APP - Proof That God Exists

Okay, so we finally get to the TRUTH! Why didn't you just say this to begin with? We could have saved ourselves a whole lot of time.

I have been saying it all along. Scientists can define organism any way they wish. If one requirement is that an organism be able to carry on the processes of life then a fetus does not qualify. It depends on the organs of a human being in order to carry on the processes of life. Feeding a baby is not the same as the fetus depending on ones kidneys and liver and pancreas and heart and.....Your inability to discern the difference is unfortunate. And in case you think the scientific folks are infallible I remind you of the fiasco some six or so years ago when a woman was denied her biological children because....well, because DNA and "science" offered "incontrovertible proof" they weren't her children.

Talking about getting to the truth anyone who offers up "scientific proof" concerning fetuses and human beings when such a grievous mistake was made a few short years ago is more interested in interferring with a woman's right than determining what a fetus truly is. Female members of my family will not be subject to opinions that belong in the same basket as souls and quickening.
 
And I have seen (dealt with first-hand, actually) the gradual decline of a once-beautiful young woman, into depression, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, and finally death, as a result of the decision they made to kill their baby. They did it because they were scared, and everyone around them told them it was the easiest way out, but afterward, they couldn't live with themselves.

I'm sure that happens especially if the women in question were surrounded by people who claimed they killed a human being.

Brainwashing. Being ostracised. Reminds me of the stories I read where high school girls dump their babies in toilets and garbage cans because they were too ashamed to tell anyone they were pregnant. I hope the disgusting, whacked out parents who brought up such children, instilled such twisted beliefs in them, live with their guilt and their child disowns them. Sick people. Very sick and that's why sex education should be mandatory in all schools and for those who are home schooled the mandatory attendance of a half day class where the topic of sex is fully explored, parent's objections be damned!

How's that for a Liberal plan? :)
 
Right, it doesn't change the fact I was a living organism. By the fact I stopped living it more than likely proves I was a living organism. However, if I kept living I either wasn't an organism before or I went through a fundamental change.

Get it?


Do you get it? That's the question.

A fetus has already been carrying on the process of life, through several stages before it gets to be a fetus. It is already living, just as you are already living. If it stops living, it is no longer a living organism, just as, if you stop living, you cease to be a living organism. The fact that you abruptly change environments, causing something to no longer live, or to have to adapt, does not have a thing to do with what is already a living organism. All kinds of organisms go through fundamental changes, throughout their process of life. NEVER does it mean they weren't living organisms before they changed. What you continue to say is just plain ignorance or stupidity, or both.

Abortion is the willing termination of a living human organism, that is precisely WHY it's such a hot-button topic, particularly to religious people who believe you are assuming an authority you don't have as a human. That's not MY position, it is THEIR position, but it's important you understand, it is not because they simply don't want women to have the right to choice. It's important you understand, we are talking about something very serious, the extermination of human life. Now, if you want to have a conversation about just how 'important' the human life is at whatever stage, that's fine with me! I have no problem discussing the moral implications, and when it might or might not be acceptable to kill unborn humans, but that isn't the debate we have gotten to yet, because you want to act retarded and pretend science doesn't matter. When you grow up, maybe we can have an adult conversation about this. [edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure that happens especially if the women in question were surrounded by people who claimed they killed a human being.

Perhaps you read my post incorrectly; I said, she was encouraged and coached by her friends and family to get an abortion, because that was the easiest way out. She was NOT surrounded by people who were telling her she killed her baby, quite the contrary, she was around people who believed like you, that a fetus was a clump of cells and meaningless. That is why she did it! And afterwards, she began to feel guilt. The guilt grew and grew, and she became depressed. She turned to the same people who told her to get an abortion, and they laughed it off and told her to stop being silly. She turned to alcohol and drugs, but the guilt persisted. And one night, she decided she could no longer live with what she did, she left a note and checked out.

I can't help but wonder, how many stories like this are out there.
 
Perhaps you read my post incorrectly; I said, she was encouraged and coached by her friends and family to get an abortion, because that was the easiest way out. She was NOT surrounded by people who were telling her she killed her baby, quite the contrary, she was around people who believed like you, that a fetus was a clump of cells and meaningless. That is why she did it! And afterwards, she began to feel guilt. The guilt grew and grew, and she became depressed. She turned to the same people who told her to get an abortion, and they laughed it off and told her to stop being silly. She turned to alcohol and drugs, but the guilt persisted. And one night, she decided she could no longer live with what she did, she left a note and checked out.

I can't help but wonder, how many stories like this are out there.

I'm so...........sorry. :(
 
Do you get it? That's the question.

A fetus has already been carrying on the process of life, through several stages before it gets to be a fetus. It is already living, just as you are already living. If it stops living, it is no longer a living organism, just as, if you stop living, you cease to be a living organism. The fact that you abruptly change environments, causing something to no longer live, or to have to adapt, does not have a thing to do with what is already a living organism. All kinds of organisms go through fundamental changes, throughout their process of life. NEVER does it mean they weren't living organisms before they changed. What you continue to say is just plain ignorance or stupidity, or both.

Abortion is the willing termination of a living human organism, that is precisely WHY it's such a hot-button topic, particularly to religious people who believe you are assuming an authority you don't have as a human. That's not MY position, it is THEIR position, but it's important you understand, it is not because they simply don't want women to have the right to choice. It's important you understand, we are talking about something very serious, the extermination of human life. Now, if you want to have a conversation about just how 'important' the human life is at whatever stage, that's fine with me! I have no problem discussing the moral implications, and when it might or might not be acceptable to kill unborn humans, but that isn't the debate we have gotten to yet, because you want to act retarded and pretend science doesn't matter. When you grow up, maybe we can have an adult conversation about this . . . [edit]

Human beings do not live inside other human beings. Get it? Something that requires the use of a human being's organs to carry on the processes of life is not carrying on the processes of life themselves. What is so difficult to understand about that? If somebody is doing something for you it means you aren't doing it. The woman carries on the processes of life for the fetus. Stop trying to twist logic.

IF the fetus is a complete "unit" capable of carrying on the processes of life without the use of a human being's organs and bodily functions then remove it. It's that simple.

As for religious or moral objections, again, no one wants to exterminate anything. The women in question simply want it removed. If it is an "independent entity" (organism, human being, whatever) then remove it from the woman's body. The problem is people who believe the fetus is an "independent entity" insist another human being be burdened by their beliefs. So, step up to the plate and own your beliefs. Fund research that will lead to the knowledge how to remove the "independent entity".

Call it what you want. Believe what you want. Just don't expect other people to carry the burden of your absurd beliefs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps you read my post incorrectly; I said, she was encouraged and coached by her friends and family to get an abortion, because that was the easiest way out. She was NOT surrounded by people who were telling her she killed her baby, quite the contrary, she was around people who believed like you, that a fetus was a clump of cells and meaningless. That is why she did it! And afterwards, she began to feel guilt. The guilt grew and grew, and she became depressed. She turned to the same people who told her to get an abortion, and they laughed it off and told her to stop being silly. She turned to alcohol and drugs, but the guilt persisted. And one night, she decided she could no longer live with what she did, she left a note and checked out.

I can't help but wonder, how many stories like this are out there.

I'm sure there are more than a few due to all the hype about fetuses being human beings.

I also knew a gal who had an abortion. One day we were having a couple of drinks and, naturally, the conversation turned to sex :) although it didn't take the turn I was hoping for. :( Anyway, she wondered what her life would be like if she hadn't had an abortion years earlier. What would her child be like? Where would she be living? What would she be doing? I said, "Let's finish our drinks and go for a ride." (We were still under the limit.)

So, we got in my car and drove to the poor side of town. As we approached the main street I slowed down. We saw the young women, babies themselves, pushing baby carriages. We saw the older women (early 20s), with toddlers, dressed in second hand clothes suitable for old rags. We saw kids, maybe 6 years old or so, playing in the muddy water puddles in a park that looked more like a neglected field. Then we saw a group of older kids hanging on a corner next to a wall covered with graffiti. All the while I just kept looking straight ahead not saying a word. It wasn't long until my friend realized the reason for the drive.

"I get the point", she said as she turned to me. She realized her life wouldn't be the way it was now if she had bore the child. She realized she would have condemned herself and, worse, her child to an environment of poverty and crime.

"If you ever feel guilty imagine the guilt you would bear if you had to bring up your child here", I said. "Imagine not being able to dress your child properly or not be able to buy the proper food or not being able to regularly take your child to a dentist. Imagine being poor and angry with the world and, while not intentionally, taking out your failure on your child. Imagine your son getting involved in gangs. Imagine your daughter prostituting herself for a new pair of shoes because others are ridiculing her."

That, Dixie, is guilt. Guilt that's lived every day. Whether forced or persuaded to bear a child one can not look after properly or does not desire leads to a life of never ending guilt. So, should you ever meet someone like the gal I knew take them for a drive.

As Johnny River sings, "To me you were the best thing this boy ever found and, girl, it's hard to find nice things on the poor side of town."
 
Human beings do not live inside other human beings. Get it?

Nope, I don't get it, because they most certainly do. The fetus proves it.


Something that requires the use of a human being's organs to carry on the processes of life is not carrying on the processes of life themselves.

The fetus doesn't require the use of anything, they can carry on the process of life by themselves, they've been doing it since they became an organism.

What is so difficult to understand about that? If somebody is doing something for you it means you aren't doing it. The woman carries on the processes of life for the fetus. Stop trying to twist logic.

But the woman does nothing to carry on the process of life for the fetal organism. The woman provides a suitable environment, that's all. We very often, take the fetus out of a woman and put it in another woman! This would not be possible if the fetus relied on the woman to carry on the process.

IF the fetus is a complete "unit" capable of carrying on the processes of life without the use of a human being's organs and bodily functions then remove it. It's that simple.

Again, we often DO remove it! The problem with abortion is, there is no suitable environment to put the fetus in, and it dies. This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't human life.

As for religious or moral objections, again, no one wants to exterminate anything.

But that's exactly what you are doing with an abortion. That's why it's such a big deal.

The women in question simply want it removed.

And I'd like to 'remove' my noisy next door neighbor, but I can't just kill him and be done with it. I don't have such a right.

If it is an "independent entity" (organism, human being, whatever) then remove it from the woman's body. The problem is people who believe the fetus is an "independent entity" insist another human being be burdened by their beliefs. So, step up to the plate and own your beliefs. Fund research that will lead to the knowledge how to remove the "independent entity".

I'm all for that, but until we can discover some way to keep fetuses alive outside the womb, we should strive to keep them alive inside the womb. And again, this is not a "belief" as much as it's a FACT OF SCIENCE, the fetus is a living human organism in the earliest stages of development. If you want to give it a death sentence, you should at least have a trial by jury.

Call it what you want. Believe what you want. Just don't expect other people to carry the burden of your absurd beliefs.

There's nothing absurd about science. On the other hand, your willful ignorance of science, is quite absurd.
 
I'm sure there are more than a few due to all the hype about fetuses being human beings.

Again, you need to read what I posted. The girl in question, was NOT around all the hype. She was around people just like YOU! The "advice" she got, was the same advice you would give! The "hype" she heard, was that a fetus was merely a clump of meaningless cells. This is why she chose to have an abortion. No one around her was saying it was a human life, or human being. No one warned her that she would feel the overwhelming guilt. She didn't realize fucktards like you were ignorant of science and didn't know what they were talking about.
 
Nope, I don't get it, because they most certainly do. The fetus proves it.

No, it doesn't. People can classify things any way they want.

The fetus doesn't require the use of anything, they can carry on the process of life by themselves, they've been doing it since they became an organism.

Fine, remove it.

But the woman does nothing to carry on the process of life for the fetal organism. The woman provides a suitable environment, that's all. We very often, take the fetus out of a woman and put it in another woman! This would not be possible if the fetus relied on the woman to carry on the process.

If that's the case and there are so many people wanting babies what's the problem? Take it out and place it elsewhere.

Again, we often DO remove it! The problem with abortion is, there is no suitable environment to put the fetus in, and it dies. This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't human life.

What about all those people waiting for children? Or is the plan to place all the unwanted babies in a government institution?

But that's exactly what you are doing with an abortion. That's why it's such a big deal.

Then with all these religious institutions with huge amounts of money maybe it's time the anti-abortionists petitioned them to donate to research.

And I'd like to 'remove' my noisy next door neighbor, but I can't just kill him and be done with it. I don't have such a right.

You would if he moved into your home and demanded you support him.

I'm all for that, but until we can discover some way to keep fetuses alive outside the womb, we should strive to keep them alive inside the womb. And again, this is not a "belief" as much as it's a FACT OF SCIENCE, the fetus is a living human organism in the earliest stages of development. If you want to give it a death sentence, you should at least have a trial by jury.

How about the jury dig in their pockets and support the single mother and child?

There's nothing absurd about science. On the other hand, your willful ignorance of science, is quite absurd.

Just like the Grand Jury/ham sandwich scenario. Science can classify anything whatever they wish.
 
Again, you need to read what I posted. The girl in question, was NOT around all the hype. She was around people just like YOU! The "advice" she got, was the same advice you would give! The "hype" she heard, was that a fetus was merely a clump of meaningless cells. This is why she chose to have an abortion. No one around her was saying it was a human life, or human being. No one warned her that she would feel the overwhelming guilt. She didn't realize fucktards like you were ignorant of science and didn't know what they were talking about.

You said you saw it first hand. Obviously you were close to her so she must have known at least one fruit cake. :)

In any case she required counselling. Considering there are over one million abortions yearly if it have ANY relationship to suicide the figures would be out the roof.

If you should ever run into a situation where someone is depressed over an abortion ask them what they would have done if the fetus was a result of their father or brother raping them. Or some street thug. Would they have had a abortion? If they say that is different ask them what difference it makes to the "human being" they'd be "murdering".
 
No, it doesn't. People can classify things any way they want.

Not and remain true to science.

Fine, remove it.

Again, we often DO!

If that's the case and there are so many people wanting babies what's the problem? Take it out and place it elsewhere.

I really wish it were that simple.

What about all those people waiting for children? Or is the plan to place all the unwanted babies in a government institution?

My plan is to educate ignorant people on when science says a human organism exists, then we can go from there.

Then with all these religious institutions with huge amounts of money maybe it's time the anti-abortionists petitioned them to donate to research.

Maybe so, in the meantime, we have a moral obligation to protect human life.

You would if he moved into your home and demanded you support him.

Irrelevant.

How about the jury dig in their pockets and support the single mother and child?

How about you acknowledge science and stop acting like a retarded person?

Just like the Grand Jury/ham sandwich scenario. Science can classify anything whatever they wish.

No, science can't classify anything whatever they wish. How fucking absurd!
 
No, science can't classify anything whatever they wish. How fucking absurd!

Of course it/they can. Who do you think makes the classifications? Construction workers? Airline pilots? Scientists are human beings and can classify something any damn way they wish. Just like a Grand Jury can indict any damn thing they wish including a ham sandwich. :)

Human beings are individuals. Laws and customs worldwide recognize that. The damn lies that have been used to subjugate women are being brought out in the open. For thousands of years every absurd argument has been used to control the sexual activity of women. From "souls" to outlawing birth control....it's over, Dix. Even women in backward eastern countries are revolting. As the old saying goes, "Ya ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Human beings. Souls. Organisms.....believe what you want but the world is going in the other direction. Thank God the US has a President who supports Planned Parenthood and believes religious institutions have an obligation as employers. A President who believes our obligation is to the living, as in those having been born, rather than concerning himself with the craziness of fetuses being people. Maybe 2012 will the year of enlightenment. We'll know in November. We all had a good look at the Republican candidates/beliefs and while Santorum may be gone many of his putrid ideas live on in Romney, ideas like getting rid of Planned Parenthood.

Let's hope the current financial difficulties do not obscure the bigger picture, that being Obama's struggle to maintain and expand the freedom of women and ensure everyone has medical coverage and, basically, put the living ahead of organisms and make believe human beings.
 
Ah, yes, that age-old question argued between seculars and non-seculars, Atheists and Christians, and greatest minds of our times. We've had the debates here before, numerous times, and it's always interesting to me, how we never begin by setting some foundations of understanding with regard to context. We immediately seem to jump into the usual talking points, and have the same argument over and over. Let us attempt to slow this down a bit, and begin by coming to understanding on the meanings and context of the question, before we attempt to answer the question.

We need to agree on what 'exists' means first. Do we mean, in a physical sense? I think it's safe to say, God doesn't exist in a physical sense. Most forms of belief in a god, require the god to be superior to physical man, therefore, we can presume any God would have to exist in a form outside of our physical world. Can we agree? Now, I can say that I know the Christian religion, for instance, believed God existed in a physical man, Jesus Christ. Much of their religious doctrine of belief is centered around his teachings, but for the most part, God's are not of the physical world, they are superior beings or entities, and outside of our physical universe. Given this information, to require God to exist in a physical sense, or to be proven to exist by physical sciences, is pretty useless and irrelevant.

So, God doesn't exist in a physical sense, and it's pointless to try and prove existence with physical parameters. In order to properly examine the question, we need to evaluate 'exist' as meaning, in a spiritual sense, because that is what God is, a spiritual entity. Now, whether something 'exists' in a spiritual sense, is very difficult, in fact, impossible to prove or disprove. Much of this relies on faith or comprehension of the individual. For instance, let's take something else that is 'not of the physical world' like a dream, and examine this. When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not. But the events did happen in your dream, you remember them vividly. You can come to me and tell me what you dreamed, and I can choose to have faith and believe you, or not. You can't physically prove you dreamed what you said, and your dream is in essence, your comprehension of what you recall. Did the events of your dream take place in the physical world? Then why would you require physical proof of their existence? To properly evaluate a spiritual entity, you have to apply spiritual criteria, which largely relies on faith.

Now, you will say, but we need more than "faith!" And the simple fact of the matter is, even the most sophisticated math and science, relies on faith. The very principles of all physical science, rely on the order of the universe to remain the same at all times and never change. Gravity always works in a predictable way, we have faith that it will continue to do so. If you believe in a theory of evolution, you must have faith the theory is correct. So we have faith in whatever we believe, whether it is faith in physical science applied to the physical universe, or spiritual faith applied to the spiritual realm. To conflate the difference between physical and spiritual realms, is often the result on not first properly defining the context of the question. If we are going to honestly ask the question, we must apply the proper parameters and context. We can't leap back and forth from the physical realm and demanding physical proof, and back to the spiritual realm, they are two different things.

It would be as if, you have someone who doesn't believe in physical sciences and thinks the rain is caused by God crying. You can show him all the physical proof you want, but he doesn't believe in the physical sciences. He refuses to acknowledge them, and insists the rain is caused by God crying. You ask him for 'proof' and he promptly replies; "Because God told me so! Can you prove he didn't?" Of course, you can't, and he is basing his belief on a spiritual faith, devoid of any belief in physical science, but the point is, rain is not caused by God crying, we know through physical science, what causes rain. The same can be said for seculars and Atheists, who demand physical proof and refuse to acknowledge the spiritual realm. If you aren't willing to open your mind to the possibility of something else, you will remain as ignorant as the example presented, closed-minded to understanding and in the dark on this most prolific question.

The spiritual evidence for the spiritual existence for a spiritual God, is overwhelming. Countless spiritual believers can attest to this. Accounts of people overcoming tremendous adversities, outright 'miracles' brought about through their faith and prayers, years of oppression and bondage overcome, great nations created. The evidence of God's work can be seen in our flowers and life, in our mountains and sunsets, and in the face of every newborn child. Tracking our civilizations, we find that mankind has always been spiritual in nature. Psychologists have said, if God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. We are hard-wired this way, to worship in a spiritual way, something greater than self. This has been an aspect of humans since humans began. Some believe, it is ultimately what led to the rise of modern civilization.

Now, being that humans have always held this particular character trait, and we know through studies of animal behavior, all inherent intrinsic behavior is present for a reason, we have to presume there is a reason for humans to be inclined to spirituality, there is no other scientific explanation for this. To this day, 95% of the world population, believe in something greater than self. Of course, these beliefs range widely, and to varying degrees, but only 5% are true Nihilists, and do not believe in anything at all. We can't argue with the physical sciences here, if the species has always worshiped, there must be a fundamental purpose for it. So sayeth, Darwin, anyway.

The bottom line is, we haven't really answered the question, because the question is subject to interpretation and understanding of context. Regardless of which way you answer the question, your answer relies solely on faith and you have no physical evidence to support it. However, the spiritual existence of God doesn't require or need physical proof.


Dixie, you dumbcrud, man is just another social species, like gorillas, or dogs. We cooperate sometimes. Religions seek to abuse our instinct to sociality to make us slaves.
 
Of course it/they can. Who do you think makes the classifications? Construction workers? Airline pilots? Scientists are human beings and can classify something any damn way they wish. Just like a Grand Jury can indict any damn thing they wish including a ham sandwich. :)

Human beings are individuals. Laws and customs worldwide recognize that. The damn lies that have been used to subjugate women are being brought out in the open. For thousands of years every absurd argument has been used to control the sexual activity of women. From "souls" to outlawing birth control....it's over, Dix. Even women in backward eastern countries are revolting. As the old saying goes, "Ya ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Human beings. Souls. Organisms.....believe what you want but the world is going in the other direction. Thank God the US has a President who supports Planned Parenthood and believes religious institutions have an obligation as employers. A President who believes our obligation is to the living, as in those having been born, rather than concerning himself with the craziness of fetuses being people. Maybe 2012 will the year of enlightenment. We'll know in November. We all had a good look at the Republican candidates/beliefs and while Santorum may be gone many of his putrid ideas live on in Romney, ideas like getting rid of Planned Parenthood.

Let's hope the current financial difficulties do not obscure the bigger picture, that being Obama's struggle to maintain and expand the freedom of women and ensure everyone has medical coverage and, basically, put the living ahead of organisms and make believe human beings.

[edit] Where do I start here? There is so much! We determined through science, when an organism exists, but rather than you accepting that fact, you want to claim that science is irrelevant, because they can classify anything however they please. I've heard of circular logic, but I believe this is 'dead end' logic or something. Oh, and grand juries can't actually indict ham sandwiches, that is merely a figure of speech. Human beings ARE individuals, even the ones living inside the womb, you did get that one right. I don't know about souls, I've never mentioned them in my argument, but organisms aren't a matter of feelings or opinions, science has determined when an organism exists. This has nothing to do with subjugating women, and what is being brought out in the open is your willful ignorance of science. Just keep yapping!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[edit] Where do I start here? There is so much! We determined through science, when an organism exists, but rather than you accepting that fact, you want to claim that science is irrelevant, because they can classify anything however they please. I've heard of circular logic, but I believe this is 'dead end' logic or something. Oh, and grand juries can't actually indict ham sandwiches, that is merely a figure of speech. Human beings ARE individuals, even the ones living inside the womb, you did get that one right. I don't know about souls, I've never mentioned them in my argument, but organisms aren't a matter of feelings or opinions, science has determined when an organism exists. This has nothing to do with subjugating women, and what is being brought out in the open is your willful ignorance of science. Just keep yapping!

[edit] organisms exist whether we classify them as "in existence" or not. Reality is not in our heads, it is extant in the world. You sound like a liberal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anytime you are ready, you can respond to the thread OP. Thanks.

I question your assertion that man is innately "spiritual". Man is innately empathic and social, which is a more precise definition of your vague term "spiritual".
 
Back
Top