Thoughts on ESCR

Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be legalized everywhere

Strongly Agree	51.4%	[ 18 ]
Agree	31.4%	[ 11 ]
Neutral	8.6%	[ 3 ]
Disagree	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Strongly Disagree	8.6%	[ 3 ]
Total Votes:			[ 35 ]

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Agnostic atheist. I feel that ESCR can have a large benefit to the world, helping people with medical problems such as cancers and stroke. Although it does destroy the fertilized embryo, I feel that a zygote cannot be considered a human being until it has fully developed. - Travis W.

[Madam Kagu]

Christian. I strongly disagree. I do not like using infants for medical research they are not animals. As such should not be treated as so. Makes me just as angry as I am about abortion. -Kaily J

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Madam Kagu

Christian. I strongly disagree. I do not like using infants for medical research they are not animals. As such should not be treated as so. Makes me just as angry as I am about abortion. -Kaily J

Suggesting that an embryo - a zygote with no ability to think, breath, eat, sleep, have emotion, feel pain or pleasure, or have self-awareness - is an infant is the equivalent of saying that a sapling is the same as a seed. And to imply that zygotes, with no ability to feel anything should not be tested on, but fully living animals should, is disgusting.

[Madam Kagu]

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Christian. I strongly disagree. I do not like using infants for medical research they are not animals. As such should not be treated as so. Makes me just as angry as I am about abortion. -Kaily J

Suggesting that an embryo - a zygote with no ability to think, breath, eat, sleep, have emotion, feel pain or pleasure, or have self-awareness - is an infant is the equivalent of saying that a sapling is the same as a seed. And to imply that zygotes, with no ability to feel anything should not be tested on, but fully living animals should, is disgusting.

In medical terms an embryo is a human being. Biblically, it is also. Basically, if a human embryo isnt a human, what is it? Genetically it is a human being: it isnt a frog or a blob.

Also to suggest that its wrong to test on animals but not on human beings, why is that wrong? How do you know its wrong?

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Christian. I strongly disagree. I do not like using infants for medical research they are not animals. As such should not be treated as so. Makes me just as angry as I am about abortion. -Kaily J

Suggesting that an embryo - a zygote with no ability to think, breath, eat, sleep, have emotion, feel pain or pleasure, or have self-awareness - is an infant is the equivalent of saying that a sapling is the same as a seed. And to imply that zygotes, with no ability to feel anything should not be tested on, but fully living animals should, is disgusting.

In medical terms an embryo is a human being. Biblically, it is also. Basically, if a human embryo isnt a human, what is it? Genetically it is a human being: it isnt a frog or a blob.

Also to suggest that its wrong to test on animals but not on human beings, why is that wrong? How do you know its wrong?

No, it isn't... can you provide some form of source material that even suggests that, in medical terms, an embryo is a human? If a human embryo isn't a human, what is it, you ask? It is an embryo... just like you wouldn't call a tree seed a tree. Because it isn't a tree; it's a seed.

One can feel pain and pleasure, breaths, sleeps, eats, has self-awareness, and has emotion. The other does not. That is why. Your argument stating that testing on animals but not embryos is flawed, as it is based on the notion that embryos are humans, which they are not. Despite this fact, humans are animals, and stating that it is okay to test on animals is implying that it is okay to test on humans. Furthermore, I know because I am an animal with the ability to feel pain and would not like to endorse the act on others.

[Madam Kagu]

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Christian. I strongly disagree. I do not like using infants for medical research they are not animals. As such should not be treated as so. Makes me just as angry as I am about abortion. -Kaily J

Suggesting that an embryo - a zygote with no ability to think, breath, eat, sleep, have emotion, feel pain or pleasure, or have self-awareness - is an infant is the equivalent of saying that a sapling is the same as a seed. And to imply that zygotes, with no ability to feel anything should not be tested on, but fully living animals should, is disgusting.

In medical terms an embryo is a human being. Biblically, it is also. Basically, if a human embryo isnt a human, what is it? Genetically it is a human being: it isnt a frog or a blob.

Also to suggest that its wrong to test on animals but not on human beings, why is that wrong? How do you know its wrong?

No, it isn't... can you provide some form of source material that even suggests that, in medical terms, an embryo is a human? If a human embryo isn't a human, what is it, you ask? It is an embryo... just like you wouldn't call a tree seed a tree. Because it isn't a tree; it's a seed.

One can feel pain and pleasure, breaths, sleeps, eats, has self-awareness, and has emotion. The other does not. That is why. Your argument stating that testing on animals but not embryos is flawed, as it is based on the notion that embryos are humans, which they are not. Despite this fact, humans are animals, and stating that it is okay to test on animals is implying that it is okay to test on humans. Furthermore, I know because I am an animal with the ability to feel pain and would not like to endorse the act on others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryo?s=t
(medical definition if you scroll down on that page)

So far you've only made a claim but havent backed it up. An embryo isnt a seed: they arent the same thing. A seed is a seed and an embrypo is an embro. you comparing them doesnt make them the same either. You also claimed humans are animals: how do you know that?

To say its okay to test on animals is not the same as saying its okay to test on humans: humans beings are not animals.

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Christian. I strongly disagree. I do not like using infants for medical research they are not animals. As such should not be treated as so. Makes me just as angry as I am about abortion. -Kaily J

Suggesting that an embryo - a zygote with no ability to think, breath, eat, sleep, have emotion, feel pain or pleasure, or have self-awareness - is an infant is the equivalent of saying that a sapling is the same as a seed. And to imply that zygotes, with no ability to feel anything should not be tested on, but fully living animals should, is disgusting.

In medical terms an embryo is a human being. Biblically, it is also. Basically, if a human embryo isnt a human, what is it? Genetically it is a human being: it isnt a frog or a blob.

Also to suggest that its wrong to test on animals but not on human beings, why is that wrong? How do you know its wrong?

No, it isn't... can you provide some form of source material that even suggests that, in medical terms, an embryo is a human? If a human embryo isn't a human, what is it, you ask? It is an embryo... just like you wouldn't call a tree seed a tree. Because it isn't a tree; it's a seed.

One can feel pain and pleasure, breaths, sleeps, eats, has self-awareness, and has emotion. The other does not. That is why. Your argument stating that testing on animals but not embryos is flawed, as it is based on the notion that embryos are humans, which they are not. Despite this fact, humans are animals, and stating that it is okay to test on animals is implying that it is okay to test on humans. Furthermore, I know because I am an animal with the ability to feel pain and would not like to endorse the act on others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryo?s=t
(medical definition if you scroll down on that page)

So far you've only made a claim but havent backed it up. An embryo isnt a seed: they arent the same thing. A seed is a seed and an embrypo is an embro. you comparing them doesnt make them the same either. You also claimed humans are animals: how do you know that?

To say its okay to test on animals is not the same as saying its okay to test on humans: humans beings are not animals.

I apologize. I accidentally implied that seeds were the same as embryos. You're correct. However, seeds protect and give nourishment to the embryo that grows inside it. Once again, you wouldn't call the thing growing inside a seed a plant, would you? It is, biologically speaking, an embryo, just as a human embryo is.

Also, from the "Medical Dictionary" section of that definition:

Medical Dictionary section of dictionary

An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.

In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

None of those say "person," "human," or anything else to describe the organism. Try again.

Lastly, let me use a website used to explain things to elementary school children to show you your error. Unless you're suggesting we're plants, we're animals. In fact, we're in the chordata mammalia phylum and class.

[Madam Kagu]

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Suggesting that an embryo - a zygote with no ability to think, breath, eat, sleep, have emotion, feel pain or pleasure, or have self-awareness - is an infant is the equivalent of saying that a sapling is the same as a seed. And to imply that zygotes, with no ability to feel anything should not be tested on, but fully living animals should, is disgusting.

In medical terms an embryo is a human being. Biblically, it is also. Basically, if a human embryo isnt a human, what is it? Genetically it is a human being: it isnt a frog or a blob.

Also to suggest that its wrong to test on animals but not on human beings, why is that wrong? How do you know its wrong?

No, it isn't... can you provide some form of source material that even suggests that, in medical terms, an embryo is a human? If a human embryo isn't a human, what is it, you ask? It is an embryo... just like you wouldn't call a tree seed a tree. Because it isn't a tree; it's a seed.

One can feel pain and pleasure, breaths, sleeps, eats, has self-awareness, and has emotion. The other does not. That is why. Your argument stating that testing on animals but not embryos is flawed, as it is based on the notion that embryos are humans, which they are not. Despite this fact, humans are animals, and stating that it is okay to test on animals is implying that it is okay to test on humans. Furthermore, I know because I am an animal with the ability to feel pain and would not like to endorse the act on others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryo?s=t
(medical definition if you scroll down on that page)

So far you've only made a claim but havent backed it up. An embryo isnt a seed: they arent the same thing. A seed is a seed and an embrypo is an embro. you comparing them doesnt make them the same either. You also claimed humans are animals: how do you know that?

To say its okay to test on animals is not the same as saying its okay to test on humans: humans beings are not animals.

I apologize. I accidentally implied that seeds were the same as embryos. You're correct. However, seeds protect and give nourishment to the embryo that grows inside it. Once again, you wouldn't call the thing growing inside a seed a plant, would you? It is, biologically speaking, an embryo, just as a human embryo is.

Also, from the "Medical Dictionary" section of that definition:

Medical Dictionary section of dictionary

An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.

In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

None of those say "person," "human," or anything else to describe the organism. Try again.

Lastly, let me use a website used to explain things to elementary school children to show you your error. Unless you're suggesting we're plants, we're animals. In fact, we're in the chordata mammalia phylum and class.

I'd like to ask a favor of you. Please try hard not to insult me, okay? anywho

I posted the medical definition from that site to support that an embryo is a human being. The human embryo is the young of human being. It wasnt to support human beings being seperate from animals.

What would you appeal to tell me human beings are animals? I appeal to the Bible to say we are different.

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

In medical terms an embryo is a human being. Biblically, it is also. Basically, if a human embryo isnt a human, what is it? Genetically it is a human being: it isnt a frog or a blob.

Also to suggest that its wrong to test on animals but not on human beings, why is that wrong? How do you know its wrong?

No, it isn't... can you provide some form of source material that even suggests that, in medical terms, an embryo is a human? If a human embryo isn't a human, what is it, you ask? It is an embryo... just like you wouldn't call a tree seed a tree. Because it isn't a tree; it's a seed.

One can feel pain and pleasure, breaths, sleeps, eats, has self-awareness, and has emotion. The other does not. That is why. Your argument stating that testing on animals but not embryos is flawed, as it is based on the notion that embryos are humans, which they are not. Despite this fact, humans are animals, and stating that it is okay to test on animals is implying that it is okay to test on humans. Furthermore, I know because I am an animal with the ability to feel pain and would not like to endorse the act on others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryo?s=t
(medical definition if you scroll down on that page)

So far you've only made a claim but havent backed it up. An embryo isnt a seed: they arent the same thing. A seed is a seed and an embrypo is an embro. you comparing them doesnt make them the same either. You also claimed humans are animals: how do you know that?

To say its okay to test on animals is not the same as saying its okay to test on humans: humans beings are not animals.

I apologize. I accidentally implied that seeds were the same as embryos. You're correct. However, seeds protect and give nourishment to the embryo that grows inside it. Once again, you wouldn't call the thing growing inside a seed a plant, would you? It is, biologically speaking, an embryo, just as a human embryo is.

Also, from the "Medical Dictionary" section of that definition:

Medical Dictionary section of dictionary

An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.

In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

None of those say "person," "human," or anything else to describe the organism. Try again.

Lastly, let me use a website used to explain things to elementary school children to show you your error. Unless you're suggesting we're plants, we're animals. In fact, we're in the chordata mammalia phylum and class.

I'd like to ask a favor of you. Please try hard not to insult me, okay? anywho

I posted the medical definition from that site to support that an embryo is a human being. The human embryo is the young of human being. It wasnt to support human beings being seperate from animals.

What would you appeal to tell me human beings are animals? I appeal to the Bible to say we are different.

Mkay.

And I already showed that, at no point in the medical definitions provided for the word embryo, is it referred to as the same thing as a human being, or called "the youth of human being," as you put it. I did not show the definitions to prove that humans are animals, I showed them to disprove your statement of how zygotes are humans.

I appeal to semantics, which, given the definition of an animal, puts up in as one. I do not appeal to the Bible, as I am an agnostic atheist. I'll provide the definition of animal that is relevant to this discussion and proves my point that animals are human.

Dictionary.com's definition of animals

1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

We have all of these things. Therefore, we are animals.

[Madam Kagu]

Jubilant Sunrise

Mkay.

And I already showed that, at no point in the medical definitions provided for the word embryo, is it referred to as the same thing as a human being, or called "the youth of human being," as you put it. I did not show the definitions to prove that humans are animals, I showed them to disprove your statement of how zygotes are humans.

I appeal to semantics, which, given the definition of an animal, puts up in as one. I do not appeal to the Bible, as I am an agnostic atheist. I'll provide the definition of animal that is relevant to this discussion and proves my point that animals are human.

Dictionary.com's definition of animals

1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

We have all of these things. Therefore, we are animals.

Where did you show that the definition said at no point that an embryo was not the same as a human being? You claimed it, but didnt show it. Let me show you the first definition:

the young of a viviparous animal especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.

What is an embryo? The young of a viviparous animal especially of a mammal. What is a human embryo? It is the young of a human being. It is the young of that human being in the early stages of development.

Now as for your appeal to semantics the definition clearly shows youre wrong in saying that an embryo is not the same as a human: it says the exact opposite of what youre claiming. What youre appealing to disagrees with you.

As far as semantics are concerned anyway, how do you know they are reliable? This also goes with what youre claiming about us being animals. What you provided may define us as animals, but why should that definition apply to me? Can I just say that, because I define human beings as trucks, that makes it true? Just because you gave me what men defined us as doesn't make their definition accurate or true.

Have human beings ever been wrong? If so could they be wrong about us being animals? According to the Bible we are made in Gods image. Animals were not. We are unique in this. We are not the same.God cannot lie and is infallible; He never makes mistakes. If the fallible being accuses the infallible being of a mistake, the mistake must default to the fallible, as it is impossible for the infallible being to make mistakes.

Therefore if a man accuses God of being wrong, man must be wrong by default because God cannot make mistakes. If God says human beings are not animals we are not animals no matter how much men want to say otherwise.

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Mkay.

And I already showed that, at no point in the medical definitions provided for the word embryo, is it referred to as the same thing as a human being, or called "the youth of human being," as you put it. I did not show the definitions to prove that humans are animals, I showed them to disprove your statement of how zygotes are humans.

I appeal to semantics, which, given the definition of an animal, puts up in as one. I do not appeal to the Bible, as I am an agnostic atheist. I'll provide the definition of animal that is relevant to this discussion and proves my point that animals are human.

Dictionary.com's definition of animals

1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

We have all of these things. Therefore, we are animals.

Where did you show that the definition said at no point that an embryo was not the same as a human being? You claimed it, but didnt show it. Let me show you the first definition:

the young of a viviparous animal especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.

What is an embryo? The young of a viviparous animal especially of a mammal. What is a human embryo? It is the young of a human being. It is the young of that human being in the early stages of development.

Now as for your appeal to semantics the definition clearly shows youre wrong in saying that an embryo is not the same as a human: it says the exact opposite of what youre claiming. What youre appealing to disagrees with you.

As far as semantics are concerned anyway, how do you know they are reliable? This also goes with what youre claiming about us being animals. What you provided may define us as animals, but why should that definition apply to me? Can I just say that, because I define human beings as trucks, that makes it true? Just because you gave me what men defined us as doesn't make their definition accurate or true.

Have human beings ever been wrong? If so could they be wrong about us being animals? According to the Bible we are made in Gods image. Animals were not. We are unique in this. We are not the same.God cannot lie and is infallible; He never makes mistakes. If the fallible being accuses the infallible being of a mistake, the mistake must default to the fallible, as it is impossible for the infallible being to make mistakes.

Therefore if a man accuses God of being wrong, man must be wrong by default because God cannot make mistakes. If God says human beings are not animals we are not animals no matter how much men want to say otherwise.

Wrong. "Young" is used to describe the embryo in its stages of development. We are mammals. This is a proven scientific fact. Just because you have a book written by men to say otherwise does not change this fact.

That's a cute notion, but, as I said, I am an agnostic atheist, and therefore do not believe in a god. Saying that to me is like me saying the exact same thing to you, only replacing "God" with "Santa." I assume you lack a belief in Santa Claus. Furthermore, you stated that you were a Christian. Who wrote the New Testament, if I may ask? Or the Old Testament, for that matter? Keep in mind that, according to you, humans are fallible, and can make mistakes. If you are going to say "Humans wrote the Bible," and put anything after that, it would not matter; humans are still fallible. Inspired by God or not, they are still fallible, and therefore the same problem you have with semantics I have with the Bible.

[Madam Kagu]

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

Jubilant Sunrise

Mkay.

And I already showed that, at no point in the medical definitions provided for the word embryo, is it referred to as the same thing as a human being, or called "the youth of human being," as you put it. I did not show the definitions to prove that humans are animals, I showed them to disprove your statement of how zygotes are humans.

I appeal to semantics, which, given the definition of an animal, puts up in as one. I do not appeal to the Bible, as I am an agnostic atheist. I'll provide the definition of animal that is relevant to this discussion and proves my point that animals are human.

Dictionary.com's definition of animals

1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

We have all of these things. Therefore, we are animals.

Where did you show that the definition said at no point that an embryo was not the same as a human being? You claimed it, but didnt show it. Let me show you the first definition:

the young of a viviparous animal especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.

What is an embryo? The young of a viviparous animal especially of a mammal. What is a human embryo? It is the young of a human being. It is the young of that human being in the early stages of development.

Now as for your appeal to semantics the definition clearly shows youre wrong in saying that an embryo is not the same as a human: it says the exact opposite of what youre claiming. What youre appealing to disagrees with you.

As far as semantics are concerned anyway, how do you know they are reliable? This also goes with what youre claiming about us being animals. What you provided may define us as animals, but why should that definition apply to me? Can I just say that, because I define human beings as trucks, that makes it true? Just because you gave me what men defined us as doesn't make their definition accurate or true.

Have human beings ever been wrong? If so could they be wrong about us being animals? According to the Bible we are made in Gods image. Animals were not. We are unique in this. We are not the same.God cannot lie and is infallible; He never makes mistakes. If the fallible being accuses the infallible being of a mistake, the mistake must default to the fallible, as it is impossible for the infallible being to make mistakes.

Therefore if a man accuses God of being wrong, man must be wrong by default because God cannot make mistakes. If God says human beings are not animals we are not animals no matter how much men want to say otherwise.

Wrong. "Young" is used to describe the embryo in its stages of development. We are mammals. This is a proven scientific fact. Just because you have a book written by men to say otherwise does not change this fact.

That's a cute notion, but, as I said, I am an agnostic atheist, and therefore do not believe in a god. Saying that to me is like me saying the exact same thing to you, only replacing "God" with "Santa." I assume you lack a belief in Santa Claus. Furthermore, you stated that you were a Christian. Who wrote the New Testament, if I may ask? Or the Old Testament, for that matter? Keep in mind that, according to you, humans are fallible, and can make mistakes. If you are going to say "Humans wrote the Bible," and put anything after that, it would not matter; humans are still fallible. Inspired by God or not, they are still fallible, and therefore the same problem you have with semantics I have with the Bible.

You may tell me I'm wrong but you haven't proven it. A claim isn't the same as a fact. Claiming something as a fact doesn't make it a fact, either. I still stand by the definition clearly disagreeing with you.

Certainly, the Bible, both Old and New Testament, it was indeed written by men. However, they were men inspired by God: the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is God-breathed.

As far as you not believing in God? You do know that God exists. This isn't the same at all as Santa Clause: we both agree and know Santa doesn't exist. However, we both know that God exists, though only I am admitting that knowledge. You are suppressing that truth, in your own unrighteousness, because you hate God and you don't want to submit to His authority.

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Madam Kagu

You may tell me I'm wrong but you haven't proven it. A claim isn't the same as a fact. Claiming something as a fact doesn't make it a fact, either. I still stand by the definition clearly disagreeing with you.

Certainly, the Bible, both Old and New Testament, it was indeed written by men. However, they were men inspired by God: the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is God-breathed.

As far as you not believing in God? You do know that God exists. This isn't the same at all as Santa Clause: we both agree and know Santa doesn't exist. However, we both know that God exists, though only I am admitting that knowledge. You are suppressing that truth, in your own unrighteousness, because you hate God and you don't want to submit to His authority.

The definition, as has already been pointed out, doesn't disagree with me, but okay.

If it is written by men, then it is fallible. "God-breathed" or not, it is fallible. What if these men decided that, just as you claim that I "refuse to accept the truth," they refuse to accept what God says and writes their own set of morality in it? Can you prove this didn't occur? No, you cannot, can you?

As for the rest of your post...

That claim is utterly ridiculous! Why would I willingly refuse to accept the existence of a god of any kind if I knew that horrendous, agonizing, never-ending punishment would occur if I disbelieved? That is as ludicrous as me claiming that you accept the existence of the Muslim Allah, but refuse to accept his reality because you want to be tortured forever and ever in agony. That doesn't make too much sense, does it?

What's stopping another religious organization from saying the same thing to you? What if a Hindu said that you know with absolute certainty that Brahman and the countless other deities in Hinduism exist, but you refuse to accept or worship them because you "hate Them and you don't want to submit to Them authority,"? You would likely be saying the same things I am now.

Now I ask: prove God's existence. Unless you can prove that I have a knowledge of God but refuse to believe in him, which is impossible, it is up to you to prove God's existence. Hell, don't even do that. Prove that God has claimed anything that is in the Bible without turning to the Bible as your source. Furthermore, show me any evidence, even from the Bible, that says that an embryo is the same thing as a human. Hell, even further, show the Biblical quote that even mentions an embryo in it.

[Gallifreyo]

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

You may tell me I'm wrong but you haven't proven it. A claim isn't the same as a fact. Claiming something as a fact doesn't make it a fact, either. I still stand by the definition clearly disagreeing with you.

Certainly, the Bible, both Old and New Testament, it was indeed written by men. However, they were men inspired by God: the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is God-breathed.

As far as you not believing in God? You do know that God exists. This isn't the same at all as Santa Clause: we both agree and know Santa doesn't exist. However, we both know that God exists, though only I am admitting that knowledge. You are suppressing that truth, in your own unrighteousness, because you hate God and you don't want to submit to His authority.

The definition, as has already been pointed out, doesn't disagree with me, but okay.

If it is written by men, then it is fallible. "God-breathed" or not, it is fallible. What if these men decided that, just as you claim that I "refuse to accept the truth," they refuse to accept what God says and writes their own set of morality in it? Can you prove this didn't occur? No, you cannot, can you?

As for the rest of your post...

That claim is utterly ridiculous! Why would I willingly refuse to accept the existence of a god of any kind if I knew that horrendous, agonizing, never-ending punishment would occur if I disbelieved? That is as ludicrous as me claiming that you accept the existence of the Muslim Allah, but refuse to accept his reality because you want to be tortured forever and ever in agony. That doesn't make too much sense, does it?

What's stopping another religious organization from saying the same thing to you? What if a Hindu said that you know with absolute certainty that Brahman and the countless other deities in Hinduism exist, but you refuse to accept or worship them because you "hate Them and you don't want to submit to Them authority,"? You would likely be saying the same things I am now.

Now I ask: prove God's existence. Unless you can prove that I have a knowledge of God but refuse to believe in him, which is impossible, it is up to you to prove God's existence. Hell, don't even do that. Prove that God has claimed anything that is in the Bible without turning to the Bible as your source. Furthermore, show me any evidence, even from the Bible, that says that an embryo is the same thing as a human. Hell, even further, show the Biblical quote that even mentions an embryo in it.

This debate has proved to be extremely mentally stimulating, with strong points on both sides, however since this point of yours hasn't yet been rebutted, I thought I'd play the adjudicator card and mention that absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. But carry on emotion_c8

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Cumbersome Cucumber

Jubilant Sunrise

Madam Kagu

You may tell me I'm wrong but you haven't proven it. A claim isn't the same as a fact. Claiming something as a fact doesn't make it a fact, either. I still stand by the definition clearly disagreeing with you.

Certainly, the Bible, both Old and New Testament, it was indeed written by men. However, they were men inspired by God: the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is God-breathed.

As far as you not believing in God? You do know that God exists. This isn't the same at all as Santa Clause: we both agree and know Santa doesn't exist. However, we both know that God exists, though only I am admitting that knowledge. You are suppressing that truth, in your own unrighteousness, because you hate God and you don't want to submit to His authority.

The definition, as has already been pointed out, doesn't disagree with me, but okay.

If it is written by men, then it is fallible. "God-breathed" or not, it is fallible. What if these men decided that, just as you claim that I "refuse to accept the truth," they refuse to accept what God says and writes their own set of morality in it? Can you prove this didn't occur? No, you cannot, can you?

As for the rest of your post...

That claim is utterly ridiculous! Why would I willingly refuse to accept the existence of a god of any kind if I knew that horrendous, agonizing, never-ending punishment would occur if I disbelieved? That is as ludicrous as me claiming that you accept the existence of the Muslim Allah, but refuse to accept his reality because you want to be tortured forever and ever in agony. That doesn't make too much sense, does it?

What's stopping another religious organization from saying the same thing to you? What if a Hindu said that you know with absolute certainty that Brahman and the countless other deities in Hinduism exist, but you refuse to accept or worship them because you "hate Them and you don't want to submit to Them authority,"? You would likely be saying the same things I am now.

Now I ask: prove God's existence. Unless you can prove that I have a knowledge of God but refuse to believe in him, which is impossible, it is up to you to prove God's existence. Hell, don't even do that. Prove that God has claimed anything that is in the Bible without turning to the Bible as your source. Furthermore, show me any evidence, even from the Bible, that says that an embryo is the same thing as a human. Hell, even further, show the Biblical quote that even mentions an embryo in it.

This debate has proved to be extremely mentally stimulating, with strong points on both sides, however since this point of yours hasn't yet been rebutted, I thought I'd play the adjudicator card and mention that absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. But carry on emotion_c8

Ah yes, I agree. I am simply saying that, since I am asked to prove that semantics are an infallible idea, which I never claimed, then I decided I would ask her to prove God exists. emotion_c8