That is not the way this works.
You either can back your positive statements or you cannot, and should retract.
How do you know they have no souls?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
You either can back your positive statements or you cannot, and should retract.
How do you know they have no souls?
E
edwest211
Guest
Speaking generally, in your example, ensoulment doesn’t matter. What matters is What are scientists doing when they edit those cells? If it is not human, what is it?
O
openmind77
Guest
How do you know that they any soul?How do you know they have no souls?
O
openmind77
Guest
You make a cut in your body. The blood flowing out will have thousands of human cells, all still alive. They are human cells, but they are not human persons.Speaking generally, in your example, ensoulment doesn’t matter. What matters is What are scientists doing when they edit those cells? If it is not human, what is it?
Again, I will reiterate…How do you know that they any soul?
That is not the way this works.
You either can back your positive statements or you cannot, and should retract.
How do you know they have no souls?
The fact that you seem both unwilling and unable to back your statements says much about their credibility.
O
openmind77
Guest
Again I reiterate: If you say they have souls, you need to back up your positive statements. How do you know they have souls?Again, I will reiterate…
That is not the way this works.
You either can back your positive statements or you cannot, and should retract.
How do you know they have no souls?
The fact that you seem both unwilling and unable to back your statements says much about their credibility.
I have said nothing of the sort.Again I reiterate: If you say they have souls, you need to back up your positive statements. How do you know they have souls?
I have requested you back your positive statements.
You either can, or you cannot.
Since you cannot, you should retract.
The credibility of your statements cannot stand on it’s own, it must be backed with fact.
E
edwest211
Guest
False comparison. I am referring to gene editing a human being.
Is this blood a part of the body it flows from or is it a different organism altogether?You make a cut in your body. The blood flowing out will have thousands of human cells, all still alive.
O
openmind77
Guest
So since you have not said that fertilized eggs have souls - then they are definitely not human persons regardless of what I said.I have said nothing of the sort.
I have requested you back your positive statements.
You either can, or you cannot.
Since you cannot, you should retract.
The credibility of your statements cannot stand on it’s own, it must be backed with fact.
E
edwest211
Guest
Choose to ignore the facts? Scientists are editing cells, unique human being cells, right now.
https://www.the-scientist.com/tag/gene-editing
https://www.the-scientist.com/tag/gene-editing
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Scientists can take cell from your body and edit it too.Just because a cell is unique does not make it a person.Choose to ignore the facts? Scientists are editing cells, unique human being cells, right now.
You are grasping at straws.So since you have not said that fertilized eggs have souls - then they are definitely not human persons regardless of what I said.
Human life does not depend upon what I have or have not said.
But the credibility of what you said does depend on your ability to back your statements with fact.
You have bitten off way more then you can chew here, and it is time to retract your statement and find a better way to defend your position.
O
openmind77
Guest
So back your statements with facts. I am saying that a fertilized cell does not have soul and you do not disagree, so it is clearly not a human being.You are grasping at straws.
Human life does not depend upon what I have or have not said.
But the credibility of what you said does depend on your ability to back your statements with fact.
You have bitten off way more then you can chew here, and it is time to retract your statement and find a better way to defend your position.
E
edwest211
Guest
This is not any cell. It is a unique human being at the moment of conception. That can be shown. Scientists are trying to manipulate it right now.
Scientists are doing this without concerns about a “soul.”
Scientists are doing this without concerns about a “soul.”
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
I know it is a unique cell. But as i said before without a soul, it is not human being however much scientists manipulate it.This is not any cell. It is a unique human being at the moment of conception. That can be shown. Scientists are trying to manipulate it right now.
I have not agreed either.So back your statements with facts. I am saying that a fertilized cell does not have soul and you do not disagree, so it is clearly not a human being.
Back your statement with fact.
Your unwillingness to do so says much about the statements.
Making such grandiose statements and being unable to back them with fact also calls into question any other argument you have made.
I have given you several opportunities to retract. Do so before the lack of credibility spreads from the argument you cannot back to everything you write in the forum.
O
openmind77
Guest
Back your statements with facts. Your unwillingness to do so says much about your statements.Back your statement with fact.
Your unwillingness to do so says much about the statements.
E
edwest211
Guest
OK. You are a scientist in the process of gene-editing a unique human being. Do you care if it has a soul or not? No. You are doing your job. That unique cell, once edited, will have certain things added/deleted or modified as per your instructions. Then the next human being is CRISPR edited to different instructions. Again, no soul involved. This is actually happening.
Now you are just being childish.Back your statements with facts. Your unwillingness to do so says much about your statements.
You have been caught making grand statements that you cannot back with anything at all, so you are trying to reverse the argument.
The facts here betray you.
You are the one claiming they have no souls.
You are the one being asked to back the statement.
You are the one refusing to do so.
Oops. You stepped in it pretty deep.
Retract. Retract now and move on.
All you have to do is correct yourself.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.