Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Paprika]

The definition does not take development into account, and hence incomplete. An organism of a species does not necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.) Therefore a organism of the homo sapiens does not necessarily implies it is a human.

Because it that was true then it follows that an acorn is an oak. An acorn isn't an oak, therefore the premise is rejected.[/quote]
Ah, the standard equivocation between 'oak' as member of a oak species and 'oak' as mature member of the species?

Do you have anything less pathetic?

[Bust Nak]

Ah, the standard equivocation between 'oak' as member of a oak species and 'oak' as mature member of the species?

Incorrect, I explicitly stated that in the context of this debate, oak refers to the species and not a mature member of the species. If I meant the the tree I would have said oak tree.

[Paprika]

Ah, the standard equivocation between 'oak' as member of a oak species and 'oak' as mature member of the species?

Incorrect, I explicitly stated that in the context of this debate, oak refers to the species and not a mature member of the species. If I meant the the tree I would have said oak tree.

Thank you, I must have missed that.

So remind me again: why isn't an acorn an oak, ie a member of the oak species?

[Bust Nak]

So remind me again: why isn't an acorn an oak, ie a member of the oak species?

It's a premise from visual inspection.

[Paprika]

So remind me again: why isn't an acorn an oak, ie a member of the oak species?

It's a premise from visual inspection.

Yet we've already ruled out 'visual inspection' of morphology as necessarily determining species: a caterpillar looks very different from a butterfly yet they are of the same species so 'visual inspection' fails as a sure test.

[Blastcat]

Ah, the standard equivocation between 'oak' as member of a oak species and 'oak' as mature member of the species?

Incorrect, I explicitly stated that in the context of this debate, oak refers to the species and not a mature member of the species. If I meant the the tree I would have said oak tree.

Thank you, I must have missed that.

So remind me again: why isn't an acorn an oak, ie a member of the oak species?

Again, the heated debate as to the nature of acorns rears it's nutty head.
People might be interested in the thread that I created to address the controversy.
For more information on the difference between acorns and oak trees, click on the link below:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28584

[otseng]

Do you have anything less pathetic?

Moderator Warning


This would be considered an uncivil comment. Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

So remind me again: why isn't an acorn an oak, ie a member of the oak species?

It's a premise from visual inspection.

Yet we've already ruled out 'visual inspection' of morphology as necessarily determining species: a caterpillar looks very different from a butterfly yet they are of the same species so 'visual inspection' fails as a sure test.

Actually visual inspection tells me caterpillar are the same species to a butterfly, but that's beside the point. We are not talking about differentiating species, but differentiating something of a species.

[KenRU]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.
...
Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems to me, that they will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But they currently do not.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't. Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

What do we have? You argued that the definition of a 'human being' by that dictionary is that three criteria must be satisfied: "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You argued that since blastocysts are not "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development", they are not human beings.

By that same logic, since many children are not "distinguished from other animals by... power of articulate speech, and upright stance", they are not human beings.

Correction, I am arguing that by the Oxford definition, it is reasonable to assert that a blastocyst is not a Human Being. Just as it is equably reasonable to assert it can be considered a Human Being when using other dictionaries.

I used those 3 criteria as an example. That doesn't mean that I ignored the rest of the definition, nor does it give you the license to ignore the rest of the definition to argue your point.

What we do have, then, is the definitions of "Human Being" and "Child".

The full definition of Human Being (if it is to be understood and used - without circular logic) shows that a blastocyst can reasonably not be called a Human Being.

I have shown you the definitions (from Oxford) for "Human Being" and "Child" to show that it is reasonable and accurate.

Perhaps it would be time to acknowledge this?

Hardly.

By that same definition many children are not human beings. Are you willing to acknowledge this?

You're not using the definitions provided by Oxford Dictionary correctly. They are listed above. Using the definitions provided for Human Being, a child is one of the conditions. Using definition 1.1, a child is defined as a son or daughter of any age.

So, if the son or daughter has an age, they are consider a Child. Therefore, a Human Being. End of story. What age is a blastocyst? I'm pretty sure using a negative number would not make your case for you.

I can't see why you are having difficulty admitting this. The definitions are there for you to read.

Nonsense. By the definition that you're using, not any child is a human being, but the child must also possess "...power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Your definition, not mine, and it's rather clear why you're stumbling at this point.

Not stumbling at all. You are simply selecting a segment of the definition and using it out of context.

The definition is as follows:

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

The part in bold above is used to distinguish Homo Sapiens from other animals. It is not a condition of the man, woman or child.

To argue otherwise is to argue that the writers of the Oxford Dictionary believe that a toddler is not Human.

Is that your argument?

The Oxford Dictionary definitions of "child" and "Human Being" make it entirely reasonable to argue that a blastocyst is not a child.

In order to argue otherwise, you need to assert Oxford doesn't understand that a toddler is a human being.