Sex created Jesus

DOC said:
Originally Posted by DOC

Do living organisms "without souls" write responses to posts in the Religion and Philosophy section of the James Randi Forum?





Thanks for answering my question. I then assume you believe that all people who post in Randi, including yourself, do not have souls.
Click to expand...

Logic is not one of your strong suits either is it? :eye-poppi
 
DOC said:
Originally Posted by DOC



Thanks for answering my question. I then assume you believe that all people who post in Randi, including yourself, do not have souls.
Click to expand...


People who don't post here don't have souls either. Nor do you. Sorry dude... don't get too upset about that. None of us do. At best.. its a metaphor.
 
DOC said:
Thanks for answering my question. I then assume you believe that all people who post in Randi, including yourself, do not have souls.
Click to expand...

And neither do you. And neither does anyone on this planet, nor anything.

The soul is fiction. It is not real.
 
I think I covered this somewhere else, but basically in the 'primordial soup' stage, billions of pre-biotic protein cells were forming fairly rapidly; several million of them began guiding the formation of other proteins, and before long, millions of protolife began to form, completely by random process.

It is from these protolife forms that all life on Earth arose. Some of them are still with us, with some minor adjustments. Look inside your cells.

And as far as science is concerned, every living thing lacks a 'soul', because 'soul' remains an undefined quantity. The closest any of the religious hacks can come up with is 'that which living things has' - which makes the 'soul' nothing more than biological process.

Congratulations - you've as much soul as an amoeba.
 
Hokulele said:
What do you folks have against Koreans? Seoul is quite lovely in the springtime.
Click to expand...

I lived in Seoul for several years.

I just have to say that if you leave the Dragon Hill Lodge (best inn ever), and if you ever leave the military bases, I call bullspit on this claim. But then, maybe I'm just not an urbanite. :D
 
Lonewulf said:
I lived in Seoul for several years.

I just have to say that if you leave the Dragon Hill Lodge (best inn ever), and if you ever leave the military bases, I call bullspit on this claim. But then, maybe I'm just not an urbanite. :D
Click to expand...


True, I guess a lot of it is in what you like. I am kind of weird in that I find people and what they do fascinating. A city like Seoul is completely different from a city in the US or Europe, and it is interesting to see how Koreans define "urban" as opposed to say the Japanese. One thing though, I would never drive in any Korean city. Their traffic system was way too confusing for me.

That being said, I do live in a very rural area, and can appreciate nature in all its glory, so for me, the urban thing in neat in that it is a complete change of pace.
 
Hokulele said:
True, I guess a lot of it is in what you like. I am kind of weird in that I find people and what they do fascinating. A city like Seoul is completely different from a city in the US or Europe, and it is interesting to see how Koreans define "urban" as opposed to say the Japanese. One thing though, I would never drive in any Korean city. Their traffic system was way too confusing for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just a few tips on Korean traffic:

Go real fast, don't stop for no one, and red lights are just suggestions.

That being said, I do live in a very rural area, and can appreciate nature in all its glory, so for me, the urban thing in neat in that it is a complete change of pace.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I can see that.

The marketplaces were intriguing, to say the least, especially since you could actually haggle there. :D

Just avoid the places where they serve dogs. Heh.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
The only problem is that you base your theory on nothing and therefore have no experiences about sex in your vacuum, and you will fail to seduce others into your way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Even though his thread is in light-hearted fun, his theory is certainly not "based on nothing".

If Jesus really was an actual person, he was certainly conceived by sex. This is based on knowledge of human biology, history (they didn't have artificial insemination technology back then), and mythology (the virgin birth story is a common theme in myths, so there's no reason to take one of them more seriously than the others).
 
Lonewulf said:
And neither do you. And neither does anyone on this planet, nor anything.

The soul is fiction. It is not real.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a culture, modern or primitive, in the history of the planet that did not believe in the soul. And if you have I would have to believe that 99% of all cultures have believed in the soul.
 
Last edited:
Z said:
I think I covered this somewhere else, but basically in the 'primordial soup' stage, billions of pre-biotic protein cells were forming fairly rapidly; several million of them began guiding the formation of other proteins, and before long, millions of protolife began to form, completely by random process.

It is from these protolife forms that all life on Earth arose. Some of them are still with us, with some minor adjustments. Look inside your cells.

And as far as science is concerned, every living thing lacks a 'soul', because 'soul' remains an undefined quantity. The closest any of the religious hacks can come up with is 'that which living things has' - which makes the 'soul' nothing more than biological process.

Congratulations - you've as much soul as an amoeba.
Click to expand...


But even if you believe this "hypothesis" (that some famous scientists are critical of -- Hoyle and Yockey, to name two), don't you still believe that all this activity came together to create the "first" one celled organism. And from this first one celled organism came all the plant and animal life that has ever existed.

And my original question in this forum was what's harder to believe -- the last sentence of the previous paragraph or that Mary became pregnant without sex.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Have you ever heard of a culture, modern or primitive, in the history of the planet that did not believe in the soul. And if you have I would have to believe that 99% of all cultures have believed in the soul.
Click to expand...

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

Even if 100% of the world, every single person, believed in the soul (which, no they didn't, especially in ancient mesopotamian cultures), they can still be wrong.

There is no evidence for the soul. There never has been.

If a million people believe a stupid thing, that doesn't make it smart. It makes it a stupid thing that a million people believe.

The egyptians believed that they had souls, though, an immutable life force. When they died, their spirits would become birds. Also, everyone that they didn't like had no souls.

So if you're going to appeal to popularity, then why not claim that no one but the Egyptians had souls? That's an entire empire right there.

Also, do you have any evidence that souls turn into birds when you die? I'd like to see that. If not, then you're just picking and choosing amongst beliefs to try to support your preconceived notion that has nothing to do with reality.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Have you ever heard of a culture, modern or primitive, in the history of the planet that did not believe in the soul. And if you have I would have to believe that 99% of all cultures have believed in the soul.
Click to expand...

The fact that it would be assumed by cultures which lacked a full understanding of science and medicine is understandable. It is counter-intuitive to think that your mind is physical, since it does not seem to be directly associated with the body.

It is similarly reasonable to understand why many cultures believed the heart to be the seat of emotions and/or thought. The heart, as is now well established, is a muscle who's purpose is to circulate blood. But it beats all your life and stops at death, it is in the center of the body and it's rate can be associated with how you feel or if you are anxious or excited. It pumps blood, and if pierced would gush blood. Blood, of course, was believed to have similar spiritual significance. Of course, it's really water, salt, some proteins and cells who's primary job is to carry oxygen and co2.

Similarly, with limited knowledge and understanding of the world and of gravity and geography, it is perfectly understandable that most would assume the world is flat. The ground seems flat, right? If it's round and gravity pulls down, why don't people fall off the bottom?

Similarly the sun appears to be going around the earth, at first glance and with limited understanding of the solar system.

I could go on and on with examples of things which you might assume if you didn't know any better....
 
DOC said:
And my original question in this forum was what's harder to believe -- the last sentence of the previous paragraph or that Mary became pregnant without sex.
Click to expand...

It's possible that I could be persuaded to believe that a woman became pregnant without sex if the story claimed that it involved something like an ancient turkey baster or something semi-plausible like that.

But the idea that this big invisible dude in the sky did it because he's all obsessed with virginity and thinks if she had touched an impure dirty evil human wiener, that the product would be impure?

No... that's laughable... if not for the fact that it's a cornerstone of a major religion which has caused some very non-funny things to happen in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom