Why and where is God ? - Page 2

rickanderson · #51 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

There is evidence suggestive of a genetic link between the degree to which one is prone to accept the word of an authority figure without question and the strength of ones religious belief.

In short, those who are most submissive to authority, and therefore most susceptible to being indoctrinated, are those who are the most fervently certain of the correctness of their faith.

This would certainly explain why, in some families, many individual members never question the faith of their elders, while others fail to blindly accept such.

deepsand

thanks for your thoughts. being married to a filipina i can vouch for the first notion; however, i wouldn't use the word "blindly" since theres an implicit insult that comes with the word.....
my wifes faith is more intuitive than blind..

regards
rick

deepsand · #52 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubbya

3) Disprove the virgin birth through immaculate conception.

.
Setting aside the fact that the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim for the existence of a metaphysical entity - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - and that dis-believers bear no such burden, let's address "immaculate conception," technically known as parthenogenesis, the source of the claim of "virgin birth," and the mores of the time.

Firstly, the oldest known document re. Mary and Joseph does not state that she was a virgin, but rather a "young woman of marrying age."

Secondly, the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultry" did not then carry its present meaning. "Adultry" was then defined as a married woman engaging in sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband; no other sexual liaisons were proscribed by said commandment. In fact, the Old Testament is replete with stories of married men siring children with servants and slaves.

The purpose of this commandment was to give the husband legal claim to any and all children birthed by his wife or wives, a right which was of great value, as infant mortality rates were quite high, lifespans were short, and, given the then primitive state of agriculture and animal husbandry, children were a valuable source of badly needed labor. The number of children a man could claim as his own was a very real measure of his wealth; daughters carried a special value for the dowries they could bring.

Therefore, it would not have been unusual for a "young woman of marrying age" to have been pregnant at the time of her taking a husband. And, for Joseph to have married a pregnant woman would have been viewed as fortuitous, for he was already well on his way to acquiring an item of value in the form of the child.

So, there is in fact neither a scriptural or cultural basis for the claim of Jesus being the issue of "immaculate conception."

And, even if it were so, given that parthenogenesis always yields an identical twin of the mother, as only the mother's DNA contibutes to the ovum in this instance, Jesus would have been female!

Absent a male child born of parthenogenesis the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles.

deepsand · #53 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

deepsand

thanks for your thoughts. being married to a filipina i can vouch for the first notion; however, i wouldn't use the word "blindly" since theres an implicit insult that comes with the word.....
my wifes faith is more intuitive than blind..

regards
rick

"Blindly," as used here, means "without truly questioning,"and carries with it no implicit judgement, let alone that of insult.

One who has been taught a particular belief and accepted such without first setting it aside and studying which, if any, belief is worthy of holding, has made no choice of their own.

The true insult is for those who hold to blind faith to insist that they have made an informed choice.

rickanderson · #54 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

.Absent a male child born of parthenogenesis the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles.

in your opinion.

nice cutting and pasting btw.

rick

rickanderson · #55 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

The true insult is for those who hold to blind faith to insist that they have made an informed choice.

agreed, atheists do it all the time.

sad really.

regards
rick

deepsand · #56 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

agreed, atheists do it all the time.

sad really.

regards
rick

Not quite correct.

Atheism is not, as you and many others would claim, a belief. Rather, it is logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance. It is the taking of the absence of proof to be the proof of absence.

Here, the 2 relevant fallacious arguments are:

1) "There is no proof of God's existence, therefore God does not exist"
2) "There is no proof of God's non-existence, therefore God does exist"

The logically correct position is that of agnosticism, which is to say that ones does not know, and therefore draws no conclusion.

deepsand · #57 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

in your opinion.

nice cutting and pasting btw.

rick

Despite your claim, such is not an opinion, but a conclusion logically derived from the available empirical facts.

As for "cutting and pasting," your allusion evades me.

thehappysmoker · #58 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

In short, those who are most submissive to authority, and therefore most susceptible to being indoctrinated, are those who are the most fervently certain of the correctness of their faith..

Isn't there an element of chicken and egg here ? It sounds like"those who are indoctrinated are most susceptible to being indoctrinated", doesn't it ?

Your definition of Atheism is completely false. The reason for not believing in a God is similar to the reason for not believing in blue cattle. i.e. there is no reason to believe. It has nothing to do with proof.

Addenda: Using your idea of logic (not mine), the reason for believing in a God seems to be "There is no proof of God's existence, therefore I will believe in him anyway".

thehappysmoker · #59 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

let's address "immaculate conception," technically known as parthenogenesis, the source of the claim of "virgin birth,"

The so-called "three wise men" were star-followers, who believed in astrology. It doesn't seem very wise (or likely) that they asked someone who had just given birth if she was a virgin. "Virgoan" seems more probable, particularly since "virgin" and "virgoan" are identical words in many languages, making the chance of mistranslation even higher than usual.

thehappysmoker · #60 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

agreed, atheists do it all the time.

sad really.

regards
rick

A stupid, ignorant generalization.

Check out my second post in this thread, and then apologize (if you're man enough)

rickanderson · #61 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

Despite your claim, such is not an opinion, but a conclusion logically derived from the available empirical facts.

As for "cutting and pasting," your allusion evades me.

deep S

*your* stated opinion, that christianity crumbles because of such and such is simply that....your opinion.

nothing you could ever say, do, or, (ahem) *prove* would make christianity crumble.

and yes i am aware that my simple allusion evades you.....how much more for the more complex?

you see through your monitor darkly, i'll k.i.s.s from now on.

rick

thehappysmoker · #62 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 08:32 AM

I'll bet you think you're intelligent, don't you ? Stupid bigots usually do.

Why not try being civil, and holding a reasonable discussion, instead of trying to impose all your semi-literate, half-formed crap on the world ? It doesn't hurt, and you may end up looking less silly. Less likely, you may even learn something.

rickanderson · #63 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehappysmoker

I'll bet you think you're intelligent, don't you ? Stupid bigots usually do.

Why not try being civil, and holding a reasonable discussion, instead of trying to impose all your semi-literate, half-formed crap on the world ? It doesn't hurt, and you may end up looking less silly. Less likely, you may even learn something.

smoker

you've embarrassed yourself at virtually every juncture on this thread.

take a break, no one appreciates your adolescent anger.

**ctabuk** · #64 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehappysmoker

.....and if you'd read my post, instead of trying to glibly dismiss it, you'd have found that that was exactly the point I was making to start with. (Eating pork, for example, is right for some, and wrong for others). THAT'S why I said we don't know right from wrong, but sometimes (not always) what is expedient.

As for "verbal table tennis", where's the verbal ? Is "verbal" the right word, or the wrong one ? Are you sure you know ?

Happysmoker how long have we been posting together?? You are getting a little pedantic. Let's try to keep an even keel here chaps.

OK - Of course we know the difference between right and wrong - but some poor souls are so indocrinated that they do not. Imagine being a suicide bomber. Just think for one simple second how screwed up their minds must be.

rickanderson · #65 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Imagine being a suicide bomber. Just think for one simple second how screwed up their minds must be.

ctabuk

when you face an army of 20 elephants yet dont own one yourself you simply send out one mouse to rob the victors of the glory of their victory

tit for tat.

rick

thehappysmoker · #66 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

take a break, no one appreciates your adolescent anger.

No one ? (Thanx for "adolescent")

It's okay Dave, I didn't really expect him to apologize. That would have been a civilized reaction.

**ctabuk** · #67 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

ctabuk

when you face an army of 20 elephants yet dont own one yourself you simply send out one mouse to rob the victors of the glory of their victory

tit for tat.

rick

Is that analogy a serious attempt to make a statement?

rickanderson · #68 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Is that analogy a serious attempt to make a statement?

ctabuk

the analogy *is* a statement.

rick

thehappysmoker · #69 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 10:06 AM

quote from Bill Clinton: "What does "is" mean ?"

Leave it Dave. You'll get no sense from him, and you may find yourself tempted to be pedantic.

Don't use words like "analogy". He'll pick up on the first four letters, and think he knows what it means.

Think I'm exaggerating ? Here's a pm he sent:

"keep it up dumb dumb

keep it up dumb dumb....very entertaining..

no one has seen such a dumb dumb in quite a while

i suspect you will get banned soon enough

work on that english now..

lol"

Intelligent stuff, isn't it ?

BTW. He's right. It IS a statement (about some elephants, a mouse and a tit). You won't catch him out like that !