This is a very poor analogy. It makes no sense. You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see. On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.
Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera
does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted. As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability. What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.
So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses. However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response.
So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point.
Yeah, I bet you feel your own religion is something special. I also bet that so do everyone else that has such strong belief. Quite a bit of people can say that their beliefs are more than opinions and have been proven to be true, by either logic or experience or both. The trouble is that logic can be flawed and experiences about these things tend to be quite difficult to verify. Also, it is suspicious to me how many religions tend to have their own proving pieces of evidence and logics stating that the have the right God and right way to serve him.
...
Everybody has opinions, and everybody feels strongly about them to some degree. But doesn't everybody feel strongly about facts too? How would you respond if Big Brother came along and tried to convince you that 2 + 2 = 5? Given that facts and opinions provoke similar responses in their defense, it can be hard to tell them apart.
But the difference exists. Suppose that you and your friend stayed up late one night playing video games, and the next morning you read that he was arrested on suspicion of a murder committed at that exact same time. You know he couldn't possibly have committed that murder, since you were with him. Even if all the evidence seemed to point to his guilt, wouldn't you vigorously defend your friend?
It's the same with me. I was
there when God did something, so I have firsthand experience. And admittedly, up until then part (not all) of Christianity was theoretical, or at least disconnected, from what I saw in my day-to-day experience. But God stepping in with a miraculous healing was the keystone that completed the arch.
the one right turbo-belief of über-god
Titled.
if some priest tells me that god exists and that jesus died for our sins, what can i do? all i have is his word and a book.
A valid question. I guess the only thing you can do is ask God to prove it to you. I know it sounds lame, but it's ultimately what has to happen.
No; rationality is morally neutral. It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.
Then why are you trying to justify such a ludicrous premise with it?
What with what - rape with rationality? If it's ludicrous, that only proves that it can be used incorrectly as well as correctly.
Well, i think you need to find and read a book, then.
Interesting. Perhaps we could each recommend a book to each other?
(And no, I don't mean the Bible - not yet, anyway.
)
It's inherently dangerous, I think, to just assume rape is some default behaviour rather than a rare aberration.
Maybe so. And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity.
What if I said I have seen a few things in my time myself that I found questionable?
Mostly though, through friends I'd consider fairly intelligent and trustworthy, have heard some seemingly unbelievable tales as well.
My point is, you can't just assume that 1) your the only one in the world that sees and experiences things, and 2) that your way / friends way of viewing things are the most logical and most correct outcomes.
Oh, I wouldn't necessarily disbelieve you. I've seen plenty of strange things as well - the miraculous healing was more akin to a linchpin or keystone than a trump card.
But I would say (and again, I guess I can't help but say it given my perspective) that God was responsible for those unexplainable things, even if they didn't happen in a God-related context.
I would say the same back at you. (minus the part prevented seeing by spiritual forces, - 
was that incinuating the devil was stopping me from seeing it -assume he exists even? o.O ) That you have a very one sighted view, and that you are the blind one without exposure to other religeons, ideals, and lives. You've simply accepted the one you've grown up with, assumedly told all your life that your belief was the right one, and that any other interpretation of the world is most likely wrong, and possibly influenced by the devil.
You're assuming that I'm just parrotting what I've been told. Not true - as I've said, I've reached this point through experience. And again, certain beliefs, like the occurrance of present-day miracles, I've only arrived at based on what I've seen in the past year or two.
Part of the problem, which unfortunately can't be helped here, is that you're reading my posts here and now and you didn't have a chance to interview me five years ago.
And I don't automatically assume that any belief which doesn't fit within my rigid framework is wrong. In fact, we're supposed to accept correction humbly and with an open mind. I've been won over to an opposing viewpoint many times before, in religion and elsewhere. But
this particular thing is a core principle.
