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 137 by Clownboat]

Brilliant thought experiment!! These sorts of scenarios that highlight the hypocrisy of God believers are what we, here, should spend our energy developing. Succinct "pictures" in 75 words or so that expose obviously wrong thinking.

Brilliant, of course. If they say they'll save the toddler, they're being hypocritical. If they say they'll save the embryos, they're obviously lying anyway because <insert reason> so not only are they being hypocritical, they're also lying!

How banal.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 158 by Blastcat]

Maybe. I have the tendency to be naive and trust too much, so it is very difficult for me to accept that in the situation, for real, he would act so dispicably.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 159 by Paprika]

To say that you don't believe someone is not an accusation of lying.

(You don't seem to understand the definition of the term "banal?")

[Paprika]

It is thought experiments like this that help us develop and refine our ethical sense. This thought experiment shows (well, it blares) that there are tangible and real differences between embryos and three year olds. Dismissing those differences results in absurd conclusions. If not absurd, unthinkable, or unspeakable ethical conclusions.

It also demonstrates why approaching the issue of abortion with emotionalism and sentimentality

What the thought experiment reveals is that people are emotional and sentimental towards children, eg Clownboat and his "Clearly, as a parent, the actual child has more value. I don't care if there are a thousand embryos."

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 159 by Paprika]

To say that you don't believe someone is not an accusation of lying.

You didn't just say that, but that he would do other than he had said he would do, ie "I believe if you were in that situation, you'd save the three year old."

(You don't seem to understand the definition of the term "banal?")

The claim was that the thought experiment was "brilliant". I merely point out that it is just another of the tired attempts at 'gotcha!', so (as per a dictionary) "lacking originality, freshness, or novelty".

[KenRU]

It is thought experiments like this that help us develop and refine our ethical sense. This thought experiment shows (well, it blares) that there are tangible and real differences between embryos and three year olds. Dismissing those differences results in absurd conclusions. If not absurd, unthinkable, or unspeakable ethical conclusions.

It also demonstrates why approaching the issue of abortion with emotionalism and sentimentality

What the thought experiment reveals is that people are emotional and sentimental towards children,

Why would that be? Why would people be emotionally attached to children more than embyos?

Why isn't the answer obvious: that one MAY grown into a child while the other IS a child?

Am I being silly or is that why there is an emotional attachment to one and not the other?

I submit if one chooses to save a possible child instead of an actual child that their priorities are askew - horribly askew. And it kinda proves Maher's point.

all the best

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 158 by Blastcat]

Maybe. I have the tendency to be naive and trust too much, so it is very difficult for me to accept that in the situation, for real, he would act so dispicably.

It would not only be despicable, but profoundly irrational. And, yes, people HAVE been known to do very despicable things on religious grounds. This is very sad, but it happens. We should NOT trust too much, moderation in all things is a good rule of thumb.

We should not DISTRUST too much, either, a wise person proportions his or her belief to the evidence

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 163 by Paprika]

Me believing he would act differently in the situation is not an accusation of lying. I honestly believe he would act differently in the situation if it really occurred, even if he believes differently at this moment, not having been in the situation.

Lawyers and debaters can use a "gotcha" structure that expresses an idea in a new and unique manner. The end result is may not be unique, but the process that brings it about is "brilliant." That is what occurred here. Your logic is that no new car model can be interesting because it would be a car, and cars have been around for a while. Here, the thought experiment is brilliant because it forces those who believe embryos are human to engage their philosophy in a visceral crucible. It is not brilliant I the result it brings about but in the manner it functions.

Both your claims are incorrect and exhibit poor reasoning. You should do better. I encourage you to try harder next time and check your on work for mistakes before turning it in.

[Paprika]

Me believing he would act differently in the situation is not an accusation of lying. I honestly believe he would act differently in the situation if it really occurred, even if he believes differently at this moment, not having been in the situation.

So you're not claiming that he's making a false statement? My bad, I suppose I am too generous in initially assuming that everyone is sufficiently straightforward such that their "I believe X" is equivalent to an "X is the case".

That is what occurred here. Your logic is that no new car model can be interesting because it would be a car, and cars have been around for a while.

Hardly. Try again, and without the strawman.

[Paprika]

It is thought experiments like this that help us develop and refine our ethical sense. This thought experiment shows (well, it blares) that there are tangible and real differences between embryos and three year olds. Dismissing those differences results in absurd conclusions. If not absurd, unthinkable, or unspeakable ethical conclusions.

It also demonstrates why approaching the issue of abortion with emotionalism and sentimentality

What the thought experiment reveals is that people are emotional and sentimental towards children,

Why would that be? Why would people be emotionally attached to children more than embyos?

Why isn't the answer obvious: that one MAY grown into a child while the other IS a child?

One is a child, and the other is a child

Am I being silly or is that why there is an emotional attachment to one and not the other?

One plausible reason is that most people don't interact with embryos and therefore don't have the chance to emotionally attach to them while the opposite is the case for children. Another is that the pro-abortion advocates has been for decades trying to dehumanise the unborn child eg. 'parasite', 'invader', 'not fully human', 'not a person' etc.

I submit if one chooses to save a possible child instead of an actual child that their priorities are askew - horribly askew. And it kinda proves Maher's point.

I submit the obvious points that both are children, human, offspring of their father and mother and the progressive trend to normalise killing one's children is problematic, to say the least.