonment, it is not surprising that there was not much discussion about abortion and contraception. As Gudorf says, “the primary pastoral battles in the first millennium were around infanticide, the banning of which undoubtedly raised the incidence of abandonment.” Also the high mortality of children due to nutritional, hygienic, and medical debits was a common and cruel form of population control.

          Tuam Babies: “It would be… kinder to strangle these children at birth” said doctor

          “A great many people are always asking what is the good of keeping these children alive? I quite agree that it would be a great deal kinder to strangle these children at birth than to put them out to nurse.” — Doctor Ella Webb, June 18, 1924, speaking about illegitimate children in[Catholic]care in Ireland at the time.

          https://www.irishcentral.com/news/tuam-babies-it-would-be-kinder-to-strangle-these-illegitimate-children-at-birth

        • Pofarmer

          Some comatose patients may never regain sentience.

          Yep, and what happens in that case?

        • Greg G.

          Ha! I didn’t even read that far. I know how his arguments go after that point. It gets dumber and dumber.

        • Pofarmer

          He’s a Catholic. He lives in an alternate world.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And his bullshit Catholic crapola is grounded on the ideas of Church fathers who hadn’t a fucking clue what they were talking about, yet here he is, spouting nonsense, again, and again, and again…ad nauseam ffs.

          But even then, Ameribear is talking the biggest loada shite. The dickhead is out of touch. And I know for a fact he makes assertions in contradiction of the accepted establishment teachings. Point it out and it’s crickets.

          Ameribear is an ignorant knuckle-dragging dinosaur, who thankfully, is way behind the times. Thank fuck there are quite a few rational individuals in Catholicism.

          The Moderate Roman Catholic Position
          on Contraception and Abortion

          By Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian, Marquette University

          Catholic Teaching on Contraception and Abortion

          Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion has been anything but consistent. What most people–including most Catholics- think of as “the Catholic position” on these issues actually dates from the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI. Prior to that, church teaching was a mixed and jumbled bag. The pope decided to tidy up the tradition and change it by saying that contraception and sterilization were sins against nature and abortion was a sin against life. As Gudorf says, “both contraception and abortion were generally forbidden” in previous teaching but both were often thought to be associated with sorcery and witchcraft. Pope Gregory IX in the Decretals of 1230 treated both contraception and abortion as “homicide.” Some of the Christian Penitentials of the early middle ages prescribed seven years of fasting on bread and water for a layman who commits homicide, one year for performing an abortion, but seven years for sterilization. Sterilization was considered more serious than abortion because the issue was not framed as “pro-life” but rather, the driving bias was anti-sexual. The traditional Christian attitudes toward sexuality were so negative that it was only reproductivity that could justify this activity. Abortion frustrated fertility once; sterilization could frustrate it forever and therefore it was more serious. Also, since the role of the ovum was not learned until the nineteenth century, the sperm were thought to be little homunculi, miniature people, and for this reason male masturbation was sometimes called homicide. Clearly Christian historical sexual ethics is a bit of a hodge podge. To really understand it and to arrive at an informed judgment on Catholic moral options it is necessary to be instructed by a little more history.

          Catholic and Pro-choice

          Although it is virtually unknown in much public international discourse, the Roman Catholic position on abortion is pluralistic. It has a strong “pro-choice” tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other. The hierarchical attempt to portray the Catholic position as univocal, an unchanging negative wafted through twenty centuries of untroubled consensus, is untrue. By unearthing this authentic openness to choice on abortion and on contraception in the core of the tradition, the status of the anti-choice position is revealed as only one among many Catholic views.

          The bible does not condemn abortion. The closest it gets to it is in Exodus 21-22 which speaks of accidental abortion. This imposes a financial penalty on a man who “in the course of a brawl” caused a woman to miscarry. The issue here is the father’s right to progeny; he could fine you for the misdeed, but he could not claim “an eye for an eye” as if a person had been killed. Thus, as conservative theologian John Connery, S.J. said, “the fetus did not have the same status as the mother in Hebrew Law.”

          Following on the silence of scripture on abortion, the early church history treats it only incidentally and sporadically. Indeed, there is no systematic study of the question until the fifteenth century. One early church writer Tertullian discusses what we would today call a late term emergency abortion where doctors had to dismember a fetus in order to remove it, and he refers to this emergency measure as a “crudelitas necessaria,” a necessary cruelty. Obviously this amounted to moral approbation of what some call today inaccurately a “partial birth abortion.”

          http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm

        • Pofarmer

          I wish these pro-choice Catholics would speak up more. I’m so tired of the moralizing snd constant agonizing by the conservative bunch.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Like with so many other things, the more rational among them get drowned out by the cacophony made by the more woo woo orientated. But the gems are still there to be found, and if Ireland is a yard stick to be going by, the game is a bogey for the conservatives. Ameribear is in denial about this of course.

        • Ameribear

          Then family members have to decide the best course of action to take considering the circumstances. That doesn’t mean the comatose patient is no longer a person.

        • Joe

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time?

          There’s a difference between actively caring for somebody and simply “not harming them”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Obviously numbnuts has never heard of in loco parentis where he lives?

        • Greg G.

          I had never heard the term myself, but I was aware of the concept.

        • Kodie

          If you never had a brain or a nervous system, what makes that a person?

        • Pofarmer

          You may be getting a little close to home.

        • Pofarmer

          “Does forcing people to take care of their born children constitute controlling them?”

          Yep.

          But a zygote isn’t a child.

        • Ameribear

          Yep.

          Then If the state can legitimately compel parents to care for their born children they can and should do the same for their unborn ones.

          But a zygote isn’t a child.

          A zygote is a human person in the earliest stage of development. You cannot say that any born human who is not fully developed is less of person than one who is.

        • adam

          But a zygote isn’t a child.

          If it were the Catholic priests would want to fuck em.

        • Pofarmer

          You cannot say that any born human who is not fully developed is less of person than one who is.

          Absolutely you can, because to say different makes the woman a slave to your ideology. You cannot reduce her rights.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          We could take that to an extreme–suppose technology advances so that you could be just a brain in a jar. Would you be less of a person then?

          Uh, yeah.

        • Pofarmer

          This is actually an interesting thought experiment. Are you familiar with the Sci-fi books “Old Man’s War” series by John Scalzi? In it, people reaching their 70th birthday may join the Earth Defense Forces ( I think that ‘s the name). They are given a new, genetically engineered body and their consciousness is transferred to it. The old body is then discarded. The point is that the person is the consciousness, not the body.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Tangent: that reminds me of Gran Torino with Clint Eastwood. (Spoiler coming up.) He sacrifices himself at the end, but he only had a couple of months anyway because he had terminal cancer.

          This seems to be a basic story plot element (terminally ill person goes on suicide mission because what’s there to lose?) that I’m surprised you don’t see more often.

        • Ameribear

          Absolutely you can,

          So you’re saying a newborn or is less of a person than a toddler, teenager or adult.

          You cannot reduce her rights.

          The state most certainly can reduce her rights in order to deter her from willfully neglecting or harming her born children. I’m just maintaining that the unborn are equally entitled to the same rights and protections as the born.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you’re saying a newborn or is less of a person than a toddler, teenager or adult.

          I’m saying a single cell is less of a person.

        • Pofarmer

          “I’m just maintaining that the unborn are equally entitled to the same rights and protections as the born.”

          Maintain all you want, but doing so severely degrades the rights of the mother. That’s the way the legal system sees it. Up until the point that a fetus can survive birth, it’s ok to abort. This is also that the time a fetus achieves brain waves. Before this time a fetus has no rights. After that point it is given more rights. This is preserving the rights of the mother to determine her own reproduction, which you wish to impede. I will fight you, because a world run by your world view is one of neglect, and poverty, and crime, and no education and low attainment. In short. Your world sucks. We don’t want it. Go away.

        • Ameribear

          Maintain all you want, but doing so severely degrades the rights of the mother.

          In your world carrying a unborn child to term degrades the rights of the mother but the law can compel the same mother to take the responsibility of caring for her born child and that doesn’t degrade her rights.

          That’s the way the legal system sees it.

          Just like the way the legal system used to see the owning of humans by other humans was OK.

          Up until the point that a fetus can survive birth, it’s ok to abort. This is also that the time a fetus achieves brain waves.

          http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit7.php#brainwaves.

          Boy have you got some studying to do.

          Before this time a fetus has no rights.

          Something we’re making progress on changing.

          This is preserving the rights of the mother to determine her own reproduction, which you wish to impede.

          This is baseless BS abortion industry propaganda that was shot down long ago.

          I will fight you, because a world run by your world view is one of neglect, and poverty, and crime, and no education and low attainment. In short. Your world sucks. We don’t want it. Go away.

          A world run by your worldview is that of reserving the absolute right to decide who lives and who dies based on anyone’s subjective criteria. History has already amply proven how badly your world sucks and how much of a future it has.

        • Susan

          In your world carrying a unborn child to term

          it’s not a child. If you reject sentience as a condition, please stop referring to sentient beings. It’s dishonest. You are trying to poke our mirror neurons but you reject sentience. Make up your mind.

          degrades the rights of the mother

          No. Forcing someone to donate their body degrades basic human rights.

          Just like the way the legal system used to see the owning of humans by other humans was OK.

          No. Not at all in that way. Because you’ve made it clear that sentience is not important in any way, you can’t compare your position to defense of sentient beings. Make up your mind.

          Boy have you got some studying to do

          Sproing!

          Christ on a cracker.

          You’ve shown no expertise, let alone curiosity about the subjects of biology, nor personhood, nor acknowledged (as many times as it’s been pointed out, WITH polite links on both subjects) how you keep committiing category errors in all directions.

          All you’ve done is repeat standard rejections of sentience while constantly comparing a single cell to sentient beings.

          You haven’t thought about this yourself. You’ve just parroted forced birth sites that justifyrationalize your position. So, fuck off with your “studying” advice. Show that you’ve done some yourself before you advise people.

          A world run by your worldview is that of reserving the absolute right to decide who lives and who dies based on anyone’s subjective criteria.

          You have to establish a “who”. Insisting an arbitrary cell is a “who” does not provide a who.

          Anyway, you have nothing but subjective criteria. Based on an imaginary being and what your church extrapolates from their imaginary claims.

          Where your church is in power, sentient beings suffer and die because you believe in imaginary souls.

          So, fuck off with your “decides who lives and who dies”..

          The survival of women and babies is not a priority for your church.

          —–

          Edit to strike and replace.

        • Ameribear

          it’s not a child. If you reject sentience as a condition, please stop referring to sentient beings. It’s dishonest. You are trying to poke our mirror neurons but you reject sentience. Make up your mind.

          It is a child, I am not referring to sentient beings because I reject sentience and I will not stop using the terms I do because I’ve already shown you that sentience cannot be used to define a person which you have yet to refute.

          No. Forcing someone to donate their body degrades basic human rights.

          Declaring that a person is not a person based on specious and arbitrary criteria does exactly the same thing you hypocrite.

          No. Not at all in that way. Because you’ve made it clear that sentience is not important in any way,

          And you’ve made it clear that you can’t refute that.

          you can’t compare your position to defense of sentient beings. Make up your mind.

          Yes I can since I’ve shown that sentience can’t be what defines a person.

          You’ve shown no expertise, let alone curiosity about the subjects of biology, nor personhood,

          Says the one who repeatedly lies about what a zygote really is and uses continuous non-person properties to define persons. Sproing indeed!

          All you’ve done is repeat standard rejections of sentience while constantly comparing a single cell to sentient beings.

          All you’ve done is repeat a non-person arbitrary continuous property and never addressed any of the problems associated with it. Sentience can’t be what defines personhood.

          Show that you’ve done some yourself before you advise people.

          Irony metres are expensive, Susan and I’m not sure you’re worth it.

          Where your church is in power, sentient beings suffer and die because you believe in imaginary souls.

          Where your world view is in power human life is subjugated to sexual license in the name of fictitious rights and fabricated talking points.

          The survival of women and babies is not a priority for your church.

          Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you have no idea how much BS you demonstrate your worldview to be full of.

        • Susan

          It is a child.

          No. It’s not. Not by any stretch

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/child?s=t

          I am not referring to sentient beings because I reject sentience

          In which case, you should stop relying on sentient beings for metaphors. i.e. using terms like “innocence”, “murder”, “genocide”, “eugenics”, etc. all because they set off alarms about sentient beings.

          You can’t expel sentience from the discussion and appeal to it at the same time.

          you’ve made it clear that you can’t refute that.

          I have no burden to refute unsupported claims.

          Declaring that a person is not a person based on specious and arbitrary criteria does exactly the same thing

          I said that I don’t accept that a cell is a person. You have to show that it is. Science doesn’t declare that it is. It can’t.

          That you do nothing but declare that it is and then point at the worst possible situations for sentient beings (murder, eugenics, genocide) only illuminates your lack of an argument.

          Sentience can’t be what defines personhood.

          I’ve said repeatedly that it’s necessary but not sufficient. Do you even know what that means Mr. Metaphysics?

          Irony metres are expensive Susan and I’m not sure you’re worth it

          All you’ve brought here are declarations parroted from forced birth sites that show no knowledge of nor interest in biology nor knowledge of nor interest in personhood. And then you accuse people of awful things when they call you out on it. Hence, my mention of irony meters when you accused Kodie of doing that when she made arguments before she resorted to that.

          You expect to be taken seriously on both subjects, but have demonstrated no investment in nor knowledge of either subject.

          Where your world view is in power human life is subjugated to sexual license in the name of fictitious rights and fabricated talking points

          “Sexual license?” A woman having sex with her husband, for instance? Something your church is all for. Is that sexual license?

          in the name of fictitious rights

          They’re not fictitious. They are the rules by which sentient humans live, often to the detriment of other sentient humans and sentient non-humans.

          Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you have no idea how much BS you demonstrate your worldview to be full of.

          Empty bluster. If you have a case for that statement, make it.

        • Ameribear

          No. It’s not. Not by any stretch.

          Then what makes it a child after birth and not before? Sentience cannot be it.

          In which case, you should stop relying on sentient beings for metaphors. i.e. using terms like “innocence”, “murder”, “genocide”, “eugenics”, etc. all because they set off alarms about
          sentient beings. You can’t expel sentience from the discussion and
          appeal to it at the same time.

          You can still murder a person who isn’t sentient so the terms still apply. You are the one who keeps appealing to it.

          I have no burden to refute unsupported claims.

          I’ve offered plenty of support along with legitimate challenges to all your BS abortion industry tripe that you have left completely unanswered. Your refusal to accept any burden of proof proves you can’t refute what I said and your playing games to deflect attention away from it.

          I said that I don’t accept that a cell is a person. You have to show that it is. Science doesn’t declare that it is. It can’t.

          Your continued refusal to accept the burden of proof for what you accept proves you know you’ve lost. Your playing games and you know it.

          I’ve said repeatedly that it’s necessary but not sufficient. Do you even know what that means Mr. Metaphysics?

          I’ve said repeatedly that it isn’t necessary along with a list of all the reasons why. I’ve also asked you repeatedly what else is necessary and you’ve never answered that question either.

          That you do nothing but declare that it is and then point at the worst possible situations for sentient beings (murder, eugenics, genocide) only illuminates your lack of an argument.

          Murder, eugenics, and genocide can be carried out on non sentient persons and you know it. Your incessant bleating about it means it probably bothers you which is another reason why I won’t stop using them.

          All you’ve brought here are declarations parroted from forced birth sites that show no knowledge of nor interest in biology nor knowledge of nor interest in personhood.

          All you’ve brought here is abortion industry talking points that show no knowledge of nor interest in biology because you keep lying about what a zygote really is nor knowledge of nor interest in personhood because you keep beating the sentience dead horse.

          I sure hope you don’t expect to be taken seriously on either subjects, because you’ve demonstrated no investment in nor knowledge of either subject. I’m astounded at how incredibly blind you are to your own blindness.

          They’re not fictitious.

          They are completely fictitious. This is a last ditch effort by your jackbooted superiors to justify murder by getting all you good little goose steppers to go around repeating it enough in hopes that it’ll dumb down the public to what your really up to.

        • Susan

          Then what makes it a child after birth and not before?

          You are not arguing for “after birth” and before”. You have fixated on a zygote. I would be willing to discuss the subject of persohood at any point in the spectrum. But you chose the zygote stage.

          I provided a dictionary definition for the term child. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/child?s=t

          a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:

          Dictionary definitions address usage.

          Sentience cannot be it.

          I never have defined a single criterion as personhood. But children are sentient. Sentience does not define children but sentience is a quallity children possess.

          You can still murder a person who isn’t sentient.

          Give me an example. Without begging the question.

          Your refusal to accept any burden of proof

          For what? That “human” does not equal “person” in philosophical arguments?

          It doesn’t. All you have is equivocation. I’ve simply pointed it out. I linked you to a video on the subject of personhood in philosophy and Pofarmer linked it again. It doesn’t seem like you watched it.

          I’ve said repeatedly that it isn’t necessary along with a list of all the reasons why.

          No. You’ve only done the former. You rely on equivocation and then use terms like “murder”, “innocence”, “children”, “eugenics” and “genocide”, all of which are terms that refer to sentient beings.

          Murder, eugenics, and genocide can be carried out on non sentient person

          Give me example of murder that doesn’t beg the question. Give me an example of the other two that even remotely resembles the definition.

          All you’ve brought here is abortion industry talking points

          If I were interested in supporting an abortion industry, I would cozy up with your church’s policies. They preach against effective birth control because of imaginary souls. Nothing would put money in the bank for an “abortion industry” better than restricting effective birth control. But if I were smart, I would go into cosmetic surgery. That’s where the money is. Or run a tourist shop at a site where your church claimed a miracle happened.

          I’m not giving you talking points. I’ve never had an abortion. I’m not a member of an imaginary “abortion industry”. Though you appear to be a member of an actual RCC industry. I’m simply pointing out that you have failed to engage in the complicated problem of personhood and that you have “learned” (reiterated) your biology from forced birth propaganda.

          you keep lying about what a zygote really is

          I’ve said it’s a cell. And that cells are neither sentient nor cognizant. That’s not a lie.

          They are completely fictitious.

          No. Yahwehjesus is completely fictitious.

          The subject of personhood is real.

        • Ameribear

          You are not arguing for “after birth” and before”. You have fixated on a zygote. I would be willing to discuss the subject of personhood at any point in the spectrum. But you chose the zygote stage.

          The definition you just posted excludes the unborn from the class
          of children. Since you posted it, you must agree with it which means you are making the statement that it is only a child after birth. Try to give a straight answer instead of more evasions. Why are the born children and the unborn aren’t?

          I never have defined a single criterion as personhood.

          You haven’t defined anything as personhood. You never answered the question I’ve asked multiple times either. What else besides sentience defines personhood?

          Give me an example. Without begging the question.

          A comatose person is still a person but isn’t sentient.

          For what? That “human” does not equal “person” in philosophical arguments?

          It doesn’t. All you have is equivocation. I’ve simply pointed it out. I linked you to a video on the subject of personhood in philosophy and Pofarmer linked it again. It doesn’t seem like you watched it.

          I watched it and I read the article Pofarmer linked to. Neither one of which offers any clear, all inclusive definition of personhood. They present a handful of lines of different reasoning that are all problematic in some aspect because they end up excluding some persons. There has to be a clear definition of personhood that includes all living humans at every stage of developement otherwise there’s no such thing as a person.

          No. You’ve only done the former. You rely on equivocation and then use terms like “murder”, “innocence”,
          “children”, “eugenics” and “genocide”, all of which are terms that refer to sentient beings.

          Since sentience cannot be a criteria for determining personhood
          then I most certainly can and will use those terms.

          Give me example of murder that doesn’t beg the
          question. Give me an example of the other two that even remotely
          resembles the definition.

          Like I said earlier. The comatose and the anesthetized are not
          sentient but are still persons. You still haven’t proven they aren’t
          persons.

          If I were interested in supporting an abortion industry,… But if I were smart, I would go into cosmetic surgery.
          That’s where the money is. Or run a tourist shop at a site where your church claimed a miracle happened.

          Or you could teach a graduate level course on how to deny science, not answer questions and evade making effective counter points.

          I’m simply pointing out that you have failed to engage in the complicated problem of personhood

          No, that’s what you’re doing. All you’ve said is it’s sentience and something else and you’ve refused to go beyond that in spite of being asked multiple times. You’re accusing me of doing the exact same thing you are.

          I’ve said it’s a cell.

          Which completely denies what embryology defines it as for the
          zillionth time so your lying. You outright have to repeatedly lie
          through your teeth about this singular point because you know damned well what it really is drives a stake through the heart of your feckless talking point.

          And that cells are neither sentient nor cognizant. That’s not a lie.

          Sentience cannot be a criteria used to define personhood and you
          still haven’t countered that.

        • Kodie

          It’s not a person. Let’s revisit where it can’t live outside of a person’s body, and doesn’t have a brain or nervous system, doesn’t have any experiences, thoughts, or plans, or any concept of what those are. Let’s revisit where it can only become a person not only situating inside of a woman’s uterus, but leeching off the blood and tissue from her own body. The part where you say it has a brain and lungs and a heart, they just didn’t form yet but they’re there, well, those are things a person would have, no, it’s not a person. It’s not killing anyone, it’s not killing, it’s not murder to have an abortion, especially if it’s early enough not to be “ambiguous”, which most abortions already are.

          Sentience is kind of important, like having ever had a brain before and having been aware, which is not like a patient on anesthesia, who might have a job and friends, and a family, who is waiting for them in the waiting room. There’s a brain inside their skull. Having been aware previously, they’d expect nothing more than to continue to exist, which you cannot say about a brainless clump of cells. If the anesthetized patient dies on the operating table, they will probably not care. Their family will care. That’s the kind of thing about death – once you are actually dead, you don’t care. You can’t care. Others who knew you will care. If there was negligence, the insurance companies will care. The corpse on the table has no idea, no memory, no grief. People who are aware they’re going to die is another matter entirely, but once it’s over, they feel nothing, they can’t think whatever they forgot to do or about their children crying for them. People who are alone with no one to care for them – what about them. Is it murder to kill someone who won’t be missed by anyone? Yes. Is it murder to clip your toenails? There are sharp blades chopping part of your body off the rest of your body, and you don’t feel guilty at all. We don’t have any controversy here. Is it murder to kill a cow? There’s some controversy there. Is it murder to put your dog to sleep because he’s sick and in pain? Hardly any controversy there. Is it murder for shelters to put dozens of dogs and cats to sleep because nobody wanted them and they need to make room? Some controversy about that, even though it’s painless and better than living in a cage indefinitely. Is it murder to kill a mouse? Is it murder to cruelly allow a mouse to stick to a trap for days on end, or to buy live mice to feed your pet snake? You mean the snake who would otherwise have to hunt and kill its own mouse, so I guess if you’re going to keep a snake, you can’t pretend it’s any different. You also say it’s not murder to abort a chimp’s fetus. Well, did you have the chimp’s permission to abort her fetus? It’s definitely something if someone goes around forcibly aborting women’s fetuses unless they have permission to do so.

          Choosing to have an abortion is like eating a steak or getting a haircut. There’s no ethical issue involving a person. Imposing your emotional complaints about that being a person despite having no qualities a person has, doesn’t change that – it’s not your fucking choice. It doesn’t need your opinion. It’s the decision of a woman, the woman who wants to have a baby and the woman who does not want to have a baby. It is the time to be able to decide, not a lot of time to waste getting emotional and delaying an urgent decision. Later abortions because a woman was going through with it out of guilt, but really didn’t want to make that choice – your fault. Not my fault. You want to complain and shit about abortions later in pregnancy – blame your fucking propaganda. I advocate making that decision honestly, realistically, and quickly. If you are pregnant, and you don’t want to be, the longer you are, the more you let the propaganda eat at your original decision until it’s too late and time has decided for you. Anyone who makes the elective decision to get an abortion that late is your fucking fault.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Where your world view is in power human life is subjugated to sexual license in the name of fictitious rights and fabricated talking points

          Says the Catholic…fucking two faced hypocrites one and all.

        • Pofarmer

          Self righteous wankers.

        • Pofarmer

          Interesting Youtube Presentation on Personhood.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Interesting video. It does clarify some ideas though, as perhaps is always the way within philosophy, it doesn’t give clear answers.

        • Pofarmer

          Overall it seems like a pretty good series. Nothing really earth shattering if you’re already a skeptic, or moderately well read, but cleanly stated and concise.

        • Greg G.

          Sentience can’t be what defines personhood.

          Sentience is one characteristic of personhood. Without it, you do not have personhood. An insect has some sentience but it cannot have personhood. A human cadaver lacks sentience so it cannot have personhood. A living human tumor lacks sentience so it cannot have personhood.

          Sentience does not define personhood, but it is a requirement for personhood. Lack of sentience means lack of personhood.

        • Kodie

          Where your world view is in power human life is subjugated to sexual
          license in the name of fictitious rights and fabricated talking points.

          You hate people having sex. You hate that sex is something that people can enjoy whether they want to be parents or not. You didn’t respond to my post recently about why women should think a lot harder whether they want to be parents if they are at all under the spell of a romanticized adventure they are obligated biologically to pursue. Abortion is a great option for people who do not want to or cannot handle the responsibility of parenting, either now or ever. Having sex and having a full-time, over-time, life-long job caring (and paying) for a fragile human through their tender developing years are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. There is really no good way to change your mind if that’s a mistake. You can’t go look for a new job. You can’t drop it like any other hobby. It’s for life. You are about enslaving women for life for the crime of having sex, over a cell that doesn’t have any capacity for plans. It can’t live outside of her body, then she can get it out. Tough shit that is the end of it.

          When your world view is in power, human life is subjugated to a microscopic clump of non-sentient cells, in the name of fictitious rights and fabricated talking points, until it’s actually born, and then you hate the little shit and glad you could do your part to punish it for being born to a woman who had the fucking nerve to have sex.

        • Pofarmer

          A world run by your worldview is that of reserving the absolute right to
          decide who lives and who dies based on anyone’s subjective criteria

          No you fucking dumbass. A world run by my worldview is one where people get to make their own reproductive decisions about what’s right for their family.

        • Pofarmer

          “will become a”

          Which means it isn’t yet.

        • Ameribear

          I said “will become a fully developed human.” It’s a human being from the start.

        • Pofarmer

          Philosophically, it may or may not be. There’s plenty of arguments that it’s not.

        • Ameribear

          Under normal circumstances it will be. Anything else isn’t normal.

        • Pofarmer

          Anything seems normal for a religiously mind numbed dumbass, I imagine.

        • Kodie

          Forcing women to stay pregnant until they give birth, so yeah, it is controlling them. If they had no choice of abortion, then forcing them to take care of their born children (or your real favorite option – forcing poor women to choose adoption), is controlling them. They didn’t want that outcome, which they could easily foresee from 7-8 months earlier, but you couldn’t let them make a choice they wanted.

        • Ameribear

          Forcing women to stay pregnant until they give birth, so yeah, it is controlling them.

          What the hell do you call lying to them about willfully engaging in the act that gets them in to these situations in the first place?

        • Kodie

          You’re the hysterical one lying that a cell is a person. They had sex, and you want to punish not only women but children for being born unwanted.

        • Ameribear

          Your the hysterical one lying about the humanity of the unborn because you still haven’t proven me wrong. You want to continue to sentence unborn persons to death in the name of sexual license.

        • Kodie

          You have never established it as a person. You want to breed unconsciously like an animal. Nothing is wrong with sex, and it doesn’t mean people have to become parents if they don’t want to.

        • Greg G.

          Does forcing people to take care of their born children constitute controlling them?

          In the US, parents can take children to foster care if they cannot take care of them. Sometimes the state has to step in to make that decision for them. An infant can be left at a hospital, no questions asked.

        • Ameribear

          In the U.S. the state can force parents to care for their born children under penalty of incarceration. The state can forcibly remove children from the custody of their birth parents because of neglect or abuse. So yes people can be forced by the state to take responsibility for their actions.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve read about the fertility clinic thought experiment? What do you think of it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          An infant can be left at a hospital, no questions asked.

          Or a fire station even.

          Safe haven…or Moses laws….so much for separation of church/state.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

          Ameribear spews wanton shite….gratuitously.

        • Susan

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development.

          That’s circular.

          Then your definition of a person as a being worthy of moral consideration isn’t valid.

          Why not?

          because humans aren’t the only thing worthy of moral consideration.

          So?

          I want to shatter the self-absorbed lies

          What lies am I telling? That pregnancy and child birth often come with short and long term health consequences including death? That having more children than a family can sustain can impact the whole family and whole societies?

          Those are not lies Ameribear..

          Show me where I’ve ever mentioned souls.

          You equate a cell to a person. That’s code for souls. You know that.

          You’ve never established that it isn’t.

          You haven’t established that it is. A brainless cell is not a person. Human tissue is not equal to personhood.

          I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell.

          No.You haven’t. It’s a cell. A brainless cell.

          The person who needs a blood transfusion in your case would not, in order to survive, have to get it from the one who caused him or her to need it.

          How do you know they wouldn’t? IF they did, you would not be obligated to donate a drop of your blood. To a conscious being.

          An unborn child does not have that option.

          It’s not a child. Children have brains, feelings, consciousness, trust, fear, etc. That you have to keep replacing non-sentient cells with sentient references is telling.

          you haven’t come up with squat to explain anything you’ve said

          (sigh)

        • Ameribear

          That’s begging the question

          You haven’t come up with any other criteria proving that wrong. All you’ve done is continue to beat the sentience dead horse.

          So?

          You cannot say that being worthy of moral consideration is what makes us human because animals are worthy of the same thing and they’re not human. What makes us human has to be some characteristic that is only possessed by humans.

          What lies am I telling?

          That human life doesn’t begin at conception, that what makes us human are the same properties we share with non humans.

          That pregnancy and child birth often come with short and long term health consequences including death?

          That’s what healthcare systems are for. No one is saying pregnant women should be left to fend for themselves.

          That having more children than a family can sustain can impact the whole family and whole societies

          Then let’s make sure families get the necessary support and resources to insure their well-being.

          You equate a cell to a person. That’s code for souls. You know that.

          Boy did you just set off the straw man alarm. You wouldn’t have to resort to tactics like that if you actually had an argument.

          You haven’t established that it is. A brainless cell is not a person. Human tissue is not equal to personhood….No.You haven’t. It’s a cell. A brainless cell.

          You have repeatedly shown that you are in abject denial of objective biological facts. You have to because you know that that’s the only thing that supports your solitary, worthless talking point.

          How do you know they wouldn’t? IF they did, you would not be obligated to donate a drop of your blood. To a conscious being.

          It isn’t necessary. We have blood banks to take care of these situations. This is another big fat red herring your attempting to use.

          It’s not a child. Children have brains, feelings, consciousness, trust, fear, etc. That you have to keep replacing non-sentient cells with sentient references is telling.

          It is a child that you have to keep resorting to baseless, refuted, criteria to deny so you still haven’t come up with squat to explain anything you’ve said.

        • Susan

          Me: That’s begging the question.

          Ameribear: You haven’t come up with any criteria proving that wrong.

          I have pointed out that you have done nothing more than beg the question.

          So, you’re wrong. Not by my criteria. It shows that you don’t have an argument.

          You cannot say that being worthy of moral consideration is what makes us human because animals are worthy of the same thing and they’re not human

          I didn’t. Because being human is not equivalent to personhood. Otherwise, we’d have countless funerals every time we blew our noses and we wouldn’t blink if someone kicked a kitten down the street.

          Obviously, you didn’t click on the video that addresses what moral philosophy has to contend with when they claim “personhood”.

          That’s what healthcare systems are for. No one is saying pregnant women should be left to fend for themselves.

          Bullshit. Whether healthcare systems are in place or not, you insist that women be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth.

          Also,

          “That’s what healthcare systems are for. No one is saying people who are forced to donate a piece of their liver should be left to tend for themselves.”

          That human life doesn’t begin at conception, that what makes us human are the same properties we share with non humans.

          “Human life” describes trillions of cells. Cells that are both alive and human. You aren’t claiming “human”. You are claiming “personhood”.

          So, I didn’t tell lies. YOU did when you claimed that most abortions happen at eighteen weeks. An honest participant in a discussion this messy would have retracted that lie. But you haven’t.

          Boy did you just set off the straw man alarm.

          Sure. Maybe it’s a coincidence that you chose an arbitrary cell that your church claims is a soul to define “personhood”.

          But as you’ve made no argument for personhood and that the claim seems so similar and that you describe it in terms that we use for sentient beings (i.e. “child” “baby”,”person” “innocent”) and describe someone not voluntarily submitting their body to its development as “killing it” and “murdering” and those who defend the bodily autonomy of a fellow citizen as practising “eugenics” and “genocide”, I’m just going to go with the soul thing. Because it looks, walks and talks like a duck.

          It isn’t necessary.

          You haven’t provided a single example of a situation where someone is morally obligated to donate any part of their body to a person.

          Let alone a cell of your arbitrary choosing.

          It is a child

          No. You cannot keep referring to sentient beings when you are talking about a cell.

          The fact that you have to emphasize sentience in a desperate effort to supprt your claim shows how fundamental sentience is to arguments about personhood.

          That is, sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          Stop proclaiming that science has announced personhood, Ameribear. You’ve shown no curiosity about either subject.

          Science does not proclaim that your church’s sacred cell is a person.

        • Ameribear

          So, you’re wrong. Not by my criteria. It shows that you don’t have an argument.

          To define a person as anything other than a living, human organism is to place extra constraints on the definition that are either logically indefensible or socially inconsistent. Adding anything else to that set ends up declaring that some persons don’t meet your definition. Being a living human organism is the only definition that includes every human being at every stage of development. And if we accept this definition then fertilization marks the beginning of personhood since it initiates an organism’s existence.

          I didn’t. Because being human is not equivalent to personhood. Otherwise, we’d have countless funerals every time we blew our noses and we wouldn’t blink if someone kicked a kitten down the street.

          Then you cannot say that being worthy of moral consideration is
          what makes us persons because animals are worthy of the same thing and they aren’t persons.

          Sure. Maybe it’s a coincidence that you chose an
          arbitrary cell that your church claims is a soul to define “personhood”.

          Your repeated, willful denial of what it really is and your resorting to making up things I never brought up exposes just how intellectually bankrupt and dishonest you are.

          But as you’ve made no argument for personhood
          and that the claim seems so similar and that you describe it in terms that we use for sentient beings (i.e. “child” “baby”,”person” “innocent”) and describe someone not voluntarily submitting their body to its development as “killing it” and “murdering” and
          those who defend the bodily autonomy of a fellow citizen as
          practising “eugenics” and “genocide”, I’m just going to go with the soul thing. Because it looks, walks and quacks like a duck.

          All of those terms are accurate when it comes to describing what
          abortion is and I’ll never apologize for using them. You are the one
          who continues to beat the sentience dead horse and bring up
          completely irrelevant points I never mentioned because you have no arguement.

          You haven’t provided a single example of a situation where someone is morally obligated to donate any part of their body to a person.

          The state most certainly can and does morally obligate someone to
          donate their body to a person. Newborns require their mother to
          donate her body to their care for a long time after birth and the
          state can and does compel that under the force of law.

          Let alone to a cell of your arbitrary choosing.

          You can’t stop lying about it being an arbitrary cell because you
          know damn well that your single talking point is based on repeating
          that lie. Your repeated denial of objective scientific facts makes
          you intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, and an egregious liar.

          No. You cannot keep referring to sentient beings
          when you are talking about a cell.

          You cannot keep referring to sentience or any other continuous
          property as being necessary to determine personhood.

          The fact that you have to emphasize sentience in
          a desperate effort to supprt your claim shows how fundamental
          sentience is to arguments about personhood.

          You’ve got it backwards. You are the one mercilessly beating the
          sentience dead horse in a desperate effort to support your claims.
          I’ve repeatedly denied that sentience and all other continuous
          properties are necessary to determine personhood.

          Stop proclaiming that science has announced
          personhood, Ameribear. You’ve shown no curiosity about either
          subject. Science does not proclaim that your church’s sacred cell is
          a person.

          Stop lying about well established biological facts, using non-person criteria to define personhood and making up straw men to deflect attention away from the fact that you have no argument.

        • Susan

          To define a person as anything other than a living, human organism is to place extra constraints on the definition that are either logically indefensible or socially inconsistent.

          OK. Show that to be the case.

          Get back to us when you do.

        • Ameribear

          You are the one who has to come up with a personhood criteria that does not exclude any living person at any stage of development, not me. I’ve already done that. Personhood cannot vary and it cannot develop.

        • Susan

          You are the one who has to come up with a personhood criteria that does not exclude any living person at any stage of development

          I could include everything and exclude nothing. I could call anything you name a person, including a grain of sand.

          I don’t have to come up with a perfect model of consciousness,, (for instance) to exclude a pebble in that category.

          Nor a perfect model of morality to say that imaginary yahwehjesus is an ass by any reasonable moral standard..

          These are complicated subjects and you doing nothing but reiterating talking points from forced-birther sites on the subjects of biology and personhood (subjects in which you’ve shown no expertise, nor even curiosity) doesn’t contribute anything much to an important moral discussion.

        • Ameribear

          I could include everything and exclude nothing. I could call anything you name a person, including a grain of
          sand.

          You could also address the issue I mentioned instead of posting
          more evasions.

          I don’t have to come up with a perfect model of consciousness,, (for instance) to exclude a pebble in that category.

          You have to come up with a definition of personhood that includes
          all living humans at every stage of development which you haven’t
          come anywhere near doing. This is the second evasion in the same post.

          Nor a perfect model of morality to say that imaginary yahwehjesus is an ass by any reasonable moral standard

          Now your injecting your personal animus’ into the conversation and
          you still haven’t addresed my original point. Third evasion in the
          same post.

          These are complicated subjects and you doing nothing but reiterating talking points from forced-birther sites on the subjects of biology and personhood (subjects in which you’ve shown no expertise, nor even curiosity) doesn’t contribute anything much to an important moral discussion.

          I’m going to go out on a limb and declare that there is no important moral discussion going on here because you haven’t done anything other that attempt to distract and divert attention away
          from the fact that you haven’t offered diddly in the way of counter
          arguments or definitions to discuss.

        • Susan

          You could also address the issue I mentioned instead of posting more evasions.

          I’m evading nothing by saying sentience is basic. All you have is special pleading when you appeal to murder, slaughter, children, eugenics, genocide etc.

          All the appeals you make are to models of sentience. Moral choices involve sentience. If they didn’t, you would be able to use morally persuasive analogies to non-sentient models. But you can’t.

          You have to come up with a definition of personhood that includes
          all living humans at every stage of development which you haven’t
          come anywhere near doing.

          No, You are begging the question.

          you’ve offered diddly in the way of counter arguments

          I have explained repeatedly that it is basic in philosophical discussions of personhood that human does not necesarily equal person

          =====

          Edit: I’ve also pointed out that being a person does not mean that another person is morally obligated to donate their body to the wellbeing of a peson.

          End edit.

          I used far less invasive examples (like forced partial liver donation, fored blood donation and forced organ donation after death).

          How long will you pretend I haven’t addressed your comments? .

        • Ameribear

          I’m evading nothing by saying sentience is basic.

          You’ve said sentience is necessary but not sufficient but you’ve never stated what else is necessary to sufficiently define what a person is.

          All the appeals you make are to models of sentience.

          All of the appeals I’ve made are to all living humans because I
          reject sentience as a valid criteria for defining a person for the
          reasons listed below.

          ”Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess
          different levels of throughout our lives. If sentience is linked to
          personhood then the level of person varies with the level of
          sentience.

          Sentience cannot be used to define a person because is not a
          property possessed only by persons since non-person life forms also possess it.

          If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is
          comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person. If you want to
          use sentience as the determining criteria for personhood then you
          have to determine what level of sentience is sufficient to include
          all living persons at all stages of development.”

          You are the one who keeps trying to impose sentience as a criteria
          because you do believe it can be used to define a person but you have never addressed any of the logical problems arising from it that clearly demonstrate that it’s to restrictive a criteria.

          Moral choices involve sentience. If they didn’t, you would be able to use morally persuasive analogies to non-sentient models. But you can’t.

          Moral choices involve all who are worthy of moral consideration and you’ve never addressed the fact that your intentionally narrow definition excludes some groups of people from that set. Since my definition does not exclude anyone then those morally persuasive terms apply.

          No, You are begging the question.

          Yes, because if you don’t then you are giving tacit approval to all the pain and death suffered by persons at the hands of those who excluded them from their intentionally narrow definitions of personhood.

          I have explained repeatedly that it is basic in philosophical discussions of personhood that human does not necesarily equal person

          You’ve got it backwards. Human does not necessarily equal person but person must equal all living humans at every stage of development.

          I’ve also pointed out that being a person does not mean that another person is morally obligated to donate their body to the well being of a person. I used far less invasive examples (like forced partial liver donation, forced blood donation and forced organ donation after death).

          How long will you pretend I haven’t addressed your comments?

          I have pointed out repeatedly that these are red herrings on your
          part because you insist on ignoring the responsibility factor and
          that any right to absolute bodily autonomy is BS.

          How long will you pretend I haven’t addressed your comments and
          you’ve addressed mine?

        • Susan

          You’ve said sentience is necessary but not sufficient but you’ve never stated what else is necessary to sufficiently define what a person is

          Because it’s complicated. I would say that I am more morally obligated to a sentient arrangement of cells than I am to a non–sentient cell or clump of cells. I think it’s a reasonable position to insist on sentience. That one has achieved it.

          We can talk about fringe cases like various levels of coma, anaesthesia and deep sleep sensibly (all of which are based on real-life scenarios of arrangements of cells that have achieved the capacity of at least sentience.) as soon as you stop assuming that a cell is a person without justifying it.

          When you refer to “murder”, “innocence”, “eugenics” and “genocide”, you are comparing something that feels nothing, thinks nothing (There is no there there) to the concentric consequences on sentient beings.

          because if you don’t then you are giving tacit approval to all the pain and death suffered by persons

          There you go again. Pretending that a cell “feels pain” and “suffers” death. You’re appealing to sentience and denying it at the same time.

          That is, you are special pleading.

          You’ve got it backwards. Human does not necessarily equal person but person must equal all living humans at every stage of development.

          Which seems to mean “human” equals “person”. But there would be no discussion of personhood if that were the case. Also, you could be tried for murder just for shedding skin.

          But, but, but an individual human organism, you keep replying and then ignore the biological reality of a non-sentient cell.

          I have pointed out repeatedly that these are red herrings

          No. You assert that repeatedly but in any philosophical discussion of personhood or biological discussion of zygotes, they are accurate and completely relevant to the subject.

          because you are ignoring the responsibility factor

          Ahhh… the responsibility factor. If a woman has sex with her husband, she had better suffer the consequences. If a woman gets raped by her uncle, she had better take responsbility.

          She’s responsible for hosting a non-sentient cell, feeding it with her body and going through labour because, you know, she’s responsibe.

          Fuck you. and your imaginary souls. This is reality, Ameribear. We are earthlings. This is where your robes and incense and make-believe importance lose the plot in the most extremely morally reprehensible ways.

          How long will you pretend I haven’t addressed your comments and
          you’ve addressed mine?

          I’m not pretending. You are.

          Morality and personhood are difficult subjects and there are no clear-cut answers.

          All moral appeals are connected to sentience.

          Give me an example where they aren’t instead of relentlessly relying on those appeals.

        • Ameribear

          Because it’s complicated.

          Only when you’re trying to figure out how to exclude the persons who don’t suit you interests.

          I think it’s a reasonable position to insist on sentience. That one has achieved it.

          But I’ve shown you multiple times that it’s not reasonable to insist on sentience and you never addressed the reasons why. Sentience is just as unreasonable as any other continuous property.

          as soon as you stop assuming that a cell is a person without justifying it.

          I have justified and it’s not my fault that you intentionally ignore it because it doesn’t jive with your version of reality. When are you going to stop your asinine euphemisms about human beings being clumps of cells?

          When you refer to “murder”, “innocence”, “eugenics” and “genocide”, you are comparing something that feels nothing,
          thinks nothing (There is no there there) to the concentric consequences on sentient beings.

          When you insist on imposing your thoroughly refuted, bogus criteria of sentience on the topic it’s because you have no other way to maintain a clear conscious about the truth of those terms.

          There you go again. Pretending that a cell “feels pain” and “suffers” death. You’re appealing to sentience and denying it at the same time.

          Perhaps I need to be a little more clear. I was referring to all the pain and death real, born , living persons have suffered at the hands of those who saw fit to exclude them from their narrow definition of personhood.

          Which seems to mean “human” equals “person”. But there would be no discussion of personhood if that were the case. Also, you could be tried for murder just for shedding skin.

          You got it backwards again. What I said was ”Human does not necessarily equal person but person must equal all living humans at every stage of development”.

          But, but, but an individual human organism, you keep replying and then ignore the biological reality of a non-sentient cell.

          I have lost track of the number of times I’ve shown you’re lying about this, yet you still insist on coming back with the same thoroughly discredited lie time and time again that you’ve based your entire argument on. Your denial of realty is psychotic.

          Ahhh… the responsibility factor. If a woman has sex with her husband, she had better suffer the consequences.

          Any one who engages in the act has to be willing to accept the responsibility for it.

          If a woman gets raped by her uncle, she had better take responsbility.

          The circumstances surrounding the conception of a new person does not change the reality of what it is and neither does repeatedly lying about it in order to convince yourself that premeditated homicide is an acceptable method of birth control. In your world a man commits the crime and the child gets the death sentence for it.

          She’s responsible for hosting a non-sentient cell, feeding it with her body and going through labour because, you know, she’s responsibe.

          http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php

          Here’s a page full of proofs of what a colossal liar your are.

          Fuck you. and your imaginary souls.

          You’ve lost. You’ve lost completely and repeatedly and you know it because you can only keep lying and resorting to an imaginary bogie man I never mentioned.

          This is reality, Ameribear. We are earthlings. This is where your robes and incense and make-believe importance lose the plot in the most extremely morally reprehensible ways.

          This is reality Susan. We’re human persons. You’re a habitual liar whose trying to justify the very same mindset that’s at the root of so much of the untold death and destruction forced on the human race throughout history and I’m not just referring to the unborn.

          All moral appeals are connected to sentience.

          BS! You’ve had to repeatedly assert that because it is unsupportable and your habitual lying has abundantly proven that. You’ve lied about it over and over again and not once even attempted to address any of the logical consequences of it.

        • Susan

          Only when you’re trying to figure out how to exclude the persons who don’t suit you interests

          You haven’t established that they’re persons. If you spent a little time studying the fields of “morality” and “personhood” in philosophy, you’d realize that. Did you even watch the introductory video?

          So, I’m not excluding persons. I’m not trying to exclude anything. You keep claiming cells without sentience or thought are persons without demonstrating that they are. And exclusively pointing at models of sentience as examples.

          I asked you to give me one model of morality that isn’t connected in some way to sentient beings. Do so or meh.

          Repeating “science” says that zygotes are “persons” isn’t going to do it. It doesn’t.

          Sentience is just as unreasonable as any other continuous property.

          If that is the case, stop appealing to sentient models to push our moral buttons. Make a case instead.

          The circumstances surrounding the conception of a new person does not change the reality of what it is

          Empty rhetoric. And rhetoric that implies that real sentient persons are “responsible” for incubating non-sentient cells, no matter what the circumstances.

          Here’s a page full of proofs for what a colossal liar you are.

          Nothing on that page proves anything of the sort. Explain how it does or retract it.

          This is reality Susan. We’re human persons.

          You and I are. We have personhood and we share the same species. In that sense, we are human persons.

          You’re a habitual liar whose trying to justify the very same mindset that’s at the root of so much of the untold death and destruction forced on the human race throughout history and I’m not just referring to the unborn.

          Not granting personhood to a non-sentient cell and insisting that the bodily autonomy of a sentient human be acknowledged shows no connection to any of that.

          You have no argument so you go nuclear and compare our unwillingness to grant personhood to your non-sentient cell (because you have made no argument that justifies granting a non-sentient cell personhood ) to all of the worst atrocities against sentient, human beings.

          BS!

          Then, give me an example.

          How many times have you been asked? And you have provided nothing.

          Either acknowledge sentience as necessary but not sufficient to what personhood is or stop pointing at sentient beings in your appeals.

          Make up your mind.

          an imaginary bogey man

          I agree that it’s an imaginary bogey man.

          that I’ve never mentioned.

          Lol.

        • Greg G.
        • Pofarmer

          This one’s pretty good.
          Turns out God is dead.

          http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/flawed

        • Pofarmer

          Fuck you. and your imaginary souls. This is reality, Ameribear. We are
          earthlings. This is where your robes and incense and make-believe
          importance lose the plot in the most extremely morally reprehensible
          ways.

          This.

          Religious folks are more worried about Dogma than results. We are now seeing this pop up in our Governments at the State and National level, and there are consequences, and they suck.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.

          That sign should be Ameribear’s avatar.

        • Pofarmer
        • Pofarmer

          Personhood cannot vary and it cannot develop.

          In the real world, it can and does, and it can also be lost. You’ve even been given examples. You just stick your fingers in your ears and go Lalalalalalalala can’t hear you! This is not a convincing argument.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI

        • Ameribear

          In the real world, it can and does, and it can also be lost.

          Just because that may be true does that make it right? The crash course video offers a handful of lines of reasoning that are all problematic for exactly the same reason Chomsky points out. The definition of personhood has fluctuated throughout history and has failed to include various groups of people because those who were in charge of defining what a person is narrowly defined personhood to suit their interests and then imposed their definition on everyone else, which is exactly what’s being done today to justify abortion.

          The guy in the cc video mentions a line of reasoning stating personhood can be lost or surrendered in the case of being convicted of a crime. If that’s true then anyone in prison isn’t a person and isn’t entitled to the same protection under the law. That means we can experiment on them, kill them to harvest their organs, torture them or simply neglect them out of expediency. Do you want to live in a society that believes and practices that?

          I’m simply pointing out that in attempting to define personhood with things like sentience you’re guilty of exactly the same thing Chomsky is complaining about because a definition based on any of those things inevitably excludes some groups of people. Personhood should include all living humans at all stages of development and should not be subject to the interests of whomever is in power because history has given us abundant evidence of what happens to those whom various societies decided to leave out of their personal definitions of personhood.

        • Pofarmer

          Just because that may be true does that make it right?

          It is simply the result of the way things are.

          The definition of personhood has fluctuated throughout history and has
          failed to include various groups of people because those who were in
          charge of defining what a person is narrowly defined personhood to suit
          their interests and then imposed their definition on everyone else,
          which is exactly what’s being done today to justify abortion.

          What we’re trying to do is define personhood in a way that a) actually makes sense and b) preserves the rights of everyone involved. If a person is in an accident, and is determined to be braindead, even though the rest of their body is functioning, they are determined dead, no longer a person. The way that body is looked at and handled varies from culture to culture, but it’s pretty universal. If brain death is the end of personhood, how can something that doesn’t have a functioning brain be considered a person? And, at that, a person which has rights that supercede that of another person? This is the position that doesn’t make sense.

        • Ameribear

          What we’re trying to do is define personhood in a way that a) actually makes sense and b) preserves the rights of everyone involved.

          Which you will consistently fail to do if you insist on base any definition of personhood on any continuous property.

          If a person is in an accident, and is determined to be brain dead, even though the rest of their body is functioning, they are determined dead, no longer a person.

          Just to be sure I understand you correctly what are you defining brain dead as? Brain dead is the complete loss of brain function and brain dead person would need the use of external devices to maintain their normal biological functions. A person in a persistent vegetative state could be unconscious with their heartbeat and ventilation continuing unaided because their brain stem still functions which means they can’t be brain dead.

          If brain death is the end of personhood, how can something that doesn’t have a functioning brain be considered a person?

          There is a huge difference you’re intentionally ignoring. You are trying to equate someone who had a fully developed brain that has ceased to function with someone who has a brain in it’s earliest stage of development. I showed you evidence that brain activity is detectable as early as six weeks. You are declaring that personhood is linked to development which is discriminatory.

          And, at that, a person which has rights that supercede that of another person? This is the position that doesn’t make sense.

          So before you denied an unborn child is a person and now your saying it is a person. If you’ve conceded my point that it is a person you have to show that bodily autonomy is so absolute that it justifies the will of the stronger person being imposed on the weaker person.

          No ones bodily autonomy is absolute.

        • Pofarmer

          If you’ve conceded my point that it is a person

          I’ve not conceded your points, I’m merely repeating your stance.

          I showed you evidence that brain activity is detectable as early as six weeks.

          A fetus only develops its cerebral cortex, the part of the brain which
          regulates thought and consciousness at 24 weeks, well after the limit
          for abortions. Before 24 weeks, its brain only emits electrical signals,
          not brain waves which indicate thought.

          http://www.lemauricien.com/article/abortion-fact-fiction-and-humanity

          You are trying to equate someone who had a fully developed brain that
          has ceased to function with someone who has a brain in it’s earliest
          stage of development. </i?

          Sorry, if it ain't a functioning brain yet, it ain't a functioning brain.

          I don't think anything without a functioning brain can be a person, and you've not done anything to dissuade me.

          No ones bodily autonomy is absolute.

          Maybe not, but we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it. That way lies tyranny.

        • Ameribear

          At the same time, special neural cells form and migrate
          throughout the embryo to form the very beginnings of nerves. Your
          baby’s nervous system is made up of millions upon millions of
          neurons; each of these microscopic cells have itty-bitty branches
          coming off of them so that they can connect and communicate with each other. With this comes baby’s first synapses, which essentially means baby’s neurons can communicate and create early fetal
          movements…like curling into (you guessed it!) the fetal position.

          Other movements follow quickly, with your fetus wiggling his
          developing limbs at around 8 weeks. By the end of the first
          trimester, your baby-to-be has garnered quite a repertoire of motion, though you won’t be able to feel any of it quite yet. And at about the same time as baby first wiggles his limbs, he begins to develop the sense of touch.

          https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

          Brainwaves are produced by synchronized electrical pulses
          from masses of neurons communicating with each other.

          http://www.brainworksneurotherapy.com/what-are-brainwaves

          That way lies tyranny.

          Tyranny seems to arise when some persons decide to define for
          themselves things that no persons should be left to define.

        • Pofarmer

          And? The fetus isn’t “wiggling”anything. There’s no cognition there, period. The structures aren’t there. What you have are early nerve bundle reflexes.

          “define for themselves things that no persons should be left to define”

          You really are a doofus.

        • Greg G.

          Personhood cannot vary and it cannot develop.

          How do you justify saving one five year old child and leaving 1000 embryos, then? You presented a link that gave that as the proper action in that case and said it was already a settled issue.

        • Ameribear

          The scenario is being used in an attempt to undermine the pro-life belief that all human persons are of equal fundamental worth regardless of their level of development. It’s a false dilemma because the originator of it has already stacked the deck against the pro-life position by offering only two outcomes that both appear to discredit the pro-life position. Professor George shows that It’s false because it fails to take into account that “there are differences between the embryos and the five-year-old girl that are or can be morally relevant to the decision concerning whom to rescue.”that don’t deny or negate the belief in their equal fundamental worth.

        • Greg G.

          So you see that there is a difference between the child and an embryo. It undermines your argument. If it undermines the whole pro-life belief, then all the better. That position should be obliterated.

          that don’t deny or negate the belief in their equal fundamental worth

          You can’t measure the fundamental worth but you know they are not equal because you would save the little girl.

          Here are some good reasons to not go through with a pregnancy. There are other reasons, but you don’t get to judge.

          Why do so many women still die in pregnancy or childbirth?
          http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/

          U.S. death rate in pregnancy, childbirth raises “great concern”
          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-rate-is-up-during-pregnancy-childbirth-in-u-s/

          Why Are American Women Dying in Childbirth?
          You would be 10 times safer having a baby in Belarus than in the United States.
          http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/a49925/american-women-dying-in-childbirth/

          Maternal death
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

        • Ameribear

          So you see that there is a difference between
          the child and an embryo. It undermines your argument

          You are intentionally ignoring all the points and distinctions
          Professor George makes in that article and you deceptively quoted the article out of context. Now your trying to deflect attention away
          from your smarminess by trying to change the subject. Professor
          George shredded your third grade attempt at reasoning and you
          couldn’t even get his name right. You are a lying, underhanded
          weasel.

          You can’t measure the fundamental worth but you
          know they are not equal because you would save the little girl.

          Alright weasel, who would you save if it was your 5 year old and a neighbors five year old?

        • Susan

          You are a lying, underhanded
          weasel.

          Says the guy who claimed “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks” which was clearly false and many, many comments later has yet to retract it, even when called to do so several times..

          Whoa there, cowboy.

          I wouldn’t be bringing up the subject of “lying” if I were you.

          Where did you get that stat? From someone else who was lying.

          Did you retract it? No.

          Will you at least correct the original source? I highly doubt it.

          Will you use it again somewhere else? I wouldn’t be surprised.

          there are differences between the embryos and the five-year-old girl that are or can be morally relevant to the decision concerning whom to rescue.”

          What are they?

          that don’t deny or negate the belief in their equal fundamental worth.

          Really? What about the other things that do? (I assume by fundamental worth, you mean moral value)

          Alright weasel, who would you save if it was your 5 year old and a neighbors five year old?

          You just can’t manage a comment without appealing to sentient beings, can you? It’s hilarious.

          But sentience has nothing to do with it.

        • Ameribear

          I wouldn’t be bringing up the subject of “lying” if I were you.

          This from the one who’s been continuously lying about fetal development over the last few weeks.

          You just can’t manage a comment without appealing to sentient beings, can you? It’s hilarious. But sentience has nothing to do with it.

          This again from the one who refuses to accept the burden of proof and answer the logical consequences of anything she’s ever asserted. You just can’t manage a comment without imposing something you’ve never supported can you? Your hypocrisy is unbelievably hilarious.

        • Susan

          This from the one who’s been continuously lying about fetal development over the last few weeks.

          Show me where I lied even once. Not accepting your empty proclamations is not the same as lying.

          Show me where I lied once.

          This again from the one who refuses to accept the burden of proof

          Burden of proof to do what? To show that morality is a question about sentient beings?

          You haven’t shown otherwise. More importantly, you keep showing that it is by your analogies.

          I have no moral obligations to things without brains and/or nervous systems. If I back into my neighbour’s car, I have a moral obligation to my neighbour, not to the car, for the damage I cause. .

          You just can’t manage a comment without imposing something you’ve never supported can you?

          I can show that I’ve said sentience is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to human assessments of moral value. (Except in cases where humans believe in imaginary souls).

          I can show hat you desperately point at model after model of sentient being and can provide nothing else is support enough for that statement.

          1) Human does not necessarily equal person and vice versa. Proclaiming it so does not make it so.

          No hypocrisy or lies there. Spend less time on your RCC forced-birther sites (where they lie about stuff like eighteen weeks) and more time studying the philosophy of personhood.

          Also, biology.

          2) You can’t discuss “personhood” without discussing “sentience”. I didn’t make that up. Dismissing it without justification is not going to win you any awards in the field.

          3) Bodily autonomy is not imaginary. It’s something we take very seriously. It’s why no one can force you to donate blood, a piece of your liver, bone marrow, etc. to keep someone else alive who isn’t as dumb and certain as you are and who might make the world a better place than you make it.

          It is also why you are not obligated to donate your body to science for transplants or scientific study. A right granted even in death.

          Also, why assault is a crime. Also, rape. I could go on.

          It is something you take for granted and of which you wouldn’t deprive anyone. Except for pregnant women.

          If you think everyone deserves that right except pregnant women, no matter what the circumstances of the pregnancy, then you have to show why that is the case.

          So far, you’ve failed on every point.

          You’ve been too busy special pleading, begging the question, rejecting sentience while endlessly appealing to sentience.

          Also at telling lies, not retracting those lies, dodging the main issues you brought up of personhood and biology and insulting people.

          You are The Black Knight.

          I’m not sure how much longer I can keep this up.

          It’s silly.

        • Ameribear

          Show me where I lied even once. Not accepting your empty proclamations is not the same as lying. Show me where I
          lied once.

          Every time you referred to it as a single cell you’ve lied, denied, and ignored the correct embryological definition that it is a new, separate, distinct member of the human race in it’s earliest stage of development. You must intentionally continue to do so because you must keep yourself and as many others convinced that, by a false association, it’s exactly the same thing as any other bodily cell which means it’s only worthy of the same moral consideration as any other bodily cell. Your lying to me, to everyone else you gack that talking point up to and worst of all you’re lying to yourself. You’re a consummate liar, own it.

          Burden of proof to do what? To show that morality is a question about sentient beings?

          Yes to do exactly that because you’ve NEVER EVER done anything other than assert that. You repeatedly impose sentience as at least one of the criteria for determining personhood without offer anything in the way of evidence or arguments to support it nor have you EVER addressed any of the logical consequences of using that or any other continuous properties to define personhood.

          I have no moral obligations to things without brains and/or nervous systems.

          You have no moral obligations to things you’ve lied to yourself and everyone else about not having brains or nervous systems. I showed you plenty of clear, unambiguous, unbiased evidence of when and how the brains and nervous systems develop and that they develop out of what comes into existence after conception.

          You have to continue to lie to keep yourself and as many people as
          possible from taking a good long look at uncensored fetal development material because it is absolutely damning to your BS abortion industry talking point.

          You keep requiring the presence of things like brains, nervous
          systems and sentience to define a person but you can never ever
          afford review or to allow anyone else to review clear, unfiltered
          fetal development material because it shows that all of those things
          are present and functioning before the end of the first trimester.
          Faced with that fact, if you had a shred of honesty, you’d be forced
          to admit that abortions should be illegal at least after the first
          trimester because every one of those things is present and
          functioning at that point.

          You have to keep as many people in the dark with the ridiculously
          absurd notion that for nine months it’s a single non-sentient cell
          and then “poof!” it suddenly becomes a fully developed human
          person on it’s birthday.

          I can show that I’ve said sentience is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to human assessments of moral value. (Except in cases where humans believe in imaginary
          souls).

          You’ve shown that saying that is all you’ve done. You’ve NEVER EVER supported that assertion yet you continuously accuse me of not supporting what I’ve stated so that means you’re not only a liar but a hypocrite as well.

          I can show that you desperately point at model after model of sentient beings and can provide nothing else. That is support enough for that statement.

          And I can show you, again, that I point to model after model of all humans because I reject the continuous property you desperately keep attempting to impose as a criteria that you’ve NEVER EVER supported.

          1) Human does not necessarily equal person and vice versa. Proclaiming it so does not make it so.

          Then give me an example of a person that is not human.

          You can’t discuss “personhood” without discussing “sentience”. I didn’t make that up. Dismissing it without justification is not going to win you any awards in the field.

          Lets review shall we?

          ”Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess different levels of throughout our lives. If sentience is linked to personhood then the level of person varies with the level of sentience.

          Sentience cannot be used to define a person because is not a property possessed only by persons since non-person life forms also
          possess it.

          If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person.

          If you want to use sentience as the determining criteria for personhood then you have to determine what level of sentience is
          sufficient to include all living persons at all stages of development.”

          There, for the umpteenth time, is my justification for rejecting
          sentience as a criteria for determining personhood so you cannot
          accuse me of dismissing it without justification even though I know you’ll continue to do so anyway. I, however, can accuse you of continuously imposing sentience as a criteria with absolutely zero support for it because for the umpteenth time you have NEVER EVER addressed any of the above points.

          Bodily autonomy is not imaginary. It’s something
          we take very seriously. It’s why no one can force you to donate
          blood, a piece of your liver, bone marrow, etc. to keep someone else alive who isn’t as dumb and certain as you are and who might make the world a better place than you make it.

          Your definition of bodily autonomy is one that is absolute to the
          extreme of trumping the life of another innocent person and that is
          completely imaginary.

          If you think everyone deserves that right except
          pregnant women, no matter what the circumstances of the pregnancy, then you have to show why that is the case.

          I’ve already covered this, you chose to ignore it, so I’m not
          going to do it again because you’re so predictable you’ll only ignore it again and accuse me of not supporting it again.

          So far, you’ve failed on every point.

          No, I haven’t failed. You are simply too unbelievably intellectually dishonest and underhanded to actually conduct anything resembling a fair discussion of this or any other issue. I’ve made my points and backed them up with evidence repeatedly along with direct challenges to the absurdity of your logic which have gone completely unanswered multiple times and you know that.

          You’ve repeatedly and intentionally ignored and denied the
          supporting evidence, steadfastly refused to answer the questions
          exposing the problematic consequences of your position and continued to assert the very same deeply flawed statements. On top of this you’ve accused me of everything you’re guilty of. If you had a shred of integrity you’d admit it but you don’t so you can’t.

          At first I thought you were just plain really to dense to grasp
          what I’ve been saying. Since then I’ve come to understand that
          density can’t account for someone that flatly refuses to even
          acknowledge objective facts that reasonable people would have no
          trouble understanding and accepting. Nor can density account for a pathological pattern of lying about and denying those very same
          objective facts in the face of clear, unambiguous evidence that
          that’s what you’re doing. Nor can density account for habitually
          accusing your opponent of the same behavior you’re clearly guilty of without realizing it.

          What I think can and does account for all of this is that you’re
          level of allegiance to the culture of death is so strong, you’ve
          suppressed your conscience to the point that you can self-justify
          willfully resorting to such dishonest behavior in order to defend and
          advance the culture’s goals which in your warped mind must be done at all costs. Your simply following orders because to you and your ilk, the means justify the ends just like they did to the Nazi’s and Bolsheviks. This for me however is a cause for celebration because every movement throughout history that has based it’s future on good little goose stepping, useful idiots like you dutifully doing what their told is guaranteed to fail. It’s only a matter of time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Alright weasel, who would you save if it was your 5 year old and a neighbors five year old?

          Which one of your five year old twins would you save, Einstein?

          Weasel? So when did the disciples get ordained again….according to your cult?

        • Pofarmer

          If they had “equal fundamental worth” he’d save the embryos. What a dipshit.

        • Greg G.

          In http://disq.us/p/1nqilv2 , you said, “there are differences between the embryos and the five-year-old girl that are or can be morally relevant to the decision concerning whom to rescue.”

          If there are morally relevant differences between embryos and children, your equivocations of a fertilized egg and a baby are vacuous. Even the pages you cite undermine your position.

          The main point of the article is that choosing to rescue a child over embryos doesn’t mean that the embryos do not have value. But the value is relative to how the potential mother values the embryo versus everything else in her life. You don’t get to make that determination.

        • Ameribear

          If there are morally relevant differences between embryos and children, your equivocations of a fertilized egg and a baby are vacuous. Even the pages you cite undermine your position.

          Read the article again. The first premise of the article states “both are human beings equal in fundamental worth and dignity” which supports what I’ve been saying.

          The main point of the article is that choosing to rescue a child over embryos doesn’t mean that the embryos do not have value.

          The main point of the article is that choosing to rescue a child over embryos doesn’t mean that the embryos are not equal in fundamental worth and dignity to the 5-year old.

          But the value is relative to how the potential mother values the embryo versus everything else in her life. You don’t get to make that determination.

          The article starts from the premise that “both are human beings equal in fundamental worth and dignity” which is completely independent of anyone or anything else. Professor George lists reasons for choosing one over the other that could be morally licit concerning the circumstances but in either case those choices do not undermine or negate the first premise of the article which is what Tomlinson was attempting to do by using that thought experiment.

        • Greg G.

          The article starts from the premise that “both are human beings equal in fundamental worth and dignity” which is completely independent of anyone or anything else.

          No matter how many times you say it, that point shows that the “fundamental worth and dignity” are relative values. I am not arguing that an embryo has zero value. Bringing an embryo to term is also a heavy burden. I argue that a woman’s wish to not be pregnant has value, too, and forcing the burden of pregnancy and childbirth on an unwilling woman is a horrible position. That your religion believes in forcing unwilling women to go through pregnancy is a good reason to find a new religion or reject religion altogether.

        • Ameribear

          No matter how many times you say it, that point shows that the “fundamental worth and dignity” are relative values.

          If you believe that fundamental worth and dignity are relative values then you are giving tacit approval to everyone throughout history to the present day who decided to define personhood to suit their interests and then imposed their will on everyone else who didn’t fit their particular definition. As long as some persons are able to reserve for themselves the right to decide what constitutes a person and what doesn’t, we’ll never be free of
          genocides and holocausts.

          I am not arguing that an embryo has zero value.

          It doesn’t have to have zero value but you are deciding to ignore the fundamental worth and dignity that is already present in it and assign it’s value to it based on your personal definition of what constitutes a person.

          I argue that a woman’s wish to not be pregnant has value, too, and forcing the burden of pregnancy and childbirth on an unwilling woman is a horrible position.

          You are fabricating and enshrining a right not to be pregnant over and above the right to life of another person and in doing so ignoring the fundamental worth and dignity of an entire class of persons.
          That’s like a smoker saying I have a right not to get lung cancer. If a woman is flat out unwilling to bring a child to term then she shouldn’t be accepting the risks associated with engaging in the act that would require that to happen. No one dies from practicing abstinence.

          That your religion believes in forcing unwilling women to go through pregnancy is a good reason to find a new religion or reject religion altogether.

          That your religion believes in redefining personhood to suit your personal interests and then allows and even encourages the forcing of the will of the stronger on the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human race puts you right down there with everyone else that’s done exactly the same thing throughout history.

        • Greg G.

          If you believe that fundamental worth and dignity are relative values then you are giving tacit approval to everyone throughout history to the present day who decided… Yadda Yadda Yadda

          You gave the link to the website that said that choosing the child over the embryos was the correct decision. The implication is the child has more worth than a thousand embryos. The professor implies that and so did you for submitting the article.

          It doesn’t have to have zero value but you are deciding to ignore the fundamental worth and dignity that is already present in it and assign it’s value to it based on your personal definition of what constitutes a person.

          I am not ignoring any fundamental value. Just like the article you posted the link to, I am pointing out that the fundamental worth is not equal. Can you not think and read at the same time?

          You are fabricating and enshrining a right not to be pregnant over and above the right to life of another person…

          It’s not a person but if it was, it has no right to use another person’s organs without consent.

          That your religion…

          Stop projecting. I don’t have a religion.

        • Greg G.

          Alright weasel, who would you save if it was your 5 year old and a neighbors five year old?

          I would save my child or my sister’s kid over the neighbor’s kid. I would probably save my next door neighbor’s kid over the kids who live two doors down. If it comes down to it, it would be a subjective, sentimental choice.

          On airplane flights, the stewards and stewardesses demonstrate the safety instructions. They say that if the oxygen masks drop, put yours on before you help your child put on the mask. It is left unsaid that the parents with more than one child should decide at that point which child they love the most.

          But for the record, if I had to choose between saving a stranger’s five year old and embryos from my own loins, I would save the five year old. If I had to choose between safely rescuing two children I did not know or sacrificing my life to save one of my own children, I would save my own child. If it was a choice between my child and a million other children, I’m pretty sure I would save the multitude. I do not know what the minimum number would be that would make me choose the other children over my own and it might vary with my emotional state at the time.

        • Ameribear

          I would save my child or my sister’s kid over the neighbor’s kid. I would probably save my next door neighbor’s kid over the kids who live two doors down. If it comes down to it, it would be a subjective, sentimental choice.

          Does your choice of one child over another mean that the child you didn’t choose is of less fundamental dignity and worth than the one you did choose?

          It is left unsaid that the parents with more than one child should decide at that point which child they love the most.

          The choice of which child gets masked first still doesn’t affect the fundamental dignity and worth of either child.

          But for the record…

          Perfectly reasonable.

        • Greg G.

          Does your choice of one child over another mean that the child you didn’t choose is of less fundamental dignity and worth than the one you did choose?

          No, it would be based on the subjective value to me. If I had to choose between rescuing a $20 bill on my right or a $100 on my right, I would save the $100 bill but that would not mean the the $20 bill was worthless. I would take it in a choice between it and a $10 bill. I would probably take the $20 bill over $25 or so in loose change for expediency, though.

        • Ameribear

          If both children (who are persons) are of equal fundamental worth and dignity then that fundamental worth and dignity must be intrinsic to both of them as well as all persons. It must be present in all persons regardless of level of development, age, education, net worth, or any number of other extrinsic or continuous properties. It’s present in everyone and it must be regarded as inviolable by everyone. That you or others may choose one child over the other is making a secondary value judgment in light of some other circumstances but that still does not change or reduce the children’s common inherent worth and dignity. A better analogy would be the choice between saving a crisp, freshly printed $100 dollar bill and one that’s been through the laundry a few times because they’re both of equal value.

        • Greg G.

          The subjective worth of my child over your child would outweigh any intrinsic worth. I hope you understand. But I would save your child over a thousand embryos, if that’s OK with you.

          A better analogy would be the choice between saving a crisp, freshly printed $100 dollar bill and one that’s been through the laundry a few times because they’re both of equal value.

          If I had time to compare the texture of the bills, I wouldn’t waste it comparing them. I’d take them both. Duh!

        • Pofarmer

          A better analogy would be the choice between saving a crisp, freshly printed $100 dollar bill and one that’s been through the laundry a few times because they’re both of equal value.

          Next we’re going to get a used gum analogy.

        • Pofarmer

          A child is not a fertilized egg. This is also a strange argument to be making when it comes from an organization who burned people alive for not believing the right things. Inherent worth, indeed.

        • Susan

          if I had to choose between saving a stranger’s five year old and embryos from my own loins,

          If I had to choose between safely rescuing two children I did not know or sacrificing my life to save one of my own children, I would save my own child.

          If it was a choice between my child and a million other children, I’m pretty sure I would save the multitude

          And put puppies in there, if you’d like.

          Those choices are nightmares. They would give you and your neighbours nightmares (no matter what horrible choice you were forced to make) for the rest of your natural life and would make
          at least a portion of the rest of your natural life a nightmare,

          if you have any compassion. .

          Mindless embryos in canisters, not so much.

          Unless you believe in imaginary souls. But what’s the point in that?

          Even then, it would be a stretch.

        • Greg G.

          There would be nightmares and sorrow with either choice in the dilemmas of those scenarios but I expect that instinct would rule in some situations.

        • Rudy R

          Would you agree that your foundational belief that abortion is immoral is based on a fetus’ potential of becoming a sentient being?

        • Ameribear

          No I would not. Abortion is immoral because a human person is present from the moment of conception. Sentience has no bearing on that.

        • adam

          Abortion is immoral because

        • Rudy R

          OK, since the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively is not a factor, why is it immoral to abort a human after the moment of conception?

        • Ameribear

          Deliberately targeting innocent persons for destruction should be illegal.

          To be a human being is sufficient to make one a person.

          Human beings are present from conception.

          Unborn children are innocent persons.

          Deliberately targeting unborn persons for destruction should be illegal.

        • Greg G.

          Deliberately targeting innocent persons for destruction should be illegal.

          Agreed, unless they are living off the blood of another person and creating a threat to health and life, then the person gets to decided whether to continue or abort.

        • Pofarmer

          Fer fucks sake. How can they not get that a woman has a right to her own body?

        • Michael Neville

          Like all forced birthers, they see the fetus has having more rights than the adult woman involved. It’s a woman, for Chrissake, not anyone important like a man or a boy. Ameribear is a Catholic, a member of a professionally misogynistic, patriarchal organization where women don’t matter.

        • Kodie

          O really any reason they want to. Reasons often cited are age or finances, but it can be they just don’t wanna.

          And they don’t hafta! There is nothing lost here. Nobody knows who this will be, and need not care. Need not worry about it ethically whatsoever any more than clipping your toenails or cutting hair off your head. It’s nothing to be emotional about – only that freaks like Ameribear want you to deliberate over the gravity of ending a human life! It doesn’t have sentience and it’s not just lacking sentience. It’s never had sentience. It can’t until it develops a brain. If it doesn’t even have a brain yet, it is on life support, and it is legal to pull the plug on a formerly sentient human person whose brain has died and is only being supported by machines to breathe and pump blood through their corpse.

          The only urgent thought in a pregnant woman’s mind should not be guilt if she is considering abortion. The other option is continuing a pregnancy, and once it’s too late to change your mind, it’s too late. You should really really really spend a lot more time considering if that’s what you want to do. Bearing a pregnancy to term is an irreversible decision. It’s costly, it’s messy, it’s dangerous to your health, and it lasts a long time. If you really want to have a baby, make sure you don’t just really want to have a baby, but you really want to be a parent. Facts are glossed over and romanticized. It’s a really big responsibility. I’ve heard it’s also one of the most rewarding experiences, but don’t do it just to be like everyone else. You’re an individual, and your temperament might not find it rewarding. I’ve heard it’s one of the most exhausting things you can do, and don’t do it just to force yourself to be a responsible adult. It’s not a plant, it’s a human being, and you know humans, and how easily screwed up they are. That’s your job now, if you choose to accept it. I mean, I guess, don’t psyche yourself out of it, but be realistic. I’ve also heard parenting is not like anyone ever expects. There’s more to it than it looks like, watching others do it. That’s why parents get all psycho if you judge them or tell them how you would do things if you had kids. That’s why your friends with kids don’t even relate to you anymore. Don’t do it just to stay friends with people you know. They are talking a different language to you, so make sure that’s a language you want to learn. Don’t do it just because you never see them anymore, or all they talk about is what their baby did or how their kid got all A’s in school or made the honor roll. Do you find that interesting without a kid? Because that’s apparently all you’ll ever want to talk about when you have kids. Except when you desperately want adults-only talk, peer companions, talk about anything else but your kids, because you realize you’re in prison with your kids now. That’s your life. If you want to accept it. If you don’t, get an abortion. You can change your mind after you have an abortion.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Eloquent; thanks.

        • Pofarmer

          It doesn’t have sentience and it’s not just lacking sentience. It’s never had sentience. It can’t until it develops a brain.

          Yep, this is the important part that the pro-forced birth crowd conveniently glosses over.

        • Ameribear

          In the legitimate case such as an ectopic pregnancy when the pregnancy is posing a threat to the life of the mother then ending the pregnancy may be permissible. In the case of a mother who’s birth control failed and she just doesn’t want the responsibility of a child at that moment it can never be permissible.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Any pregnancy can go bad and cause the death of the woman. A pregnant woman doesn’t need your permission to make her own decision.

        • Ameribear

          A pregnant woman should get all the necessary quality healthcare necessary to see here through the pregnancy but she cannot be given the
          right to kill the unborn child she is partially responsible for bringing into
          existence.

        • Kodie

          There is nothing to be responsible for. Having an abortion is a responsible decision a woman can choose to make without guilt.

        • Ameribear

          Having an abortion is about as irresponsible as it gets. It’s killing another human in the name of sexual license. You cannot get more cold-blooded than that.

        • Kodie

          You can certainly get a lot more cold-blooded than that. Like harboring rapists. An abortion is a fine choice a woman can make if she doesn’t want to be a parent.

        • Pofarmer

          Harboring Child Rapists. Participating in actual genocides.

        • Otto

          Allowing people to suffer and die in the name of theology.

        • MNb

          Many a catholic has proven you wrong last 2000 years, during their conquests of Jerusalem and Constantinople for instance.
          Not to mention the catholic war criminals of the WW2 and some Irish nuns from 1950-1980.

        • Greg G.

          A pregnant woman should get all the necessary quality healthcare necessary to see here through the pregnancy

          So far, so good.

          but she cannot be given the right to kill the unborn child she is partially responsible for bringing into existence.

          A woman does have the right to decide whether her body can be used by another life form and to remove the other life form if she wants it out. You have no right to stop her. Mind your own damn business.

        • Paul B. Lot

          [A woman has the right] to remove the other life form if she wants it out

          Many find this problematic…..but so what? We don’t even need to go this far. The vast majority of voluntary pregnancy terminations occur early on, and are accomplished through chemical means.

          Even if it were to be conceded that women don’t have the right you correctly ascribe to them, they certainly do have the right to decide what passes their lips.

          Water. Food. Chemicals….

          Grant the “pro-life” person the premise, arguendo, that the fetus cannot “be removed” ie. through physical means…the woman has no moral obligation to make her internal organs perfectly hospitable.

          Shouldn’t you kill guests you’ve invited over to your home for diner? Okay, fine: let’s grant the premise.

          But neither do you have any obligation to feed and clothe “guests”, using your own body and tissues, for any longer than is acceptable to you….particularly if they received their “invitation” though a postal service error.

        • Ameribear

          It is not just another life form it is a living growing human person that the woman is partially responsible for bringing into existence. You really ought to try thinking once in a while instead of parroting your worthless talking points.

        • Kodie

          We know you like to keep sex for breeding only, and punish anyone who doesn’t share your superstitions about sex. If a fertilized egg comes from such an engagement, it isn’t a person, it isn’t anybody yet. It is fine to get it out of your body if you can foresee it becoming (= is not yet) a nuisance. The cultural imperative to feel guilty about it, or the cultural imperative to accept the burden of motherhood is your religion of shame and abuse over nothing. It’s sexism. You hate women, this is how you express it.

        • Ameribear

          We know you like to keep sex for breeding only, and punish anyone who doesn’t share your superstitions about sex.

          I know your a brainwashed, infantile brat who refuses to listen and can’t do anything but regurgitate the talking points and redefined terms you’ve gleefully swallowed whole.

          If a fertilized egg comes from such an engagement, it isn’t a person, it isn’t anybody yet. It is fine to get it out of your body if you can foresee it becoming (= is not yet) a nuisance.

          And puke out more talking points with nothing to support them.

          The cultural imperative to feel guilty about it, or the cultural imperative to accept the burden of motherhood is your religion of shame and abuse over nothing.

          The cultural imperative to intentionally end the life of another human being in the name of a fictitious universal right to never grow up is your religion of shame.

          It’s sexism. You hate women, this is how you express it.

          Your reasoning is that of a two year old, your talking points were crushed long ago and your tactics of refusing to listen to and derogatorily labeling anyone who disagrees with you wore out decades ago. You refuse to grow up and this is how you express it.

        • Kodie

          Did someone abort you before you could become a person? Then what the fuck is your problem?

        • Susan

          Your reasoning is that of a two year old, your talking points were crushed long ago and your tactics of refusing to listen to and derogatorily labeling anyone who disagrees with you wore out decades ago.

          Irony metres are expensive, Ameribear and I’m not sure you’re worth it.

        • Rudy R

          If I understand you correctly, its immoral to abort a fetus, because it is innocent.
          Since sentience has no bearing on the immorality of aborting a human fetus, would it also be immoral to abort an innocent chimpanzee fetus?

        • Ameribear

          No, it’s immoral to abort a fetus because it’s a living, growing human being which chimps are not.

        • adam
        • Rudy R

          Your position is abortion is immoral, because the human fetus is innocent and that sentience has no bearing. Given that innocence has a bearing on the issue of abortion, all species fetuses share the same innocence as the human fetus. Since the chimpanzee fetus shares the same innocence as the human fetus, why is aborting an innocent human fetus immoral, while aborting an innocent chimpanzee fetus not immoral?

        • Ameribear

          It can be demonstrated that it’s a human being from conception. What other factors do you believe should be considered?

        • Rudy R

          I don’t believe other factors should be considered. Just trying to understand the reason you think abortion is immoral. If I understand you correctly, just being human makes abortion immoral. Why?

        • Ameribear

          Isn’t just being human sufficient to make murder wrong? Why do we need any more reasons than that?

        • Rudy R

          Being human is sufficient to making murder (unlawful killing) wrong. However, aborting a fetus is not murder, because it’s legal in all U.S. states. Every state sets limits on when it is and not legal.

          If your use of “murder” is in the colloquial sense, again, why is aborting a human (with no other factors considered) immoral?

          Or, if your use of “murder” is in the legal sense, why should aborting a human (with no other factors considered) be unlawful killing?

        • Ameribear

          However, aborting a fetus is not murder, because it’s legal in all U.S. states.

          It used to be legal to own other human beings as personal property. Being legal doesn’t equate to being moral by a long shot.

          why is aborting a human…

          Let’s be clear about what you define as human. Do you understand that term to mean a person? Do you need an explanation of why intentionally taking the life of another person is immoral?

        • Rudy R

          It used to be legal to own other human beings as personal property. Being legal doesn’t equate to being moral by a long shot.

          Yes, slavery was legal, but now it’s illegal. I agree that being legal does not equate to being moral. But until abortion becomes illegal, aborting a human is not murder…it’s intentionally taking a life.

          Let’s be clear about what you define as human. Do you understand that term to mean a person?

          I understand the term to include sentience. If a human being becomes brain dead, they cease to be a person. That’s why most people believe it’s moral to let a human in a vegetative state to die, if they are kept alive on life support.

          Since you’ve stated that sentience of the fetus has no bearing, what’s your definition of a person?

          Do you need an explanation of why intentionally taking the life of another person is immoral?

          There are situations where it’s moral to intentionally take the life of another person. Self defense is one reason. Capital punishment is another. And lastly, abortion is a reason as well, to save the life of the mother.

        • Ameribear

          Yes, slavery was legal, but now it’s illegal. I agree that being legal does not equate to being moral. But until abortion becomes illegal, aborting a human is not murder.

          So was slavery moral when it was legal?

          A human is not necessarily a person. A person is necessarily a human. I understand the term to include sentience. If a human is brain dead or has no cognition, they are not a person.

          Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess different levels of throughout our lives. If sentience is linked to personhood then the level of person varies with the level of sentience. Sentience cannot be what defines a person because is not a property possessed only by persons since animals also possess it. If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person. If you wanted to use sentience as the determining criteria for personhood then you would have to determine what level of sentience is sufficient to include all living persons at all stages of development.

          Since you’ve stated that sentience of the fetus has no bearing, what’s your definition of a person?

          What defines a person has to be held in common with all living
          persons at all stages of development. A living human being is all
          that is necessary.

          There are situations where it’s moral to intentionally take the life of another person. Self defense is one reason. Capital punishment is another. And lastly, abortion is a reason as well, to save the life of the mother.

          I would agree with the self defense and capital punishment when
          it’s necessary and in the case of an ectopic pregnancy there doesn’t seem to be any other choice either. However children as young as 23 weeks have survived and gone on to thrive thanks to advances in neonatal care so you can’t use the “to save the life of the mother” excuse for that. If the child is far enough along then all efforts must be made to save and sustain the life of the unborn child because killing it does nothing to benefit the health of the mother.

        • Rudy R

          Since it appears that by your definition, a human being is necessarily a person, what are the characteristics of a human being that make abortion immoral?

        • Ameribear

          Since by your definition, a human is necessarily a person, what defines a human that makes abortion immoral?

          What I just stated in my previous reply. It’s a separate, living human organism which means it’s a person.

          BTW, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Most pro-choicers I know would agree a fetus that is viable outside the mother’s womb should not be aborted in the colloquial sense, but be allowed to flourish.

          How do you define viability? Do you mean a child that doesn’t require the use of any external devices to sustain normal biological functions after birth?

        • Rudy R

          What I just stated in my previous reply. It’s a separate, living human organism which means it’s a person.

          What defines a person that makes abortion immoral?

          How do you define viability? Do you mean a child that doesn’t require the use of any external devices to sustain normal biological functions after birth?

          When the fetus is able to live outside the womb, whether or not it needs assist through modern medicine.

        • Ameribear

          What defines a person that makes abortion immoral?

          What defines a person that makes abortion immoral is that it is a living human being.

          When the fetus is able to live outside the womb, whether or not it needs assist through modern medicine.

          So a developing child that can’t live unless it’s inside the womb or outside the womb with assistance is only a person by virtue of it’s location. A prematurely born child is a person because he or she lives in a neonatal ICU but they weren’t seconds or minutes earlier when they were still living in their mother.

        • Rudy R

          I asked you what defines a human that makes abortion immoral and you said that the human is a person. I then asked you what defines a person that makes abortion immoral and you said that the person is a human being. That’s circular logic.

          I think what you are trying to state is that a human is necessarily a person and a person is necessarily a human. That being said, what defines a person (human) that makes abortion immoral?

          My position on abortion is a bit nuanced. I believe sentience has no bearing once the fetus is outside the mother’s womb. Killing a baby (fetus outside the mother’s womb) is murder (at least in most countries), because it’s against our greater intuition. That intuition is the result of a pattern of behavior shared by most humans. That behavior, which is shared by all the animal kingdom, is to reproduce. Killing a baby would be counter to that intuition. That intuition, or instinct, is integral to the human evolutionary process, because without it, Homo sapiens sapiens would become instinct.

        • Ameribear

          That’s circular logic.

          I believe that all persons are human but not all humans are persons. For example a human who has lost brain function to the level of requiring external devices to sustain his normal biological functions is not a person.

          That being said, what defines a person (human) that makes abortion immoral?

          I also said that all that should be necessary to be declared a person is that you’re a living human being.

          I believe sentience has no bearing once the fetus is outside the mother’s womb.

          Sentience should have no bearing regardless of where the
          child is living for the reasons I posted earlier.

          Killing a baby (fetus outside the mother’s womb) is murder (at least in most countries), because it’s against our greater intuition.

          Agreed but there has to be an underlying reason for that.

          That intuition is the result of a pattern of behavior shared by most humans. That behavior, which is shared by all the animal kingdom, is to produce offspring to ensure the survival of the species.

          Members of the animal kingdom can and do brutally kill their
          young offspring. I don’t see it as intuition. Humans have the ability to recognize intrinsic value. Members of the animal kingdom have zero recognition of the intrinsic value of any other animals including humans.

          Killing a baby would be counter to that intuition. That intuition, or instinct, is integral to the human evolutionary process, because without it, Homo sapiens sapiens would eventually become instinct.

          I think you meant extinct.

          Killing a baby is just as counter intuitive as abortion. The loss of the value to society of a murdered child isn’t dependent on the exact stage of development the murdered child started out in.

        • Rudy R

          For example a human who has lost brain function to the level of requiring external devices to sustain his normal biological functions is not a person.

          So a human is not a person because they are brain dead, and thus not sentient, and relies on another for their survival is different from a fetus who is not sentient, relying on another how?

          Members of the animal kingdom can and do brutally kill their young offspring.

          Yes and is usually due to an instinctive nature caused by the evolutionary process and not due to psychosis, which is a human phenomena.

          Members of the animal kingdom have zero recognition of the intrinsic value of any other animals including humans.

          That’s a bold statement. You know this how?

          Killing a baby is just as counter intuitive as abortion.

          No, it’s not. According to Pew Research, 57% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. I didn’t bother with finding the percentage who say killing babies should be legal in all or most cases.

        • Ameribear

          So a human is not a person because they are brain dead, and thus not sentient, and relies on another for their survival is different from a fetus who is not sentient, relying on another how?

          From my earlier reply.

          ”Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess
          different levels of throughout our lives. If sentience is linked to
          personhood then the level of person varies with the level of
          sentience.

          Sentience cannot be what defines a person because is not a property possessed only by persons since animals also possess it.

          If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person.

          If you wanted to use sentience as the determining criteria for personhood then you would have to determine what level of sentience is sufficient to include all living persons at all stages of development.”

          These are the reasons I’ve offered for why sentience cannot be used as a criteria for determining personhood and as of today they remain unaddressed. If you believe sentience can be used as a criteria for determining personhood then you need to explain why.

          That’s a bold statement. You know this how?

          Simply by virtue of the fact that humans in the presence of some animals have to take steps to protect themselves from attack

          No, it’s not. According to Pew Research, 57% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. I didn’t bother with finding the percentage who say killing babies should be legal in all or most cases.

          The percentage of people who favor abortion has nothing to do with it. All developing humans have potential to contribute to the furthering of the human race. That potential gets wiped out in both the instance of a murdered born child or an abortion. I agree with you that killing a baby is counter intuitive to the survival and flourishing of the human race but so is abortion for the very same reason. The only difference I see is the stage of development the loss of life occurs at.

        • Rudy R

          If you believe sentience can be used as a criteria for determining personhood then you need to explain why.

          I believe sentience is the starting point that leads to personhood. A human is a person, when they are conscious, self-aware, and can reason. A being with those attributes has intrinsic value.

          I understand that you don’t consider sentience as a criteria for personhood. You believe that all persons are human but not all humans are persons. Telling me a human is a person, is equivocating. Being human and being a person are two separate things, as you’ve admitted yourself. A zygote is a human, but what attributes does the zygote have that you deem it a person?

          Simply by virtue of the fact that humans in the presence of some animals have to take steps to protect themselves from attack

          How does this differ from the fact that other animals in the presence of humans have to take steps to protect themselves from attack?

          The percentage of people who favor abortion has nothing to do with it.

          The Pew poll disproves your assertion that killing a baby is just as counter intuitive as abortion. It’s not counter intuitive to the 57%.

        • Ameribear

          I believe sentience is the starting point that leads to personhood. A human is a person, when they are conscious, self-aware, and can reason. A being with those attributes has intrinsic value.

          Then anyone who is unconscious, or is mentally disabled or to underdeveloped to reason isn’t a person. You cannot link personhood to any continuous property without excluding other persons.

          A zygote is a human, but what attributes does the zygote have that you deem it a person?

          A zygote is a human in its earliest stages of development and as such cannot be discriminated against on the basis of development. You cannot apply a level of development criteria to zygotes without applying it to human beings at any other stage of development. If you link personhood to development then the only humans that qualify as persons would have to be perfectly developed, any one less than perfectly developed is less of a person. The only valid and just definition of personhood must include all humans at every stage of development.

          Why should other non-humans believe humans have intrinsic value when humans don’t believe other non-humans have intrinsic value?

          You cannot teach non-humans intrinsic value, they have no way to comprehend it.

          The Pew poll disproves your assertion that killing a baby is just as counter intuitive as abortion. It’s not counter intuitive to the 57%.

          No poll results can have any bearing on the value or potential of human life. The loss of human life always means the loss of future potential and the only distinction you’re making is regarding the stage of development the loss of life occurred. How many of histories tyrants successfully convinced large groups of followers that it wasn’t counter intuitive to exterminate large segments of their respective populations?

        • Rudy R

          All that being said, what is a human and what is a person?

        • Ignorant Amos

          So a developing child that can’t live unless it’s inside the womb or outside the womb with assistance is only a person by virtue of it’s location. A prematurely born child is a person because he or she lives in a neonatal ICU but they weren’t seconds or minutes earlier when they were still living in their mother.

          Very nice. From your seat in your ivory tower in white picket fence land ya knuckle dragging moron.

          Whether they are a person, or not, doesn’t seem to be of any consequence to the tri-omni entity whose arse you lick.

          For the majority of folk living in the third world, neonatal ICU’s don’t exist ya fuckwit. Nevertheless, your YahwehJesus has no issue with premature births that won’t have the luxury of first world modern science and those trained in it’s administration. Or even the very basics.

          More than 60% of preterm births occur in Africa and South Asia, but preterm birth is truly a global problem. In the lower-income countries, on average, 12% of babies are born too early compared with 9% in higher-income countries. Within countries, poorer families are at higher risk.

          http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs363/en/

          So the baby is not only not going to survive, but it is going to suffer for the short time it will exist. Or maybe, just maybe, your imaginary arsehole in the sky is just a figment.

        • adam

          “Deliberately targeting innocent persons for destruction should be illegal.”

          Its not even immoral for the Bible “God”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/57fc02d9d9eb86554f705551ba2dbc89bf3ab7bfd35db508e5ec140698255ebb.jpg

        • Joe

          So you’re anti death penalty and overseas wars?

        • Ameribear

          Only when they aren’t necessary.

        • Joe

          When is the death penalty necessary?

        • Ameribear

          It is necessary when a society has no other means available to protect its members from an aggressor in their midst.

        • adam

          “It is necessary when a society has no other means available to protect its members from an aggressor in their midst.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b914c9ae89d657742ab60de9c6ec87ee18649d8df4086333e70d3eef334774a4.jpg

        • Joe

          They do have a means of protection: Incarceration. Remember not everyone who was executed was guilty.

        • Ameribear

          I agree that most societies do have incarceration available to them as a means and they should preferred it over the death penalty. The only caveat I have is that anyone who has committed a crime worthy of the death penalty should instead have to spend the rest of their natural lives in prison
          with no chance of parole.

        • MNb

          Good to see that after your First Locomotive nonsense you have found another hole you’ve dug in yourself so deeply that you can’t escape, this time a biological one. Don’t bother to reply, this bone is for Susan to chew on.

        • Ameribear

          She needs a lot more than a bone to chew on.

        • MNb

          Yeah, your output is so meager that it can’t still any desire.

        • Ameribear

          Both of you need all the help you can get.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Sure. Unfortunately your god is incapable of offering any help while you mostly help people from the quay into the water.

        • Ameribear

          God is capable of immense help, like helping me recognize
          that you guys are actually the ones doing what you accuse us of.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • adam

          “God is capable of immense help, like helping me recognize
          that you guys are actually the ones doing what you accuse us of”

          Of course your “God” does:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7be189b43a8d6da24f528e28fd9c3b3c6b7911182fff825bc06b4beeb99b4e6a.png

        • MNb

          You excel at demonstrating the opposite of what you aspire to demonstrate.

        • Ameribear
        • MNb

          It’s nonsense. Physicists have estimated that due to lacking empirical data we have gained 10% of all possible knowledge at best and probably much less.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Susan

          after your First Locomotive nonsense you have found another hole you’ve dug in yourself so deeply that you can’t escape, this time a biological one.

          No sweat for Ameribear. He’s not interested in either subject. His church has told him he’s right so that’s what he brings. He doesn’t have to put any effort into either of those subjects but he knows he’s right because his church says he is.

          this bone is for Susan to chew on.

          My free time and internet access is very limited lately.

          While I understand the entertainment chewing on bones gives you (and it’s entertaining to watch), I have different motives.

          I’ve noticed that people can assert bullshit without supporting it, and they do it all the time.

          Lies can travel around the world a hundred times before the truth can even tie up its shoes (forgive my paraphrase… I have limited time and internet access).

          I’d be delighted if you stepped in. Or anyone else.

          Ameribear thinks if we stop, that he must be right.

          And it’s Patheosdisqus. So some poor sap who is trying to follow the broken conversation might think Ameribear made an actual point, when he never has.

          Or don’t. I don’t blame you if you don’t.

          As an indoctrinated ex-catholic girl, I see the consequences of Ameribear’s feeble but effective (through repetition) apologetics.

          For you, it’s entertainment. For me, it’s serious.

          I hope someone steps in if you don’t.

          Anti-reproductive rights are real where I live.

        • MNb

          What I meant is that you do/did an excellent job, no way I could do it as good.

        • Susan

          Thanks, MNb. In that case, sorry for the long winded post.

          In my opinion, you do it better most of the time.

          I’m happy when you jump in.

        • MNb

          You’re too modest imo. I enjoyed your long winded post like almost always.
          I’ve said it before and I say it again. Your approach is different from mine and I couldn’t practice your approach as you do. As a consequent I’m at as happy when you jump in.

        • Susan

          Thank you. :-)

        • Ignorant Amos

          No sweat for Ameribear. He’s not interested in either subject. His church has told him he’s right so that’s what he brings. He doesn’t have to put any effort into either of those subjects but he knows he’s right because his church says he is.

          Even when his Church says he is wrong he won’t admit it…as demonstrated by the “when did the 12 get ordained?” nonsense. *crickets*

        • Ignorant Amos

          Anti-reproductive rights are real where I live.

          Here too…

          NI abortion law ‘degrades women,’ Supreme Court is told

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41719365

          ETA headline

        • Susan

          Here too

          I should be clear that by “where I live”, I don’t literally mean where I live.

          But I have friends and family in the U.S., particularly friends in the U.S. south. “Where I live” means in my world.

          Your Northern Ireland example is appalling.

        • adam
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Don’t expect a reasonable debate from people who reject reason. Intent is prior to content, and they are intent on believing whatever they hell they feel like believing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Spoiiiiiinnng!

          That’s funny as fuck…godbots sticking together, even though the one thinks the other is a heretic.

        • Susan

          Don’t expect a reasonable debate from people who reject reason.

          Your first comment to me included the phrase “You must be a girl.” and you dismissed the entire comment. Your last (possibly your second) comment to me ignored everything I said and you told me you blocked me.

          Here you are in a discussion in which you haven’t participated implying that I reject reason while doing nothing to support that statement.

          What a dishonest, snivelling coward you are.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          The only way I could support it, would be with reason. And you’ve proven to me by your comments (which I have perused), that your mind is made up.

          As for the girl comment, my mother was a shining example of feminine emotional power plays of nothing but willful defiance. That is how she USED to be at any rate.

          The old saying, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, is not without merit.

          Even so, I concede it is not valid to stereotype. But right from the start, I knew reasoning with you would be a complete waste of time. That’s why I said it anyway. Not to invoke a valid argument, but to make clear that you and I would not be sparring. I don’t waste time with complete zealots other than to show them the door.

        • adam

          ” I knew reasoning with you would be a complete waste of time. ”

          Only because YOU HAVE to rely on Faith for God to make sense.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b23b2e7cd1bc09dec5b20c13ff961e710e7387e252ee87d90048e9613ef5f461.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you’ve proven to me by your comments (which I have perused), that your mind is made up.

          But not you? You’d be happy to reject Christianity if shown that it were false?

          I don’t waste time with complete zealots other than to show them the door.

          Perhaps we should treat you the same way.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And give up your gracious hospitality?

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Et tu, Robert? You’re avoiding answering a question? That’s so unlike you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I never answer complex questions Do you even know what they are?

          Does your mother know you are stupid?

        • adam

          “Does your mother know you are stupid?”

          Does yours?

        • Greg G.

          I never answer complex questions

          What is complex about “You’d be happy to reject Christianity if shown that it were false?” unless the answer is that you would still follow your religion even if you knew it was false.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          But not you? You’d be happy to reject Christianity if shown that it were false?

          Upon further examination, that is not a blatant complex question. It’s very subtle. But I will answer you Bob.

          No, not me. I would be PERFECTLY happy to reject Christianity if it were shown to be false.

          What I noticed was this comment from Susan:

          Craig is a bullshit artist who relies on the fact that most people (including me) are not experts on either subject and especially not on philosophy of science.
          One doesn’t have to be an expert on either to see Craig’s arguments for what they are.
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/what_good_is_philosophy_49/#comment-3484055928

          Ironically, Susan claims that I DO have to understand Gödel’s math in order to use it as support for my position.

          It is precisely this kind of double standard that demonstrates that Susan has an absolute commitment to her ambitions (likely political) and is not interested in understanding the arguments, but is willing to dismiss them even when she CONFESSES that she does not understand them.

          In other words, she is willing to reject ideas even if they have not been shown to be false, because she refuses to judge the arguments on their merit. That is called prejudice.

          On one hand, this saves me the time of paying her any heed (I was foolish to unblock her), but on the other hand at least she is honest about her blatant rebellion, which is more that one can say for most of the new atheists.

          You could save us a lot of time by just giving everyone the finger. You are going to do so (no matter what anyone says) anyway. But you need the pretense of rationality to appease your restless conscience.

          Myself, I came to faith in Christianity as an adult. It was precisely the evidence and logic that led me to it. But I am amused at the relentless justifications and attacks.

          I will give one example of such a failed attack because at one time, it was all the rage in certain circles.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t make the Horus argument. I do make other arguments. You can respond to them, if you’re able.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Have you EVER made the Horus argument?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I make the Dionysus argument. In short, worship of Yahweh and then Jesus grew up in a crossroads where people knew about other dying and rising gods, virgin or godly births, and so on. That Christianity has these traits makes it look like just another manmade religion–not only is the natural explanation (copying) ready to hand, but you’d think that an actual god would have properties very, very, very different from the unimaginative stuff that humans dream up.

          Christianity is just more of the same.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That Christianity has these traits makes it look like just another manmade religion–not only is the natural explanation (copying) ready to hand, but you’d think that an actual god would have properties very, very, very different from the unimaginative stuff that humans dream up.

          Well you and epeeist need to get your stories straight because epeeist said (and I forget the exact verbiage) that any unnobservable entity should be compatible and correlate to the world we DO observe. epeeist had some really cool scientific methodology to back it up too, even though all of it originated with Christian sources like Ockham. And epeeist is right. Paul said the same thing in different verbiage in Romans 1.

          The fact of the matter is, that the God of the bible IS very different than those nature religions. The Jews were forbidden to worship those gods BECAUSE they were man made. The Jews worshiped the God OF nature, with nature simply reflecting the nature and character OF God. So to worship nature would be like worshiping a shadow instead of the person creating the shadow.

          As lewis explains, the difference is in some sense subtle, but its as real as the difference between an old film photograph, and the negative of that photograph.

          Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Well you and epeeist need to get your stories straight because epeeist said (and I forget the exact verbiage) that any unnobservable entity should be compatible and correlate to the world we DO observe

          1. epeeist is welcome to disagree with me anytime.

          2. That doesn’t disagree with me.

          The fact of the matter is, that the God of the bible IS very different than those nature religions.

          The Bible contains the Combat Myth, shared with prior religions of that region. The Flood, the water-above-and-below cosmology, the Garden of Eden, dying-and-rising god, virgin birth and loads more—all shared with prior religions. That doesn’t prove that Christianity is invented, but then proof isn’t what we’re looking for. The evidence is sufficient.

          As lewis explains, the difference is in some sense subtle

          There’s your problem. You’re saying, “Well, I’ll agree that Christianity looks quite similar on a number of specific points to other prior religions, but ‘It has just that queer twist about it that real things have’ (as Lewis put it).” That’s it? You’re forced to concede the major bits, leaving you with only a “queer twist,” and you think you have an argument?

          Make things easier on yourself. Admit that you won’t change based on evidence, tell us that you believe on faith and not evidence, and move on. Easy.

        • adam

          ” The Jews were forbidden to worship those gods BECAUSE they were man made.”

          So they made their own.

          You are a laugh
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cec86c13ff651044ebf846246f7b360fb2d8a3eccf42e97c497a2d680eb4b44d.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I don’t make the Horus argument. I do make other arguments. You can respond to them, if you’re able.

          Sounds quite formidable…

          I read your critique of the subject here: http://crossexaminedblog.com/tag/dionysus/

          It is interesting that you note the difficulties..

          Many of these gods actually came after Jesus. That’s why the list above only includes dying-and-rising gods who are well-known to have preceded Jesus. There are many more such gods—Mithras, Horus, Krishna, Persephone, and others—that don’t seem to fit as well. In fact, Wikipedia lists life-death-rebirth deities from twenty religions worldwide, but I’ve tried to list above the six most relevant examples.

          So you leave out Horus, but still run with the theme that Christianity MIGHT HAVE just re-hashed old mythologies?

          I like the way you quote mine C.S. Lewis, as if that is ALL there is to the matter from the point of view of a ‘serious Christian thinker’ (insert oxymoronic suggestive laughter).

          ““The story of Christ is simply a true myth; a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference, that it really happened, and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s Myth where the others are men’s myths.” -C.S. Lewis

          That quote comes from a letter to Arthur Greeves in 1931 ( http://emp.byui.edu/wardd/honors221/concepts/myth.htm ) when Lewis was just coming to understand these things. The rest of that particular paragraph gets to the real heart of the explanation as Lewis’ was just beginning to formulate it…

          You ended the quote mine with a period (.) but it actually contained a colon (:) and continues thus:

          ” : i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things’. Therefore it is true, not in the sense of being a ‘description’ of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties. The ‘doctrines’ we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas of that which God has already expressed in a language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Does this amount to a belief in Christianity? At any rate I am now certain (a) That this Christian story is to be approached, in a sense, as I approach the other myths. (b) That it is the most important and full of meaning. I am also nearly certain that it really happened.”

          Almost two decades later in 1947, Lewis had developed the thinking that he then struggled to articulate as he indicated in his letter. He revised the concepts further in 1960. So there is almost 40 years of development in these ideas, and you choose to represent his most infantile writings on the subject. How interesting…

          I read these developed thoughts in his book Miracles, which is easily accessible in the short video below. It is cued to the appropriate time because I am very kind and generous like that (insert smiley). It is because I had read his developed thoughts that I recognized your caricature of Lewis’ thinking on the matter as misleading.

          https://youtu.be/Uv4kx2QP4UM?t=239

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you leave out Horus, but still run with the theme that Christianity MIGHT HAVE just re-hashed old mythologies?

          Bingo. That’s all I need to show. The supernatural explanation is always way, way less likely than a plausible naturalistic explanation, which I’ve provided. QED.

          I like the way you quote mine C.S. Lewis

          I quote Lewis in context. Where’s the problem?

          Oh, I get it—I quote Lewis, but you call that a quote mine! Uh huh. How do you decide legitimate quote vs. devious mustache-twisting quote mine? Whether the argument pleases you or not?

          I don’t know that Lewis’s views are particularly relevant to our discussion.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I explained exactly why it was a quote mine. I did not simply make the charge. You are an intellectual disgrace Bob. This is exactly why I said that reason and evidence mean nothing to you people.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have no idea why you thought I took it out of context. And I no longer care.

        • Greg G.

          A quote mine is when the extracted passage appears to be not what the author meant. I can show you 18 verses that have been translated to say “there is no god”. But that is a quote mine because the verses say, “there is no god besides me” or “the fool says in his heart ‘there is no god’.” See how the quote mine is different than the passage it is taken from?

          What Bob took from Lewis is exactly the point Lewis was making, even with the context you provided. How long have you misunderstood what a quote mine was?

        • epeeist

          How long have you misunderstood what a quote mine was?

          Almost as long as he has misunderstood what “begging the question” means.

          Or as my mother would have said when asked how old she was “As old as my tongue and a little bit older than my teeth”.

        • Susan

          Ironiicaly,Susan claims that I DO have to understand Godel’s math in order to use it as support for my position.

          You claimed that one doesn’t have to understand the math to know what it means. I asked you what it means. You had no answer. All you’ve shown is that you can spell “Godel”.

          To say I’m not an expert on microbiology doesn’t mean that I have no tools or information available to me to assess snake oil claims. Or to dismiss demon theory.

          at least she is honest about her blatant rebellion,

          No. I shorthanded Craig’s tactics. His failures in the fields of cosmology and philosophy are addressed ad nauseum.. If you think he has an argument worth anything, please produce it and be willing to discuss it. Please don’t add videos. They are bogging down the loading process.

          If you have nothing of substance to offer, at least have the decency to eliminate all the baggage. .

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Please don’t add videos. They are bogging down the loading process.

          As I said to Kodie, I had not considered that. But now that I have, too bad. Upgrade your tech…

          There is nothing in the rules that makes it a violation. The videos are very effective. You concession on that point is neither expected nor required. I’ll do as I please. Complaining will have the opposite effect.

          You remind me of Keri’s cover of a fantastic Christian song.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c_e8-kCaXeo

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Upgrade your tech…

          Someone’s using a mobile device with network-limited bandwidth, and that’s your remedy?

          Complaining will have the opposite effect.

          I’m sure it will! A schoolyard response seems appropriate from you.

          What’s amusing is that you think any of us are watching and benefiting from your videos.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RDXTJa6TrKE

          We’ve already established that your mind is made up Bob. You don’t benefit from reason or argument either. I know how your game is played.

          The videos and arguments are for the people with eyes to see and ears to hear (as well as sufficient band width). I never expected you to watch them in the first place.

          The videos will remain (at my sole discretion) so long as media is enabled.

        • MNb

          So that nobody will watch them.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Remember, you only need to convince yourself. If you wear ruby red slippers and click your heels, I hear that helps.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcqd3cFRDU

        • MNb

          “Remember, you only need to convince yourself.”
          Yeah, your creacrap won’t do it.

          “If you wear ruby red slippers and click your heels, I hear that helps.”
          To cure you from your creacrap disease? Somehow I doubt it.

          “You don’t benefit from reason or argument either.”
          Given that you’re a lying IDiot this means “You don’t benefit from mendacious creacrap either”.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          “Remember, you only need to convince yourself.”
          Yeah, your creacrap won’t do it.

          I know it is hard, but do try to keep your mind focused…. We were talking about the videos. You said no one watches them. You need to convince YOURSELF of that, not me.

          I know better…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkccqolaVGg

        • MNb

          Ah yes, I forgot an important principle: it’s impossible that Robbie the Great formulated something poorly, causing misunderstanding.
          Still your creacrap won’t convince me nor anyone else that watching your videos is anything but a colossal and unpleasant waste of time.

          “You said no one watches them.”
          It’s not a matter of convincing. It’s a matter of collecting empirical data and deriving an inductive conclusion.
          Of course an IDiot like you only cares about such stuff when it seems to confirm his predetermined conclusions.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          it’s impossible that Robbie the Great formulated something poorly, causing misunderstanding.

          Oh, goody… I’ve worked my way up to creating misunderstanding. A subtle admission of my effectiveness concealed in a useless insult.

          A little concerned I might plant a seed of skeptical doubt in the minds of those you seek to hypnotize with your nature religion mumbo jumbo?

          I enjoy watching you rant NMb. Have you tried pounding sand?
          Its why I keep you and give you lots of videos. Just to watch you moan about it.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb2MsQKzZDI

        • MNb

          “Its why I keep you and give you lots of videos. Just to watch you moan about it.”
          Thanks for confirming once again that you’re a liar, though by now that’s superfluous. You keep on posting videos no matter what people write, no matter whether anyone watches them or not. You wrote that yourself.

          “A little concerned I might plant a seed of skeptical doubt in the minds of those you seek to hypnotize with your nature religion mumbo jumbo?”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Your lies (like “natural religion”) and stupidities (like “concerned”, though you are way too dishonest and stupid to ever understand why that’s a stupidity: I am actually susceptible to religion – it’s only about three months ago that I visited a building of worship last time) are a very, very effective remedy, a better one than any naturalist could ever provide.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          We’ve already established that your mind is made up Bob.

          Wrong again.

          The videos and arguments are for the people with eyes to we and ears to hear (as well as sufficient band width). I never expected you to watch them in the first place.

          Like there’s some sort of great wisdom in sharing a music video? Or a fragment from Austin Powers?

          I suppose they’re no less insightful than your arguments.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • adam
        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, I will.

          It’s fun playing God sometimes.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You can add words to my comments???

          Whatever you need to do to make yourself feel potent Bob.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I am God.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I like lollipops.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          “I like hippos?”

          Bob Seidensticker comes apart at the seams that easily? No wonder you couldn’t handle being a Christian. No courage.

          It’s never too late to change that Bob.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, I don’t have what it takes to be a Christian. I can’t put my brain in idle.

          Just the cross I have to bear, I guess.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Yeah, I don’t have what it takes to be a Christian. I can’t put my brain in idle.
          Just the cross I have to bear, I guess.

          Yeah, I get pretty cranky sometimes and have to lash out in a hurtful way. Basically, if I can’t reach the level I want to in a conversation, I just flail around in frustration, trying to pull others down to my level. Apologies!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not a problem.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Bob, you’re losing your mind. The words you are putting into my comments are not funny. We are talking gross malpractice and missuse of Moderating authority.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re the one who wanted to play childish games. And now you’re complaining?

          The way it works here is that you make an argument or you critique someone else’s. You go outside the boundaries–insulting people, for example–and bad things might happen.

          If making good arguments and responding to others’ best attempts at good arguments isn’t what you want to do, then you’re in the wrong place. Sometimes, Christians do point out things that I (or others) have overlooked or gotten wrong. Sometimes they bring new insights, arguments, or evidence. All that is appreciated.

          So far, you seem very quick to get off the straight and narrow. If you want to be a contributing member of the community, you’re welcome, though (surprisingly to me) many Christians aren’t here for that reason.

          You pick which category you want to be in.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’m NOT the one playing games. I am the one very successfully dodging all of YOUR games.

          I have not violated any rules Bob. But I DO know all your tricks.

          Don’t accuse me of playing games because your traps can’t control me.

          If you can’t control me with the standard tools, that’s YOUR problem.

          If you must now resort to the extreme of editting my posts and putting words in my mouth, that’s YOUR problem.

          Don’t take my calling you out as complaining. It’s all according to the script. Your desperation does not surprise me in the least. The bible records it all for me. I know how it ends.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Well, I suppose that was my fault. I tried to nudge you toward being a useful contributor, but for some reason, that’s not where you want to go. More insults, and more accusations. Wow. I gotta admit—I didn’t see that coming.

          I’ll do my best to avoid insulting you in the future by suggesting that you want to play ball.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That’s precisely your problem Bob… You don’t know what REAL ball is. Your confounded…

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I came here explaining quite plainly how this was going to work. You just didn’t believe me. And you can’t. It’s simply not possible in your mind. Yet so it is…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohw1uI1NsmU

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          It’s funny you thought you could nudge me.

          In your delusion, you are now a tough and menacing atheist. But you’re still as much of a pushover as always.

          And just as was the case then, everyone can see it now too, hence the desperate maneuver to edit my comments and abuse your MOD privileges. Fear expressed in anger.

          That’s not an insult Bob. It’s the truth. That’s why it hurts (see my profile pic).
          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U2YVyLLKRHw

          As I said earlier, it’s never too late to change. My goal is not to destroy you but snap you back to reality for your own sake.

          Whether that happens is up to you. It only requires the honesty and humility to say, “I was wrong”.

          It’s so simple. But it’s not easy. It requires truth and courage to FACE humiliation, the thing you fear most. And you’ll never be a man until you do face it.

          But it can be done. I know that because I used to be the biggest pushover around. And if I can do it, then anyone can.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Don’t take my calling you out as complaining. It’s all according to the script. Your desperation does not surprise me in the least. The bible records it all for me. I know how it ends.

          “Breaking News: Online idiot plays games leading to his banning – consoles himself by publicly stating “I know how it ends.”
          Regular news coming up at 6: dog bites man, and water is wet.”

        • Paul B. Lot

          We are talking gross malpractice and missuse of Moderating authority.

          Do you….do you think you’re at the doctor’s office? Lay off the N2O, Robby boy.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’ve been through four 12 step groups in the last 6 years Bob and am currently co-leading a 5th. Plus I take Celebrate recovery into the local jail.

          You know what it’s about Bob? HONESTY!

          That is the simple secret, and that’s what I tell the guys in the jail. Enough with the pretense. It’s all defense to protect ourselves from the pain. The tattoos, the trusted gang of thugs we hang with. ALL of it is done out of fear. We feel vulnerable and have old wounds we don’t want to face.

          Only by facing those fears honestly can we ever have real courage. Instead of running from reality we have to face it.

          And we learn to laugh at ourselves.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You talk about doing useful work in the community, and then you punctuate it with comedy?? I like Austin Powers as much as the next guy, but your stupid videos undercut the few times when you do actually make a compelling point.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Uh… The comedy was about our humanity and it being okay, and healthy to laugh at ourselves.

          Until you can make laugh at yourself, your bound Bob. And I mean BOUND.

          You are super freaking smart Bob. Your career proves that. But you are STILL insecure and uptight. Why is that?

          I’ll tell you…

          It’s because you can’t laugh at your own propensity for stupid mistakes. But guess what Bob? It’s okay. We all make stupid mistakes. It doesn’t mean you’re an idiot.

          But when we can’t admit our mistakes and laugh at them, we are not well. And healing that kind of illness takes time and most importantly, honesty.

          It also rewuires a small group of people who are ALSO learning to be honest. People you can learn to trust over months of meeting. No one in your condition can bear being vulnerable to just anyone. At least not at first.

          It took me a long time to come out of my shell. Now public mockery is as harmless to me as bullets are to Neo. But it took time and failure. Strength comes from humility bred by pain.

          You’ll never learn it by protecting yourself from pain. Protection is what got you where you are. Nowhere…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4puUo4OYViE

        • Paul B. Lot

          “at my sole discretion”

          Hah! 😛

        • Greg G.

          That is especially funny that he said that to the moderator.

        • Michael Neville

          Robert has been asked nicely by several people not to post videos. He’s been given a good reason for limiting them. His response is “upgrade your tech” and “videos will remain (at my sole discretion)”. Yet we’re the arrogant ones.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Sadly, Robert has left. See my comment above.

        • epeeist

          Sadly, Robert has left.

          And has seemingly moved to A Tippling Philosopher.

        • MR

          Sigh…, my thoughts and prayers are with them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And we must soldier on without him. Sigh.

        • Kodie

          I have to say I wouldn’t mind a couple videos here or there if they were helpful, interesting, or funny. I don’t see why some asshole needs to post clips from the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, some cowboy movie, HE IS SUCH A FUCKING BABY BAN HIS ASS ALREADY. These video additions don’t make any points for him but feed his ego, and he’s intent on defying any moderation on the subject. Goddamn what a fucking Christian!

        • epeeist

          HE IS SUCH A FUCKING BABY BAN HIS ASS ALREADY.

          I believe your wish has been granted.

        • Kodie

          I’ve gotten at least 4 days behind. Thanks for letting me know!

        • adam
        • Kodie

          The videos and your reason to post them is effective in concluding you’re nothing but a troll and an arrogant windbag. Not a lot of other stuff going on with you.

        • MNb

          The difference is marginal, but I think RobbyL is rather a narcissistic megalomaniac than a troll. Unlike trolls RobbyL has convinced himself that he has Important Things to tell that contain the Absolute Eternal Truth.

        • Kodie

          Except he’s a troll if he knows the videos annoy people and explicitly doesn’t give a shit. Yes, of course he thinks he has something important to tell us, but I don’t know how the videos are even supposed to impress us when he is using them to express his ego in this match, like some sort of pro wrestler (I don’t know if you’re familiar with pro wrestling in the US – http://www.wwe.com/), or why he feels the need to post the same ones over and over and over again. That doesn’t seem very effective. So delusional!

        • adam

          “And you’ve proven to me by your comments (which I have perused), that your mind is made up.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3641484758a605f709b7a067bee6bed3f832a3ee135e160e4a32b93e19bfabd3.png

        • Kodie

          What you mean is you’re too much of a coward. I notice a lot of Christians back down from Susan’s questions – you can’t answer them and you don’t think it’s fair she should be asking you these questions, because you want complete control of the conversation. That’s why you keep referring to people acting according to your script, and you think you are manipulating them. You can’t squirm out of Susan’s questions and you can’t manipulate her, or you can’t make yourself believe you are, and she doesn’t let you stick to your script, and you can’t impress her with your movie clips where you think you’re a cowboy or whatever, calling her a little doggie and patting them on the head for behaving like you expected. You sound a lot like you hate women because you are afraid of women. Your dick-swinging strategy of argument gets laughed at like it should, and you’re delusional enough to think the men here haven’t laughed at your offerings and shown what an empty, ignorant, unknowledgeable piece of shit you really are to anyone who can read, but not better than you have shown us yourself.

        • MNb

          “a lot of Christians back down from Susan’s questions ”
          I confirm this compliment as well.

        • adam

          “Don’t expect a reasonable debate from people who reject reason”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98d6f0128b8af0c7099d981d0028fdce9cf890c7b4e1a4e7b8c1d16db7e1572d.jpg

        • adam

          ” Intent is prior to content, and they are intent on believing whatever they hell they feel like believing.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • adam

          ” Intent is prior to content, and they are intent on believing whatever they hell they feel like believing.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb54fee4562fcd203c82dc48a5f8105697b8bdf371f96174cc4179e3e5f78894.jpg

        • Ameribear

          I’m happy I’m not the only one who’s see’s that.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Job chapter 40 and 41 have so much to say to us on this. There is the man in chapter 40, hiding in the foliage without a care in the world, convinced that he is invisible and unbeatable

          And then there is the power behind the man, portrayed by the dragon of 41, complete with manifestation of the fiery tongue that James expounds upon.

          It’s nothing to fear, but a sight to behold. Once we understand the game and figure out who is who, we can better decide when to wipe the dust…

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Fire-breathing dragons are probably just dinosaurs. The fire-making part just doesn’t get fossilized, so how do you know for sure that they couldn’t?

        • Greg G.

          The fire-making part just doesn’t get fossilized

          The fuel they used is what we call fossil fuels.

        • adam

          Job story has nothing on the Spiderman story.

          How he defeated Doc Oct, nothing to fear, mind you, but a sight to behold.

          Once you understand fictional characters and the game of religion, we can better decide how to separate IMAGINATION from reality.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e902fc8a6aff8e1b1db158762d3e7bdaab1894471fb56d9f89db788237574fc3.png

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You are by no means the only one who sees it. Most people do not even bother trying to reason with people like this, because they have learned that all the reason and evidence in the universe can be beaten with a simple and childish imposition of will.

        • adam

          Says the guy who throws reason out the window in preference to wishful thinking.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f39f547844acc64d6643e83f968a17bc1db84f3820653d99548ab9c73f473e36.jpg

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Kodie

          It can’t develop without physical contribution from the woman it is inside of. Not just a place to stay. There is no brain present at its earliest stage of development. What it is at conception is not a person, doesn’t have a brain. If it needs to develop, it isn’t present yet. If it needs to develop into a brain, it isn’t a brain. It doesn’t have consciousness, it doesn’t have sensation, it doesn’t have thoughts, hopes, dreams, plans, or anything! Without the woman’s voluntarily contribution, it becomes NOTHING. Its LIFE gets added to it FROM OUTSIDE OF ITSELF. You hate women and obligate them to slavery to this nothing yet until it becomes what it could be but IS NOT YET. You don’t fucking get it, and then you revert to judging people for not taking this on when they really have no obligation to prioritize this nothing over their own life. You prioritize NOTHING over people. OVER WOMEN.

        • Ameribear

          You hate women and obligate them to slavery to this nothing yet until it becomes what it could be

          You can’t refute the truth, you can’t handle the truth so the only thing your left with is hurling accusations which reveal yourself to be the uninformed, brainwashed hypocrite you are.

          and then you revert to judging people for not taking this on when they really have no obligation to prioritize this nothing over their own life.

          They have no obligation in your juvenile, narcissistic alternate universe. In the real world they have every obligation to take responsibility for their willful actions. Your so full of yourself you are unable to grasp any of the consequences of your pre-pubescent mindset. Your doing a great job demonstrating your worldview is total BS and has no future.

          You prioritize NOTHING over people. OVER WOMEN.

          You prioritize nothing over yourself, including future women. You like to pretend you’re for women but your advocating for a future with fewer women in it. You are unbelievably laughable.

        • Kodie

          Why would someone obligate themselves to nothing? You are imagining that everyone must, because you think it’s something. I’m not full of myself, and I’m certainly not full of obligating myself to anything imaginary. It’s not a person, so why give it more rights than any person has? The government doesn’t take care of people as well as you tyrannically enslave women to take care of nobody.

        • Susan

          Most abortions take place around 18 weeks

          Where did you get this number? This is what I found for the U.S. You weren’t very clear about whether you meant worldwide or in a specific country. But accuracy has never been one of your concerns.

          In 2011, an estimated 1.1 million abortions were
          performed, a 13 percent decline from 2008. The
          abortion rate in 2011 was the lowest rate since 1973
          (Jones and Jerman, 2014). The U.S. Centers for
          Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates
          that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within
          the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent
          are performed within the first 13 weeks. Only 1.2
          percent occur at or after 21 weeks (CDC, 2013).

          One of the things that delays abortions is anti-choice politics putting unnecessary delays into the process.

        • Ameribear

          I’ll accept the 13 week number because it still supports the point I’m making. A 13 week unborn human is developed way past being just a single cell.

          http://www.ehd.org/movies-index.php

        • Susan

          I’ll accept the 13 week number

          So, nothing for the 18 week number? Was it a global statistic or a specific country statistic? Do you even care? Will you retract it? Yu know you parroted it from a forced birth site, right? Will you correct them?

          Also, it didn’t say 13 weeks. It said “within the first 13 weeks”.

          Now at least, I know you mean the U.S.

          My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

          No. Your point is that a cell is a person.

          Everybody knows that by the time an abortion is performed, it is anything from slightly past to well past being a single cell.

        • Ameribear

          Also, it didn’t say 13 weeks. It said “within the first 13 weeks”.

          The number of weeks isn’t important. It’s still no longer a single cell in that time frame.

          No. Your point is that a cell is a person.

          That is my first point. I said my second point is that by the time an abortion takes place it’s not just a single cell. A single cell is not what gets aborted.

          Everybody knows that by the time an abortion is performed, it is anything from slightly past to well past being a single cell.

          Then you can’t use the worn out excuses that it’s just a clump of cells or a part of the woman’s body can you? Did you watch any of the ultrasound movies that I linked to? Did you see how far along the development is by that point?

        • Susan

          The number of weeks isn’t important.

          It was important enough at the time that you brought it up to make the erroneous claim that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks”, a statistic for which you have no support and seems to be clearly wrong.

          It’s important enough that rather than admit your original claim was erroneous, you settled for “thirteen weeks” (although the statistics say within thirteen weeks).

          Your claim was deeply wrong. Admit it. You claimed that most abortions take place around eighteen weeks but the stats are that 92% are within the first thirteen weeks.

          You accept 13% NOT because it’s accurate but because you think it still supports your argument. That’s a shitty reason to accept statistics.

          Which it doesn’t. You claim a single cell is a person.

          Then you can’t use the worn out excuses that it’s just a clump of cells or a part of the woman’s body can you

          It’s a cell. It’s a few cells. It’s a clump of cells.

          Sentience is necessary but not sufficient to establish personhood or you would be lobbying against factory farming and habitat destruction.

          Even if you could establish sentience, you have a long way to go to establish personhood.

          Even if you could establish personhood, no one has the right to use someone else’s body against their will.

          You’ve wandered far, far away from your statement that a cell is a person.

          You should study biology and personhood instead of regurgitating the lies (like the 18 weeks lie) that forced-birth sites feed you.

          You don’t seem to care that they’re flat out lying.

        • Kodie

          Being born first is necessary to define a person.

        • Ameribear

          Being born is completely arbitrary to defining a person.

        • Kodie

          Um, when does the embryo get its birth certificate and become a citizen? Think about all the anchor fetuses from Mexico! Go ahead and just try to deport them, they’re people living in America!

        • Ameribear

          What in the hell are you talking about here?

        • Kodie

          Immigrants.

        • adam
        • Otto

          >>>”Once again I remind you that you who defend the intentional ending of innocent human lives in the womb”

          So at what point does original sin attach itself to a person so they are no longer innocent?

          It is always interesting to hear a Catholic apologist whine and moan about the innocent and at the same time support a group that tells children they are so sinful they needed someone to be brutally tortured and killed for God to let go of his wrath for them.

        • Ameribear

          So at what point does original sin attach itself to a person so they are no longer innocent?

          Conception. But your equating original sin with the act of committing a sin and they are two different things. Original sin is being in a state of separation from God, venial and mortal sin involve willfully engaging in a sinful act.

          It is always interesting to hear a Catholic apologist whine and moan about the innocent and at the same time support a group that tells children they are so sinful they needed someone to be brutally tortured and killed for God to let go of his wrath for them.

          Is your gripe about the fact that that’s what we teach our kids or the fact that Christ had to die the way he did?

        • Otto

          My gripe is the way the RCC lies to kids and talks out of both sides of their mouth. Either a child is innocent or deserving of punishment, it can’t be both.

        • Ameribear

          Everyone is born in the state of original sin which no one is culpable for. I don’t have to tell you that as children grow, they start doing bad things and/or things that are contrary to what parents tell them.
          That’s sinning which they are culpable for and as a result they need to be taught that bad behavior carries consequences. The former is not the same thing as the latter.

        • adam

          “Everyone is born in the state of original sin which no one is culpable for.”

          But wouldnt the creator be culpable?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bfb7cbb09a39ae8911c3879d7def113ab5277eb302961e16b02b2a649a0e7d6.jpg

        • adam
        • adam
        • Kodie

          Depends on what the rules of the house are. Some parents, especially religious parents, have some fucked up rules, and really the only negative consequences of breaking them are whatever those parents decide to do about it.

          In my opinion/observation, sometimes parents have to give consequences because the real world will also have consequences, such as, it’s better to get a ticket than to cause an accident, otherwise, why should you be punished if you haven’t hurt anyone yet. But some rules are total bullshit and the only consequence is they decided it’s bad so you have only their consequences.

          But as for “innocence”, you mean blank. Babies are basically wild animals who are incapable of intentionally ruining your day, but that’s what they do anyway, based on observing parents of newborns, and I know lots of kids too, and I don’t know how you would call them innocent. It is part of the human behavior range for kids to look for loopholes and make excuses and compare themselves to others, which is practice for being an adult. After learning to talk, it’s practically the next thing they do is use this power it to get out of hard work, and exploit how cute and young and small and “innocent” they are. A 6-year-old just yesterday, playing a game with a 9-year-old and a 10-year-old outright asked me “can I cheat?”

        • Susan

          Is your gripe about the fact that that’s what we teach our kids or the fact that Christ had to die the way he did?

          I’m guessing the former. It’s real.

          The latter is asking for special concern for the suffering of an imaginary character who created suffering in the first place, and who, in the story, didn’t suffer as much as most earthlings who ever lived.

          When I say imaginary character, I mean “Christ”, not “Jesus”. I don’t care enough about the historicity of Jesus to deny hat he existed or even discuss the subject. “Christ” is not the same subject.

        • Susan

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

          Lol. The great Ameribear who can’t figure out how trains work has spoken.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You actually buy this tripe? Bwhaaahahahahahaha….

        • TheNuszAbides

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          if you mean they don’t waste time and ink and parchment and imprimaturs on crafting theological flim-flam around anything they might worry about anyone else ‘misunderstanding’, well, duh. they started with a lot less money and a lot fewer people, so they’re unlikely to spend much if any of it on that kind of hobby.
          also, “selectively chooses” is using at least 200% of the words necessary to get your already-pompous-enough point across, and “[selects/chooses] passages of scripture to support their views” isn’t anything special. perhaps you’re addicted to flooding the conversation with gratuitous verbiage because you’re worried that just saying “… like every other protestant sect ignores all the passages of scripture that refute their views” because some tiny corner of your brain actually remembers that appeal to supernatural authority is a sandcastle in the sky when you’re arguing with people who aren’t convinced of fantasies compatible with yours.

        • MNb

          “The WBC is a crackpot cult.”
          So is your beloved RCC. Everything that follows in your comment fully applies to her. Everytime you try to sell rotten catholic fruit as fresh and healthy you confirm it.

        • Ameribear

          Every time you try to sell rotten atheist fruit you confirm how bigoted and intellectually bankrupt you and your worldview are.

        • MNb

          Thanks. When a stupid bigot like you (how are your Aristotelean locomotives going?) writes something like that it’s a compliment.

        • Ameribear

          Fine thanks. How’s your “the universe just is” going?

        • MNb

          Good to read that you’re still a liar, incapable of curing his ill manners.
          I never wrote “the Universe just is”.
          However I can say Quantum Fields just are exactly like you maintain that your god just is.

          Also good to read that you stick to your false representation of physics. I wouldn’t have expected anything else from a liar like you.

        • Ameribear

          Are you saying that quantum fields simply exist by themselves completely non-contingent on anything else to sustain them in existence?

        • MNb

          I am saying that nothing prevents quantum fields from simply existing by themselves completely non-contingent on anything else to sustain them in existence – just like your god.
          I am also saying that if we find something else quantum fields are contingent on that something else will be natural – and will simply exist by itself etc. just like your god.
          In other words, I’ve noticed that you apologists never even try to show that that thing that simply exists by itself etc. must be of a supernatural, immaterial, transcendental nature. You guys just issue this as a decree. That’s called God of the Gaps, a well known logical fallacy, first recognized by ….. theologians.
          In some more other words, the entire Hilbert’s Hotel nonsense WLC is so in love with is not only nonsense, but fails on its own conditions.
          In yet some more other words, the undesirability of infinite regress on its own is not enough to justify the salto mortale from our concrete world to a divine world.

        • Ameribear

          I am saying that nothing prevents quantum fields from simply existing by themselves completely non-contingent on anything else to sustain them in existence – just like your god.

          Is it possible for quantum fields to exist or not exist? Can quantum fields come into and pass out of existence? Are there laws that govern them?

          I am also saying that if we find something else quantum fields are contingent on that something else will be natural – and will simply exist by itself etc. just like your god.

          So you’re saying that you are certain that quantum fields are non-contingent then you say that if they aren’t then whatever they’re contingent on will be non-contingent. If we find out that quantum fields are contingent on something else to sustain them in existence, then why wouldn’t you’d be right back to asking the same questions about whatever that may be?

          In order for anything to be able to exist free of contingency on anything else it’s defined as necessary not natural.

          In other words, I’ve noticed that you apologists never even try to show that that thing that simply exists by itself etc. must be of a supernatural, immaterial, transcendental nature. You guys just issue this as a decree.

          Not true. There are volumes of work that show why that line of reasoning is true. Proving that it’s true cannot be adequately addressed in a com box exchange.

          That’s called God of the Gaps, a well known logical fallacy, first recognized by ….. theologians. In some more other words, the entire Hilbert’s Hotel nonsense WLC is so in love with is not only nonsense, but fails on its own conditions.

          WLC uses Hilbert’s Hotel to defend the second premise of the
          KCA. That’s not what I understand god of the gaps to mean nor is it relevant to the materiality/immaterialty question.

          In yet some more other words, the undesirability of infinite regress on its own is not enough to justify the salto mortale from our concrete world to a divine world.

          It is if you bothered to grasp the reasoning behind it. Whatever
          is immaterial is not necessarily divine either. You’re problem is that your argument for materialism presupposes the very thing you’re trying to disprove.

        • MNb

          “Is it possible for quantum fields to exist or not exist?”
          Good question! Applause! A much smarter guy than us – an archeologist – once asked this question to a physicist.
          First problem is to make clear what we mean with “exist”. The physicist couldn’t answer it. Neither can I. Can you?

          “Can quantum fields come into and pass out of existence?”
          Perhaps, perhaps not.

          “Are there laws that govern them?”
          Perhaps, perhaps not.
          If they are the foundation of our natural reality though they also found the laws of physics as we know them (unless they are totally busted; your beloved Aristotelean physics won’t qualify, however within very strict limits Flat Earth Theory will).

          “So you’re saying that you are certain ….”
          No. Good to read you haven’t worked on your cognitive reaking skills yet.
          What did I write again? Oh yes, I used words like possible, nothing prevents, if.

          “There are volumes of work that show why that line of reasoning is true. Proving that it’s true cannot be adequately addressed in a com box exchange.”
          Then it’s a safe bet that those volumes are full of ambiguities and deepities that are meant to obfuscate. I always find it funny that I can explain what a difficult concept like quantum fields mean while apocgists never can do the same with that salto mortale from our concrete world to a divine one.

          “That’s not what I understand god of the gaps to mean ”
          That’s your problem, not mine.

          “Whatever is immaterial is not necessarily divine either.”
          Then it’s a good thing I never wrote that.

          “You’re problem is that your argument for materialism presupposes the very thing you’re trying to disprove.”
          Your problem is that you have poor comprehensive reading skills. None of my presuppositions assume anything supernatural or immaterial. Of course they are metaphysical, but that’s not the same. Example: the presupposition that Ockham’s razor is a reliable way to decide between two mutually exclusive statements is metaphysical, but by no means require some supernatural, immaterial reality.

        • Susan

          Fine thanks.

          You know that’s not true.

        • Kodie

          Their motivation for bigotry is the same brand of superstition, using the same instruction manual as you do. That doesn’t mean you are the true Christian, it just means having a belief in something imaginary and believing it to be real can serve any number of outcomes, some of which are violent and hate-filled motives and acts. That you can hide behind your stupid fucking book with your stupid fucking beliefs and call others NOT REALLY CHRISTIAN is your own set of erroneous beliefs borne of that erroneous book. You are in total ignorance of your brothers and sisters in Christ and it’s not up to you to deny them. If there were a real god, that would be his job, but here on planet earth, we know that the bible is a big book of bullshit and people who believe it and interpret it to fit their own cause are equally wrong, and only some are more dangerous than others.

        • Greg G.

          The Westboro Baptist Church has never held Inquisitions or witch burnings.

          When Jesus says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, Ameribear steps up to the front of the line.

        • Ameribear

          Dredging up bad behavior from several centuries ago does nothing but make you look really feckless.

          Once again, because of your open advocacy of abortion you haven’t got a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing what anyone else is guilty of. Cast the first stone indeed.

        • Greg G.

          Leviticus 17:11 (NIV)11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

          A fertilized egg has no blood. Blood has cells, proteins, and liquids that are not in the zygote. The Bible says you are wrong. Argue with your imaginary god about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hoist by their own petard.

        • Ameribear

          You still deliberately either missed or forgot the distinctions I made earlier. The fact that you attempting to justify abortion with this worthless BS proves you’re flailing about trying to find something
          that sticks.

        • TheNuszAbides

          devastating assertions! why are you so reluctant to present them with something resembling, hmm, logic?

        • Greg G.

          Your distinctions have been refuted. They don’t add up. You can shut up now.

        • Ameribear

          No, they haven’t. Not even close. Feel free to take another stab at it if you want or you can shut the hell up now. I repeatedly asked you and others here questions about the logical consequences of your positions that none of you ever gave me a straight answer on.

        • Greg G.

          Your go-to is that personhood begins at conception. I have shown you several times that a zygote can be any number of persons from zero to five or six, including fractions so that cannot be the beginning of a person. You cannot even do simple arithmetic. You can’t think because you are brainwashed.

          Don’t you know anyone who likes you? Go hang out there.

        • Ameribear

          Your go-to is that personhood begins at
          conception. I have shown you several times that a zygote can be any number of persons from zero to five or six, including fractions so that cannot be the beginning of a person.

          Why does that change anything? Personhood is not contingent
          on any specific quantity.

          You can’t think because you are brainwashed.

          No, that would be your problem.

          Don’t you know anyone who likes you? Go hang out there.

          What fun would that be?

        • Greg G.

          Personhood is not contingent
          on any specific quantity.

          Personhood is contingent on a process. The process is a collection of brain processes. Brain processes require a capable brain.

        • Ameribear

          I have shown you several times that a zygote can be any number of persons from zero to five or six, including fractions so that cannot be the beginning of a person.

          Your previous statement points out that a zygote can be any number of persons or fractions of persons which is still irrelevant to when personhood begins. I pointed out that the quantity of persons that emerge has nothing to do with when personhood begins and you reply by shifting back to brain function which has nothing to do with your previous point.

          Then how many brain processes does it take to constitute a
          person? What level of brain function must be present for you to declare a person has come into existence? This is another question I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer and you haven’t. Your whole argument for personhood hinges on this point and you have yet to define precisely what it is. You have refuted nothing.

        • Greg G.

          Then how many brain processes does it take to constitute a
          person? What level of brain function must be present for you to declare a person has come into existence? This is another question I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer and you haven’t. Your whole argument for personhood hinges on this point and you have yet to define precisely what it is. You have refuted nothing.

          Exactly how many whiskers does it take to make a beard? Doesn’t the location of each whisker make the number vary? If you can’t answer that simple question, why expect anyone to be able to answer that?

          I do not know how many brain processes nor which specific ones it would be. We would have to be able to identify them first. But we can tell when a brain has zero capability of any processes, such as when the brain doesn’t exist. Sufficient brain processes would require a highly functioning brain. I am skeptical that a brain is anywhere close to being capable of functioning at that level with the amount of oxygen available through a placenta.

          As far as the abortion issue goes, it is irrelevant. Even if the fetus is a person, it has no right to use another person’s organs without the consent of the other person.

        • Ameribear

          If you can’t answer that simple question, why expect anyone to be able to answer that?

          Then stop making assertion that you know cannot be answered. This is another BS tactic you employ to see to it that the question of when a new human life begins never gets definitively answered. It’s a dodge.

          I do not know how many brain processes nor which specific ones it would be. We would have to be able to identify them first.

          Then your insistence on using them as a means of establishing personhood is worthless. Even if you could identify them you’d still be stuck with the problem of determining what the minimum number and type would have to be to encompass all living humans both healthy and disabled.

          But we can tell when a brain has zero capability of any processes, such as when the brain doesn’t exist. Sufficient brain processes would require a highly functioning brain.

          I showed you proof that the brain is present in the first trimester. That same proof shows that the brain develops out of what came into existence after conception which means it’s there from the start in it’s earliest stage of development just like everything else. If establishing personhood requires a highly functioning brain than anyone living with a brain that functions below your completely arbitrary line isn’t a person.

          I am skeptical that a brain is anywhere close to being capable of functioning at that level with the amount of oxygen available through a placenta.

          The brain of an unborn human gets enough oxygen to function at the level that is required for it’s stage of development.

          As far as the abortion issue goes, it is irrelevant. Even if the fetus is a person, it has no right to use another person’s organs without the consent of the other person.

          It is totally relevant because it is a person at conception (which you’ve still failed to disprove) which means it’s right to life trumps your imaginary bodily autonomy.

        • TheNuszAbides

          is there a Catholic Big Book of What Comas, Alzheimer’s etc. Say about the Soul?

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          but but but Psaul New Covenant Handwave!

        • TheNuszAbides

          That’s inferring

          you are the one inferring, and it’s a false (or at best, ignorantly lazy) inference (unless masteradrian would care to verify it for us) since it doesn’t rely on a clear implication. of course, you already knew the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, right? sure you did. it was just a slip. which you probably won’t admit even if you did already know the difference.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead?

      That’s pretty much what Daryl Davis’s situation was (black man approaching members of the Klan), and he sat down with them.

      I live in Seattle. Tell me about how Christians want atheists dead where you live.

      I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual

      Is the antagonism because you are gay or because you are an atheist? I’m guessing the former.

      I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!

      Do what you need to do to stay safe, but a black man in America hanging out with and befriending members of the KKK sounds like it might be very analogous. I suggest you listen to the first part of the interview. It should apply to you more than to me.

      When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the ight even to exist!

      Don’t respond to violence with violence if you can help it.

      BTW, I’ve written a lot about homosexuality here. If you want ammunition against Christian homophobia, those posts may be helpful. Use the Search box.

  • eric

    Some good advice there, but I’m skeptical it will work as well for the atheist/theist discussions. AIUI, there’s all sorts of studies that point to bigotry declining as the person becomes more familiar with the object of their bigotry. Humanize someone your subject considers an other, and they often stop thinking of them as ‘the other.’ Mr. Davis is (knowingly or unknowingly) leveraging this effect. This is not to belittle his effort or his success – what he does is difficult, exceptional, and I think it’s wonderful that it works. He’s IMO remarkable for what he chooses to do. But I also expect that if he had many affable dinners and conversations with Klansmen where they never even talked about race, he’d have been almost as successful. This is the reason you find more liberals in cosmopolitan areas and more conservatives in rural ones; because simply interacting with a lot of different types of people – regardless of the content of your discussions with them – tends to make you more accepting of people different from yourself.

    I think that same effect is not going to be as strong in atheism/theism discussions. It will still be there – particularly helping atheists, since it may be the case that some theists think of atheists badly not knowing they’ve ever met one (and this effect is IMO a reason to be out about ones’ atheism). But I don’t think such ‘naive religiousism’ is a strong or as prevalent as ‘naive racism’ is amongst klansmen. So the benefits of ‘humanizing yourself’ won’t be giving us quite the assist it’s probably giving Mr. Davis.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Interesting food for thought. I wonder–how similar is revulsion against a black man by a KKK member (or just a generally conservative person) compared to revulsion against an atheist by a insular, conservative Christian (or just an ordinary one)?

      The KKK member is likelier to imagine violence against non-Christians than Christians would against atheists, but there’s not much actual violence in either case.

    • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

      This is the reason you find more liberals in cosmopolitan areas and more conservatives in rural ones; because simply interacting with a lot of different types of people – regardless of the content of your discussions with them – tends to make you more accepting of people different from yourself.

      That’s not necessarily true, although definitely a received view. See the Heterodox Academy article Liberals, Conservatives, and Intolerance, which gives an overview of recent psychological research which points to equal intolerance for differing viewpoints. Being open-minded makes you closed-minded toward the closed-minded. Also, it’s important for the research to punch through façades of tolerance; talking the talk is different from walking the walk.

  • skl

    “First, give the other person the
    safe space to express themselves. Ask honest questions, but don’t
    attack.
    You’re having a conversation…Instead of hate,
    you should rely on logic, respect, and patience.
    … Make your point, correct errors in
    logic or facts, or get annoyed at rhetorical gamesmanship, but don’t
    be insulting or condescending
    . State your correction, but don’t
    delight in their failure or make them feel stupid.

    I’m not even religious, let alone Christian, but I hope someday maybe many of my Cross Examined “conversation”
    partners will follow this advice with me.

    • Otto

      Maybe if you would be a bit more honest in your positions instead of sealioning.

    • epeeist

      As many here are aware I am support this position put forward by Salman Rushdie:

      At Cambridge University I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

      However this does not work with those whose personal identity is intimately tied in with a system of ideas (and religion in particular on this forum). They see any criticism of the system of ideas as a personal attack.

      As well as ideologues it doesn’t work with those knowledge and understanding is so poor or those who so overestimate their capabilities that they they simply do not see or will not see that their position has been undermined (Yes Robert Lockett, I am looking at you).

      But as for “safe spaces”, there is another apposite Rushdie quotation:

      The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)

      • Greg G.

        However this does not work with those whose personal identity is intimately tied in with a system of ideas (and religion in particular on this forum). They see any criticism of the system of ideas as a personal attack.

        We are seeing something like that on a larger scale. The national anthem is traditionally played before football games. A professional football player decided to sit during the anthem to protest racial inequality but was told by a teammate that kneeling would make the point while showing honor. Other players began to do it, too.

        But conservative media framed it as a protest against America. It is like racism is so ingrained in our culture that a protest against racism is seen as a protest against America. The president has called for the NFL owners to fire players who kneel during the anthem, but his motivation is suspect since he once sued the NFL for $1.2 billion and won $3.76. The Kruger-Dunning is strong in some of those who think that way as shown by the country music artist who was famous 30 years ago tweeted that he was not watching football as he normally would be at the time because he was boycotting the NFL’s Thursday Night Football game, but it was Wednesday night.

        • skl

          “But conservative media framed it as a protest against
          America. It is like racism is so ingrained in our culture that a protest
          against racism is seen as a protest against America.”

          I think I can understand the conservative media’s point. It could be like a couple guests at a wedding reception very noticeably turning their backs to the new spouses during the toast or the grand entrance because the bride or groom does or once did something that upset them. It could be reasonably seen as an inappropriate, disrespectful and unbalanced action.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You don’t half talk some shite skl.

          That mindwankery is straight out of the Christian Apologists Big Book of Nonsense Analogies.

        • TheNuszAbides

          the Christian Apologists Big Book of Nonsense Analogies

          we should totally get adam to design the cover for that. which reminds me of my most recent favorite:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/94b7038e9e232639e685475c4efc1b45071668b862e84863e026d24e4c7dbaec.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Not reasonably when it is not about the flag. Kneeling is not a sign of disrespect, but a sign of respect, which is why Kapernick changed to kneeling from sitting when it was explained to him.

          Many of those who are complaining wear “Make America Great Again” hats with the US Flag sewn on the side.

          According to United States Flag Code (Federal law – Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

          The flag should not be used as “wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery”, or for covering a speaker’s desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general (exception for coffins).

          The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed, or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard.

          So you can’t say they are reasonable.

        • Otto

          Funny how those rules are either ignored or people are ignorant about them.

          My neighbor complained about another neighbor’s use of the flag, the person complaining had a flag he flew 24 hours. I pointed out he was breaking the flag code too, he wasn’t lighting his flag at night.

          Point is we all can point fingers at each other and be outraged, I am not sure where that gets us though…it certainly does not seem to be a good place.

        • skl

          “Not reasonably when it is not about the flag. Kneeling is not a sign of disrespect, but a sign of respect, which is why Kapernick changed to kneeling from sitting when it was explained to him.”

          I thought that, in America at least, kneeling was not a sign of respect but a sign of worship of a deity.
          (Also, if Kapernick needed to have explained to him that it is not respectful to sit while everyone else is standing then he may need a lot of other commonly understood things explained to him.)

          “Many of those who are complaining wear “Make America Great Again” hats with the US Flag sewn on the side.
          According to United States Flag Code
          (Federal law – Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et
          seq)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
          The flag should not be used as “wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery””

          I thought the mini flag embroidered on the hat was like the
          mini flag lapel pin some people, including presidents, sometimes wear. Example:

          https://www.google.com/search?q=presidents+wearing+american+flag+lapel+pin&tbm=isch&imgil=UmZqzSgphG-V7M%253A%253BdKAbaMY60-F7EM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.snopes.com%25252Fpolitics%25252Fobama%25252Fflagpin.asp&source=iu&pf=m&fir=UmZqzSgphG-V7M%253A%252CdKAbaMY60-F7EM%252C_&usg=__LwicHqaTxBxnp2FUa5Ow7g40ifw%3D&biw=1093&bih=484&ved=0ahUKEwjM3_je78rWAhWhslQKHTFfBrwQyjcIbA&ei=inzOWczyNaHl0gKxvpngCw

        • Greg G.

          I thought that, in America at least, kneeling was not a sign of respect but a sign of worship of a deity.
          (Also, if Kapernick needed to have explained to him that it is not respectful to sit while everyone else is standing then he may need a lot of other commonly understood things explained to him.)

          The story I saw said that a teammate who had been in the military suggested kneeling which is what they do for fallen comrades as a sign of respect.

          I thought the mini flag embroidered on the hat was like the
          mini flag lapel pin some people, including presidents, sometimes wear.

          From the United States Flag Code with the link above:

          The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, firefighters, police officers, and members of patriotic organizations.

          Flag lapel pins may also be worn (they are considered replicas) and are worn near the heart.

          They are not the same.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More sealioning ffs….

          I thought that, in America at least, kneeling was not a sign of respect but a sign of worship of a deity.

          At first glance, research into emotion and nonverbal communication suggests that there is nothing threatening about kneeling. Instead, kneeling is almost always deployed as a sign of deference and respect. We once kneeled before kings and queens and altars; we kneel to ask someone to marry, or at least men did in the old days. We kneel to get down to a child’s level; we kneel to beg.

          While we can’t know for sure, kneeling probably derives from a core principle in mammalian nonverbal behavior: make the body smaller and look up to show respect, esteem, and deference. This is seen, for example, in dogs and chimps, who reduce their height to show submissiveness. Kneeling can also be a posture of mourning and sadness. It makes the one who kneels more vulnerable. In some situations, kneeling can be seen as a request for protection—which is completely appropriate in Kaepernick’s case, given the motive of his protest.

          (Also, if Kapernick needed to have explained to him that it is not respectful to sit while everyone else is standing then he may need a lot of other commonly understood things explained to him.)

          Because you never need anything explained to you, you’re a proper Einstein…NOT!

          Talk about exploding irony meters.

          I thought the mini flag embroidered on the hat was like the mini flag lapel pin some people, including presidents, sometimes wear.

          That’s because you are well stupid. The lapel badge is a flag in its own right ya Coco.

          §180. Design for service lapel button; persons entitled to wear button

          The Secretary of Defense is also authorized and directed to approve a design for a service lapel button, which button may be worn by members of the immediate family of a person serving in the armed forces of the United States during any period of war or hostilities in which the Armed Forces of the United States may be engaged.

          §181. Approval of designs by Secretary of Defense; license to manufacture and sell; penalties

          Upon the approval by the Secretary of Defense of the design for such service flag and service lapel button, he shall cause notice thereof, together with a description of the approved flag and button, to be published in the Federal Register. Thereafter any person may apply to the Secretary of Defense for a license to manufacture and sell the approved service flag, or the approved service lapel button, or both. Any person, firm, or corporation who manufactures any such service flag or service lapel button without having first obtained such a license, or otherwise violates sections 179 to 182 of this title, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000.

          http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html#176

          Example: https://www.google.com/search?q=presidents+wearing+american+flag+lapel+pin&tbm=isch&imgil=UmZqzSgphG-V7M%253A%253BdKAbaMY60-F7EM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.snopes.com%25252Fpolitics%25252Fobama%25252Fflagpin.asp&source=iu&pf=m&fir=UmZqzSgphG-V7M%253A%252CdKAbaMY60-F7EM%252C_&usg=__LwicHqaTxBxnp2FUa5Ow7g40ifw%3D&biw=1093&bih=484&ved=0ahUKEwjM3_je78rWAhWhslQKHTFfBrwQyjcIbA&ei=inzOWczyNaHl0gKxvpngCw

          That you have demonstrated that you can utilise a search engine facility when it suits you, just exemplifies what a dishonest sealioning toerag you are skl.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • epeeist

          I think I can understand the conservative media’s point. It could be like a couple guests at a wedding reception very noticeably turning their backs to the new spouses during the toast or the grand entrance because the bride or groom does or once did something that upset them.

          Like keeping their grandfathers as slaves you mean, or perhaps turning them into strange fruit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That is a brilliant and haunting tune…a favourite of my deceased wife…as was Holiday herself.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Nina Simone’s rendition has more-moving [self-]accompaniment IMO, but I won’t go near arguing the quality of either voice over the other.

        • Kodie

          The nature of protest is that people are supposed to notice you’re doing something different than everyone else is doing. It’s not about having manners and blending in with everyone else – it’s called making waves for a fucking reason. When that person explains what they are protesting, you might not like it, and you may feel like their action hurts something that you value…. such as segregation – someone may take your seat on a bus where they’re not allowed to sit, or sit at a lunch counter where they won’t be served. There are problems of racism, and not just vague racism, but cops escalating situations quickly, shooting someone who did nothing to deserve being shot, and not getting disciplined for it, and fuckers like you can’t hear “black lives matter” without pushing back. You’re meant to be annoyed, frankly! Your comfort and assumptions were disrupted, and you complain and complain because you’d rather be ignorant and think things are the way you thought they were in your comfortable little bubble.

          They know it’s considered disrespectful of the flag, and that the flag represents the United States, and that not standing with their hand over their heart during the National Anthem is thought by many to be wrong, but what do you want? The problem is institutional, i.e. the police are government agencies that are not protecting and almost actively out to harm black people for no fucking reason. You don’t like when they riot, you don’t like when they make a human chain across the street, you don’t like when they say “black lives matter”, and you certainly don’t like when they kneel during the National Anthem. It’s like you’re saying “shut up,” and making it about respecting cops and respecting soldiers – who fought for everyone’s freedom to protest, and that your feelings matter more than theirs, and your life, and your comfort. When Donald Trump makes his campaign slogan “make america great again,” isn’t he saying it isn’t great? Isn’t he saying something is wrong with this country that needs to be fixed? How is that not disrespectful of all the people who fought and died in wars? He’s saying this country is a pile of shit, basically, and from his rich, white, entitled, detached perspective, that it needs to be fixed. Colin Kaepernick was not playing games on his phone because he didn’t care about the National Anthem, and it’s not because he’s rich but doesn’t get everything he wants, but because assholes like you complain when poor people speak up for themselves.

          He knelt to give a voice to the voiceless, against fuckheads like you who plug your ears and shout about soldiers and wipe your ass with that flag! It’s the most disrespectful thing you can do to THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS to dominate others by muzzling their voice. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whether you agree with him or not, tyrannically made such a statement against citizens having a voice. Your voice, you can use it to say I think the flag deserves respect, but when the POTUS exerts his voice to advocate the punishment of citizens using their 1st amendment rights is FASCISM, you asshole.

          What I kind of get is, I like that other players went in solidarity against the president, but is it now a statement of protest against institutional racism that has caught on, or is it now erasing that out to highlight the 1st amendment rights to free speech and protest? Nobody would hire Colin Kaepernick, and none of these people were kneeling before to protest the institutional racism in solidarity, so I feel like the original protest has been hijacked, not that the 1st amendment isn’t a great cause, but then the protest hasn’t accomplished much against institutional racism either.

          What do you want to hear that will get through to a racist like you?

        • skl

          I didn’t read past the first few sentences of your post.

          You might consider reading an article titled
          “7 Tips for Arguing With a Chance of Changing Someone’s Mind”

          It’s above.

        • Susan

          I didn’t read past the first few sentences of your post.

          That’s a shame. It was an honest and detailed post.

          You might consider reading an article titled Tips for arguing With a Chance of Changing Someone’s Mind

          In which the first point you mentioned is “give the person the space to express themselves”.

          And the second is “Ask honest questions.”

          The rest are:

          Instead of hate,
          you should rely on logic, respect, and patience.
          … Make your point, correct errors in
          logic or facts, or get annoyed at rhetorical gamesmanship, but don’t
          be insulting or condescending. State your correction, but don;t delight in their failure or make them feel stupid.”

          How have you (who has just advised Kodie to follow that article’s advice) done a thing to follow that article’s advice when your opening statement is…?

          I didn’t read past the first sentence of your post

        • Kodie

          Well, here’s the thing – we know skl is a dishonest hypocrite tone troll. That’s all we need to know, and we’ve given this douche a forum to express themselves, but god forfend anyone else try to have an adult conversation. I know nothing was getting through that thick skl.

        • Kodie

          Oh you asshole.

        • skl

          A little more info:

          I read up to the fourth sentence, the one with “fuckers like you”.

          I skimmed the rest, and noticed other niceties – “assholes like you”, “fuckheads like you”, “you asshole”, “a racist like you”.

          Good bye.

        • Kodie

          Don’t you think everyone has been awfully fucking patient with your assholery? It’s hardly my fault you resist learning and perhaps altering your views. People have been very nice to you and patient with you, and you repay us with your fuckery. Why should I cater to you, when you are an asshole either way?

        • epeeist

          Yes, most people would rather emote than think. If I am allowed another quotation, this time from Bertrand Russell:

          Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.

        • sandy

          “It is like racism is so ingrained in our culture that a protest against racism is seen as a protest against America.”

          Well said Greg!

        • Greg G.

          Thanks, but I stole it from a Facebook post that was going around.

          Now the president is tweeting from the comfort of his golf course about the lazy Puerto Ricans.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ah, wisdom idiocy from the mouths of babes.

      • Ignorant Amos

        I thought I was the only one that could see the huge Proboscidea Elephantidae in the room.

        The OP talks about the individual outsider going to the in-group and using a 7 point process in order to convince the fundamental in that group of fundamentals to change their minds. That is tantamount to a theist coming here and using the 7 point procedure to talk us out of not believing. How would that even work? An individual can be the nicest human on the planet and be a stalwart too the 7 points in the OP, but that can’t make up for a severe lack of convincing evidence.

        The counter to this is the non-believer going to a theist site with the idea of changing a theists mind, and we all have experience of that Malarkey, don’t we? Even when the environment was supposedly set up to accommodate such cordial discourse. You of all folk are better positioned to comment on this than most. Because as nice as any atheist might try to be, the moment someone with a high investment in their faith feels their belief system is on shaky ground, the box of nefarious weaponry is produced and dishonesty ensues.

        Now there is another problem in the OP’s comparison with atheist/theist internet interaction…the OP interaction was all done in meat world. I have been able to change all sorts of peoples minds on a manner of subjects interacting in meat world…including their faith position. Doing stuff in meat world is a whole different ball game from the internet. Mostly because of conviction. Atheists and theists on the internet have a stronger, unwavering conviction, that’s why they engage in debate and argument on internet discussion boards.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Atheists and theists on the internet have a stronger, unwavering conviction, that’s why they engage in debate and argument on internet discussion boards.

          it’s a glorious paradox, no?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yep…most Christians I know, and the few atheists too, in meat world, could give zero fucks one way or another…they are remarkably similar in that manner. They all have bigger fish to fry.

          Christians that feel the need to go onto the internet though,those eejits are on a mission. Usually because they think they have some startling epiphany we need to hear that they think we haven’t heard ad nauseam, or they have a novel approach to one of their failed arguments, or that they are just arrogant pricks that need a soapbox and captive audience of baby eating heathens to preach their particular flavour of woo-woo to. They think they are special, and they are, just not in the way they think they are special.

        • Kodie

          I don’t bring it up, and other religious people don’t really bother me where I live, they don’t try to change anyone’s mind, and mostly talk about it in traditional ways, such as, can’t come that morning, I will be at church, or so they will be absent from class that evening because it’s a Jewish high holiday. It has nothing to do with me, and I’ve been burned from telling people I’m an atheist before. If someone wants to try to convert me like a street-corner loon, one lady approached me once while I was sitting in my car on my own residential street and asked me if I wanted to join some women of faith group, and I told her I was an atheist, so she was all “so you believe in nothing… that’s cool,” like that counted as a faith and I told her to leave me alone. I don’t do well to have any kinds of discussions where I have to think on my feet, or that I will just be interrupted, because people interrupt me and talk over me all the time anyway, but even if I had their attention and could say my part, I wouldn’t be able to put it the right way and they’d just be more composed than I am.

          On the internet, I can compose myself any way I like, and work out the words I want to use, although sometimes, I rush myself to just get the post over with, other times, I think I will get to it later, I will paste my post in notepad and save it, and then rack up these weird little text files that I never go clean up (either in the texts themselves of off my computer). But anyway, on the internet, I will declare very openly, that I think Christians who care about posting to the internet don’t care about listening, only care about trying to argue their position, and are not as polite as they think they are just because they don’t curse. Lying and continuing to lie about what you’ve been corrected about is just about the most hostile thing a person can do with just words. Believing that the words they use themselves are casting some sort of Jesus spell on us and the argument doesn’t matter is as delusional as they come, and then topping that off with the threat of god’s judgment exposes just how weak they are in the mind they are about this, and wonder if they still think that’s polite behavior or “good news”. I don’t pretend to think I can argue them out of their position with patience and politeness, but I hope to embarrass a few into reflecting just how childish and ridiculous their beliefs are and then challenging themselves to think close and hard, even if they don’t dare admit it to us, and I hope what I say resonates with the doubting Christian who is secretly looking for information about atheism because they think they are alone, they realize what they feel is not the same as the church lies about atheism, and they are looking for help, but too nervous to comment.

          I think Christians hate to admit their arguments are terribly weak, but it’s always been about bullying other people into converting, and I don’t know how they’ve been conditioned to care. I mean, I’m not hurting them. If they leave me alone, I leave them alone. I don’t know why it matters so much to them to do whatever they must to force me to believe what they believe, and then threaten me because I just can’t believe what doesn’t make sense. I’m not trying to talk them out of their beliefs unless they come to argue. If they are secure in what they believe, I can’t possibly challenge it (hypothetically), so why do they think I am a threat to them that they must try to change what I believe? Oh, they hate atheists and they have to come over to an atheist board to tell us what we really believe in, what we really are like, how our emotions are unstable, how our lives are meaningless, it just bugs them that we exist so much to come to an atheist blog to start talking nonsense at us.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I don’t pretend to think I can argue them out of their position with patience and politeness, but I hope to embarrass a few into reflecting just how childish and ridiculous their beliefs are and then challenging themselves to think close and hard, even if they don’t dare admit it to us, and I hope what I say resonates with the doubting Christian who is secretly looking for information about atheism because they think they are alone, they realize what they feel is not the same as the church lies about atheism, and they are looking for help, but too nervous to comment.

          hear, hear!

    • Ignorant Amos

      Another one with reading comprehension issues…try it a bit slower for a better effect…

      “7….Tips….for….Arguing….With….a….Chance….of….Changing….Someone’s….Mind”

  • Bjoern-Erik Hartsfvang

    What is your purpose of engaging with Christians in this way? Is it to try and change the way society views atheists? Or is it to try and convert them to atheism? If it’s the latter then you’ve lost all moral legitimacy and you’ve made atheism into a replacement for Christianity, with its very own dogmas and orthodoxies and potential for oppression, and all of Christianity’s evil taken upon atheism’s shoulders. So long as you participate in a mind-set of “I know the one-true-and-absolute-truth-and-everyone-else-is-wrong” then you have internalized the essence of monotheism and are still trapped in that paradigm–and any philosophy or cosmology that you create will be polluted by monotheism, and all you are doing is attempting to replace Christianity with your own belief system.

    • MNb

      My sole purpose is entertainment.

      “So long as you participate in a mind-set of “I know the one-true-and-absolute-truth-and-everyone-else-is-wrong”
      Accusations like this one require to be backed up by evidence. You’re invited to provide quotes.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Another visitor with reading comprehension issues I see.

      Let’s start at the beginning, eh?

      “7….Tips….for….Arguing….With….a….Chance….of….Changing….Someone’s….Mind”

      Which makes your comment completely redundant.

      Pay attention….

      Don’t put words into their mouth, and let them explain their point. Pay careful attention so that you’re responding to the strongest interpretation of their point, not a caricature or strawman version.

      ….how does that sound?

    • Greg G.

      Our position is that there is insufficient evidence for any god thingies to warrant a belief in them or modify one’s lifestyle to conform to their imagined preferences. It is easier to reject dogmas and oppression without a belief system derived from a belief that they are written in stone.

    • Kodie
    • swbarnes2

      In a venue like this, often the point is neither; it’s to reach people on the fence. To make people who are ambiguous or lukewarm about religion to observe “Gee, the religious people are making arguments that are either horribly immoral, or just nonsensical, and the atheists are are being compassionate and rational. Maybe I should stop thinking of myself as religious because it’s the “right” thing, because it probably isn’t actually right at all.”

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      What is your purpose of engaging with Christians in this way?

      “This way” meaning with this post? Or “this way” meaning using the suggestions that Daryl Davis makes for engaging with people in person?

      Is it to try and change the way society views atheists? Or is it to try and convert them to atheism?

      In very coarse terms, yes, the latter.

      If it’s the latter then you’ve lost all moral legitimacy and you’ve made atheism into a replacement for Christianity, with its very own dogmas and orthodoxies and potential for oppression, and all of Christianity’s evil taken upon atheism’s shoulders.

      Christianity has a very long book. Atheism is nothing more than the answer to one question: Do you have a god belief? Atheism doesn’t replace Christianity. It couldn’t. Atheists might well like to remove Christianity from society, however.

      all you are doing is attempting to replace Christianity with your own belief system.

      That’s like the doctor who says, “Aha! This man is infected with malaria! I must replace that infection with an infection of yellow fever.” I see no parallel with the atheism situation.

  • Cady555

    Slightly different approach –

    I just had a conversation on christian news . net in response to an article about a lady in Australia who was fired for advocating against legalization of gay marriage (she had a job that involved working with the public.)

    I typed a long, polite response that said personally believing something is wrong is different from trying to get a law passed to prevent other people from doing it. The first is normal. But if no one is being harmed, the second is wrong.

    Whoosh. Right over their heads.

    Number of people who acknowledged it was an interesting way of looking at it, regardless of whether they agreed – 0

    Number of people who said, “but I’m a christian and I know gays are yucky and that means it’s right for me to interfere in their lives” – at least 5.

    Sigh

    • Michael Enquist

      But a comment on a blog site is not a conversation. Especially on these kinds of sites where everything just gets pushed down to the bottom and buried under the subsequent posts.
      The kind of conversations Bob S. is talking about happen face to face and take a long time.

    • eric

      Not sure I agree with your position the way you describe it. While I morally agree that criminalizing SSM is wrong, I think it is absolutely necessary for a functioning democracy to allow people to argue, represent, and vote for changes to the law in line with their beliefs. Preventing someone from holding a job for expressing a desire to change the law undermines the whole concept of people being practically free to come together to discuss and decide what the laws they live under should be.

      So, I would argue against such a person’s position. But I would oppose any broad-based blackballing of them from jobs or firing them from jobs, because I think that’s much worse for society than letting them vocally support bigotry. If companies start doing this as a regular thing, keep in mind that parallel situations like a company firing liberals for being liberal or firing people favor of gay marriage, bosses intimidating into silence any employee who doesn’t politically agree with them, isn’t far behind. Now sure, private companies may be legally allowed to do so. And for some organizations it makes perfect sense (Planned Parenthood should be under no obligation to hire someone morally opposed to their mission; neither should the Catholic Church). But in general, I think it’s a very bad idea for a democracy when their citizens are punished for voicing disagreement with current law. Even in cases where I personally think the law is good and the person’s objection to it would make society worse; I think they should still be allow to voice that objection.

      • Susan

        While I morally agree that criminalizing SSM is wrong, I think it is absolutely necessary for a functioning democracy to allow people to argue, represent, and vote for changes to the law in line with their beliefs

        Yay! I’m with you so far. ((Edit: to remove moral disagreement… 11 minutes later)

        I would oppose any broad-based blackballing of them from jobs, or firing from jobs as bad for society.

        Yes. You can swing your fist as far as you like. Until it connects with my face or someone else’s face.

        For instance, you can bake wedding cakes or sell and/or rent real estate. But the law of the land is that you must bake for and/or sell and/or rent real estate even if you have bat-shit reasons for not doing so to particular groups.

        If you have better than batshit reasons, I hope you’ll provide them.

        =====

        Edit: 2 minutes later

        • KarlUdy

          Some context to the situation.
          1) SSM is currently not legal in Australia
          2) There is an upcoming referendum (I think it is binding) on whether to legalize SSM in Australia
          3) The US has some of the more employer friendly laws in the Western world. In most modern Western democracies it is actually quite difficult to fire someone.

          In light of that …
          In response to Cady555, those campaigning for SSM are the ones campaigning for the law to change. Those who are against SSM are campaigning for the status quo. But the wider issue is that people are being persuaded to vote one way or the other. It is a similar situation to expressing support for a particular political candidate or party in a workplace.

          In response to eric, I agree. Silencing dissenting views is more likely to lead to tyranny worse than a society that allowed such dissenting views that are silenced.

          In response to Susan. As I read it, the woman was advocating to vote a certain way, not restricting her services or performance of her job to those who agreed with her.

        • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

          The plebiscite here in Australia is non-binding, voluntary (in a country with mandatory voting normal), and a postal vote with associated accusations of vote stealing from both sides. It is disliked and derided by many on both sides, and is a lot of money for something that will at best allow a free parliamentary vote on whether to change the law.

          As for whether those campaigning for “No” are campaigning for the status quo, technically they are, though much of the campaigning is scaremongering “If you let this pass then all these other terrible things will happen”. And the law had only been changed in 2004 to make the current definition of marriage enshrined in law (no plebiscite required there).

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Well, yeah. You were knowingly raining on their homophobic parade.

      Perhaps an apology is in order.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I gave my brother “space to make his argument” and verified that his argument is stupid. The differences covered a broad ground of religious and political issues.

    For example, in the case of Tyrone Howard in 2015, my brother said that Howard must have been confused because he said “he wanted to kill some cops”, but the two cops he killed were not even white. How does that show Howard was confused? He said he wanted to kill some cops, and he killed some cops. Somewhere along the line, my brother had translated that into “he wanted to kill some white cops.” Which of course is not what he said. There were many such mistakes in my brother’s thought processes. My conclusion: my brother is not very bright.

  • epicurus

    As most people spouting hardline or bizarre views never get asked why or how they came to believe something, and have they always believed it, I usually, if time permits try to get them to explain all this to me. That usually opens a few doors and can get them off their high horse so I can drill down a bit into where they are really coming from, hopefully opening a door to further dialogue down the road, as people rarely modify their views after one conversation.
    This is the main reason I stopped reading a blog that a while back said that ridicule was going to be its modus operandi.

  • Jodie Jones

    These tips enhance good active listening skills. I believe this is an example of what Dr. Andre Johnson stated during the Theology Live podcast, “We are called to live in the tension and work against it at the same time.”

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

    I wanted to give everyone a heads-up about Robert Lockett. In a private (telepathic) communication, he told me that keeping up to pretense of being a flaming jerk was just too much for him. He has excused himself from the conversation.

    He apologized for the insults and asked forgiveness. As a parting gift, he shared with us from his collection of videos one of his favorites. He tells me he watches it often. Enjoy.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8dec1014503d6c15d1494ca5f5ac60d4ff0097e79dcdbb8edf99b02fe76144a8.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcwP26wK5KM&t=16

    • Michael Neville

      So that’s happens when the shit hits the fan.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Ha! In more ways than one.

    • Greg G.

      Ever try to housebreak a hippopotamus with a rolled-up newspaper?