“How is a post like this any more offensive than a person trying to convince you that the virgin birth is actually a fact?”
I, for one, never said so. But I hold some people to higher standards than others. Call it a bias if you like.
LemmusLemmus
Karma: 3
Elizer,
you are misreading me.
I did not argue that belief in virgin birth (which many, possibly most, Christians do not believe in anyway) is unridiculous. It is ridiculous. I explicitly called it “silly”.
But the post did not just argue that Mary’s pregnancy came about in the normal way, you had to suggest that she had had sex with multiple men—a behaviour which most Christians would feel is deeply wrong.
The post is not meant to educate, it is meant to offend.
And that is both unhelpful and puerile.
“Maybe it is “puerile”, but it is also much more likely than the common belief.”
I agree it is more likely and that “virgin birth” is a silly belief, but that’s not the point. Elizer comes across like a fifteen-year-old who has just discovered the joys of provocation.
Elizer,
agnostics don’t come any more hardcore than me, but it seems you really have an emotional issue with religious people. A post that suggests that Mary was a slut is really, really puerile.
Robin,
and what are the stated purposes you’re specifically thinking of?
Ben Jones: “The statement ‘there’s still a chance, right?’ is mathematically valid in pretty much every case.”
Exactly. The best answer would have been something like: “There’s stil a chance for everything. There is no such thing as zero probabilities in the real world. Maybe I can cure everybody’s cancer by wishing for it very, very hard. Sure, this thought violates everything we know about physics, but there is still a chance, no?”