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]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]
Not just mere assertion, remember the reasoning I provided re: eggs and acorns?

I don't recall any coherent reasoning. Do please refresh my mind.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]

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.

Mere assertion.

Could you explain why you disagree here?

I refer you to the posts where Bust Nak initially claimed that 'human embryos are organisms' was merely opinion held by pro-life doctors and then backtracked after I inundated him with many medical dictionaries making that clear statement.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]

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.

Mere assertion.

Could you explain why you disagree here?

I refer you to the posts where Bust Nak initially claimed that 'human embryos are organisms' was merely opinion held by pro-life doctors and then backtracked after I inundated him with many medical dictionaries making that clear statement.

Organism does not mean person, so I have no idea what you might mean.

Do you say that all human organisms are human beings?

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]

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.

Mere assertion.

Could you explain why you disagree here?

I refer you to the posts where Bust Nak initially claimed that 'human embryos are organisms' was merely opinion held by pro-life doctors and then backtracked after I inundated him with many medical dictionaries making that clear statement.

Organism does not mean person, so I have no idea what you might mean.

I did not claim it did.

Do you say that all human organisms are human beings?

At this point of time, the claim at question (between both of us) is that human embryos are human organisms.

[Blastcat]

sorry, redundant post.. please delete this.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 482 by Paprika]

Do you say that all human organisms are human beings?

At this point of time, the claim at question (between both of us) is that human embryos are human organisms.

I again agree that a human embryo is a human organism.

I have agreed with that with you from the very start. Human embryos are indeed, in every way imaginable, human organisms.

I hope that this is clear enough to you.

I would also hope that you could help me understand your positions better by answering my previous question.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 482 by Paprika]

Do you say that all human organisms are human beings?

At this point of time, the claim at question (between both of us) is that human embryos are human organisms.

I again agree that a human embryo is a human organism.

I have agreed with that with you from the very start. Human embryos are indeed, in every way imaginable, human organisms.

Right. The next premise of my argument is that all human organisms are humans, by definition of 'species'.

I would also hope that you could help me understand your positions better by answering my previous question.

You asked 'do you say that all human organisms are human beings?' My answer is that I did not say that because 'human beings' is often inextricably tied to 'person' which is a very subjective label; for now I'm sticking with the biology.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]
Not just mere assertion, remember the reasoning I provided re: eggs and acorns?

I don't recall any coherent reasoning. Do please refresh my mind.

Eggs are not younger versions of chickens and acorns are not younger versions of oaks.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]
Not just mere assertion, remember the reasoning I provided re: eggs and acorns?

I don't recall any coherent reasoning. Do please refresh my mind.

Eggs are not younger versions of chickens and acorns are not younger versions of oaks.

More assertions? I was expecting 'reasoning'.

[Bust Nak]

More assertions? I was expecting 'reasoning'.

What you call assertions, I call premises that are trivially true.