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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 485 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 don't think this premise makes very much sense to me. You might want to spell out exactly how you use the word "species" so that it specifies that an organism of a certain species is a complete and full member of that species. If you could define exactly what you mean by the words "organism" and "species" it would greatly help in my understanding of your logic.

It seems to me that your argument rests on some definition of these terms. An embryo is an organism of the human species, and therefore is a human being. So, it's as if you are saying that an organism

If you could write out your argument in a structured way, so that we could look at the error your second premise represents, it would be easier to see why.

I suggest this method:

1) Premise one
2) Premise two
3) Premise n
______________

Conclusion

Premise n means that you should add as many premises as you need to form your argument, such as premise 3,4,5,6 and so on, until you are done, and ready to give us your conclusion.

Right now, I think we are getting confused a bit. Your conclusion may SEEM to follow from your premises, but they may not, I don't think that they do, so we need to make the argument as clearly stated as possible. If you can't manage to put your argument in a more formal format, such as I have suggested, I am sure that many people would be glad to help you out with that. I would, but I don't want to appear as if I'm putting words in your mouth.

Thanks.

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.

You want to stick with the biology. I guess that's fair. Don't answer the question for now, and build your case.

I could re-write my question for you so that it doesn't include the term "human being". It would greatly help me understand your positions better by answering this question:

Do you believe that a part of an organism is the sum total of an organism?

and

Do you believe that when we say "a human organism" that it means the same thing as when we say "a human person or being"?

Or, if you object to the human example, I can re-write the question this way :

Do you believe that when we say "an organism" that it means the same thing as when we say "a complete being"?

But these questions are perhaps for later, as you want to only discuss biology for the moment. So, please, if you can, put your argument in a more formal format so that we can all understand exactly what it is you are saying, as right now, I seem to be confused on how you use some of your terms.

I have repeatedly accused you of using semantics to resolve your logic. So, if you want to refute the charge, I would urge you to clarify all of your important terms, and then stick with these definitions. Then, it would be REALLY helpful to me if you could put your argument in a formal structure of some kind.

Thanks

[Paprika]

More assertions? I was expecting 'reasoning'.

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

Then it should be trivial to demonstrate them. I'm still waiting.

[Paprika]

I don't think this premise makes very much sense to me. You might want to spell out exactly how you use the word "species" so that it specifies that an organism of a certain species is a complete and full member of that species.

I have quoted definitions of 'species' from various dictionaries.

If you could write out your argument in a structured way, so that we could look at the error your second premise represents, it would be easier to see why.

I suggest this method:

1) Premise one
2) Premise two
3) Premise n
______________

Conclusion

Premise n means that you should add as many premises as you need to form your argument, such as premise 3,4,5,6 and so on, until you are done, and ready to give us your conclusion.

Right now, I think we are getting confused a bit.

If you could actually read the relevant posts I have made instead of repeatedly asking me to demonstrate what I already have things would be smoother.

I have repeatedly accused you of using semantics to resolve your logic. So, if you want to refute the charge, I would urge you to clarify all of your important terms, and then stick with these definitions.

I have no interest in refuting wild claims by someone who made such claims yet clearly hadn't read the crucial posts pertaining to my argument: eg. a) the post demonstrating that the human embryo is a human organism and b) the post then demonstrated that a human organism is a human.

[Bust Nak]

More assertions? I was expecting 'reasoning'.

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

Then it should be trivial to demonstrate them. I'm still waiting.

Sure, just look at an acorn and see for yourselves it's not an oak. Or egg a chicken.

[Paprika]

Sure, just look at an acorn and see for yourselves it's not an oak. Or egg a chicken.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously? An argument from visual inspection of morphology?

Okay, laughter aside, one really does wonder how you would deal with caterpillars, pupae and butterflies, for example.

[Bust Nak]

Sure, just look at an acorn and see for yourselves it's not an oak. Or egg a chicken.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously? An argument from visual inspection of morphology?

Okay, laughter aside, one really does wonder how you would deal with caterpillars, pupae and butterflies, for example.

Caterpillars are neither pupae nor butterflies. Pupae are not butterflies. What seems to be the problem?

[Paprika]

Sure, just look at an acorn and see for yourselves it's not an oak. Or egg a chicken.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously? An argument from visual inspection of morphology?

Okay, laughter aside, one really does wonder how you would deal with caterpillars, pupae and butterflies, for example.

Caterpillars are neither pupae nor butterflies. Pupae are not butterflies. What seems to be the problem?

But are they not of the same species?

[Bust Nak]

Sure, just look at an acorn and see for yourselves it's not an oak. Or egg a chicken.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously? An argument from visual inspection of morphology?

Okay, laughter aside, one really does wonder how you would deal with caterpillars, pupae and butterflies, for example.

Caterpillars are neither pupae nor butterflies. Pupae are not butterflies. What seems to be the problem?

But are they not of the same species?

They are the same species.

[Paprika]

Sure, just look at an acorn and see for yourselves it's not an oak. Or egg a chicken.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously? An argument from visual inspection of morphology?

Okay, laughter aside, one really does wonder how you would deal with caterpillars, pupae and butterflies, for example.

Caterpillars are neither pupae nor butterflies. Pupae are not butterflies. What seems to be the problem?

But are they not of the same species?

They are the same species.

We are agreed that a great difference in morphology does not necessarily imply that two entities are of different species.

So do explain again: what's your reasoning for the following claim:

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.

Also, please do explain what "younger version" has to do with the argument about "species".

[Bust Nak]

We are agreed that a great difference in morphology does not necessarily imply that two entities are of different species.

Sure.

So do explain again: what's your reasoning for the following claim:

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.

Also, please do explain what "younger version" has to do with the argument about "species".

It's a distinction within species.