From the Internet Infidels' Forum thread, Argument from Design ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Do you know why you're here? Except that "mama evolution" tells you so? That would be pure speculation if, in fact everything "stems" from nothing.

Well, what I want to know is who got mama pregnant? Could it be that we're all bastards, of some "grand idea" we don't know about? Indeed, it's much easier to blame the woman in that respect isn't it? Why? Because she's the one who has the direct proof.

Of course if we understood that we do in fact have a father, maybe we would try and stop bastardizing everything else?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

OK, I give up--why did you link to a thread from 5-6 months ago, to which no one responded even then?

Bariyon, I must admit, every time I see the phrase, I fail to pity poor science for its lack of understanding. Just remember that your simple assertion does not mean that they do exist (by the same logic), and that all science can say, and does say, is that there is no credible evidence for them. You are quite right, that is not the same as saying they do not exist...but until I see reason to act otherwise, I think I'll aim my efforts toward the things that do stand up to critical examination.


Just to let everyone know, this was split from the Vision of Jesus Christ thread.

I found that kind of odd too. My own hypothesis is that he did it because he wanted to cuss at me/us and that was the only way he could figure out how to do it and maintain his illusion that he wasn't being rude.

But the link was kind of strange anyway. He replied to someone (we don't know who, because the quote was anonymous) and they seemed to be upset because in a universe without a God, everybody would be "bastards". Of course, this is a complete misuse of the word bastard, which simply means a child of unmarried parents. There should be no shame in being a bastard, after all, Jesus was one. You don't ostracize the child for the actions (or inactions) of the parents.

And yet quite often children are born of unwed mothers and don't know who the father is. So in that respect it can mean that which is unsupportable or, holds no accountability, that is until one rectifies things with the father. Also, if word had caught on that Jesus had no father (other than Joseph), do you think Mary would have lived to tell the tale? No.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I tell you what, Iacchy, if you want to discuss this, take it to another thread. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Bariyon's Vision of Jesus.

That's not entirely true. Albeit I agree that it is awfully petty. Why would both you and Mr. Cuttlefish bring it up if, not to faciliate some sort of reply?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Quit trying to shift the blame, Iacchy. You brought it up when you said:Before that point, the word "bastardize" had not appeared in this thread. This is twice in less than two days where you've blamed somebody else for something you said. Are you getting enough sleep?

And I "brought it up" because I actually read and respond to the things you say. What a concept, eh?

Not only were you first to use the word, you highlighted it with a link to a dead-end thread. I merely asked why that thread...and I still do not understand the reason for it. It could have been the case that you had a good reason for linking it, in which case my question would have been on topic. If my question is off topic, it is only because your linked thread was irrelevant.

Sheesh.

And now the thread is split...in case we have additional comments.

Funny, I would have thought that if you were going to take the trouble to split the thread, you might have taken the trouble to comment on at least one of the two threads about either 1) why you linked to that other thread (which was a perfectly legitimate question asked of you) or 2) why you accused others of the derailing which was demonstrably your own (which was, I guess, the reason for this split thread).

The accusation remains, without retraction or apology. I am frankly puzzled. Does splitting it off into a new thread make everything go away?

Yes, this happens all the time. But it doesn't mean that the children don't have a father, just that they don't know who he is. And of course, most things in the universe don't even have sex, so speaking of them as "mother and father" are pure anthropomorphism. Speaking of the entirity of existence as a "bastard" makes no sense, except perhaps as a bad metaphor.

Is God a bastard? We don't know who His parents are either.
That's quite a big piece of assumption on your part. Do you claim that the prvailing attitude in Israel 2000+ years ago was to kill unwed mothers? What leads you to believe this?

Oh, and yeah, lots of people knew that Joseph wasn't the father. (Hint: Three wise men, shepherds, and those angels waking everybody up with those "Hosannas".)

Well, I guess I got carried away yesterday (really) and wound up posting this thread to all these other forums. And yes, there are people who find this interesting enough to post to.

JREf Forums

ILovePhilosophy.com

HipForums.com

ChristianForums.com

I also started a take off from this at JREF Forums called Rationalizing Nothing which, I also posted here. So, can I explain why I do this, except that I do it from time to time? It's been at least a couple of months since the last time. One thing about this is that I found reference to it on someone else's site awhile back and found it kind of amusing, and it's kind of stuck with me ever since (and prompted me to refer to it in the other thread). It's too bad I can't find the other site though? ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchus,

You really get around, don't you? I gave up trying to "chase you all over the internet" (in one of gooze's famous limericks). Although I did have one lapse the other day in the Physics Forums. At least you've refrained from talking about
- - - - - if you get my drift.

My, you have been a busy little boy.

Well I looked at the threads on those forums and you're pretty much being hammered there too. On one of them, you appear to have somewhat of a reputation.

So is this a desperate quest to be taken seriously... somewhere?

This is pretty sad, Iacchy. Now you're carrying this topic over into the "works in progress" subforum, where others are not allowed to post. If you really didn't want responses until you had finished your thought, then you should have saved it a document on your computer untill you got it in final form. But by posting it in a place where nobody can reply, you have said the equivalent of "shut up and listen to me".

Fortunately, clever bastards that we are, we can work around your sneakiness.
Are we? I'm not. Diggy is not. Who is this "we" that you are talking about. You and your straw man?
If something cannot come from nothing, then God cannot exist (by your logic). If a thing can "always exist", then why cannot reality always exist, but without God?

Neither of us know how things began. You invent a God to explain it. I simply say, "I don't know".

Howlingly incorrect. How you made the tremendous leap of faith from "we exist" to "who is the father?" a trick that many long-jumpers would like to learn. I realize that you think you have hit on some marvelously clever way of looking at things (or you wouldn't have posted it to five different fora), but I'm afraid your blinding flash of insight is not very insightful. Just blind.
You present rational and subjective as two "sides". They are not. Everything you do is subjective, but that does not mean it cannot also be rational. But I get your drift, and it is a good point that we should use rationality to evaluate our subjective observations. When do you plan to start?
I see you've dipped into your vat of inappropriate metaphors again. However, I highly approve of the idea of using rationality and critical thinking to assess one's positions. Obfuscation is the enemy of clarity. Misdirection diverts us from what we are trying to examine. Redefining terms to non-standard definitions or switching definitions in the middle of a discussion prevents us from understanding each other. Ignoring input from other sources limits what we can learn.

Why? It's not altogether "different" than the original post here.

No, just food for thought. In fact maybe that's what part of the problem is, some of us are so busy criticizing, that we don't take the time to actually think about what we're criticizing. Also, rather than try and pick apart every single last detail, you might want to try and look at it in terms of the general idea, which is really all I'm trying to convey.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'll just have to assume that you meant something by that sentence fragment, though I can't be sure what.
Or perhaps it is that some of us are so busy preaching that they don't take the time to actually think about the things they are preaching.

I think about the things you say, Iacchy. I respond to them in detail, which is much more than you do for my posts or for Diggy's. Who is it, then, that is not listening?
I have looked at the general idea. I've commented on it many times. It is you who diverts the discussion of the "general idea" into endless minutae, each time you get called on a major flaw in your "general idea".

I understand what you are saying, Iacchy, I simply disagree with it, and I tell you why. It appears you do not wish to hear the voices of disagreement.

Holy crap, how long have I been away?

Iacchus, I would love to comment on the post you placed where we cannot comment...oh well...

Gooze--you go, girl! (but...I have little left to say after you do such a thoroough job!)

Iacchus (again) so...do all these other places like it when you blow dandelion parachutes in their lawns? Just curious...

Can you give me a brief summary, or do you have to pick it to pieces? How could you expect me to further things along with my parts strewn all over the pavement?

Do they still work with dead bodies in anatomy class?

Some places are more picky than others, and I don't do it all the time. I do admit though, that I got a bit carried away yesterday.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Sound familiar? This was the birth of the Jewish race by the way (the whole chapter tells the story), and perhaps suggests why so much emphasis was placed on who the mother was. Which again seems to repeat itself with the birth of Jesus. So it was always up to the woman to bear the burden of proof.

So apparently this tradition (similarly) was continued unto Jesus' day.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?