Sorry, mhaze. My answer to one of your mendacious assertions was incorrect. Let's try again, shall we?

<<How long has it been since you’ve resorted to the fallacy rule-book?>>

The answer to this question is that I have never 'resorted' to pointing out a fallacy. I have only ever pointed out a fallacy when one was committed. You just don't like it when I point them out because I usually point them out to discredit claims that you would otherwise agree with. Am I right?

I have challenged you in the past to provide an example of myself misapplying a fallacy, or misusing this 'Fallacy List' (again, capitals) of which you speak, and you have so far come up with precisely squat.

Is it any wonder why?

I might get around to responding to your comments regarding the extent to which Christianity was necessary for Western civilisation to emerge, if I can muster the enthusiasm and find the time. However, that may be difficult since there's a lot of assertions there and my primary concern is with whether the claims within Christianity are true or not. Whether they were accidentally beneficial (and it would have to have been by accident, as even a non-believer such as yourself would have to admit) is a distant second to that.

In the meantime, I'd like to point out the fact that even if one of your claims (regarding the role Christianity playing in the rise of Western civilisation) were correct, to assert that therefore it is necessary in the future, is to commit the Genetic fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

<<How long has it been since you’ve resorted [sic] to the fallacy rule-book?>>

0:00.

Is it possible that, in many societies, the term "virgin" simply meant a woman who had not become pregnant, or had any children ? After all, women didn't go around displaying their intact hymens (if there are such things), so who is to know ? Legend, and a multitude of dirty jokes, suggest that it is possible to re-create a hymen anyway.

In other words, was a "virgin" a "maiden", a woman without children yet, and no sign of being pregnant ? i.e. marriageable ?

That might solve a bit of confusion.

Joe

Oh, would you look at that, mhaze:

“How could you know that a god, which has been disproven, exists when it’s been disproven to exist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#342273)

A comment of mine to Not_Now.Soon a while back.

So much for needing to re-frame the debate.

--

Joe,

'Virgin' was a mistranslation. It was originally the 'young' Mary, but the early Church wanted a 'pure' woman to birth the son of God.

'Virgin' was also mistranslated in the Qur’an. Islamic martyrs are are going to be bittlerly disappointed when they are handed a fist-full of raisins.

AJ,

Allah ! Not bloody raisins again !

Joe

An interesting take there TTBN you claim all atheists have their own God or God's, the most dangerous being the God of self-belief - if we don't have belief in ourselves, then who're we to believe in, God? Sounds cyclical to me.

Dear Joe, They are the raisin d'etre. One of the products of western Christian civilisation is Nazi Germany. They fought against atheistic Soviet Russia with support of the German Christian churches. Of course, after the German attack Stalin called on the Russian Orthodox Church for support, and the support was there. Whether for good or for ill the Christian churches generally support the government.