Gee...thanks, I think.I am reminded--though I don't quite know why--of a conversation I had, over 20 years ago, with a cousin of mine (who is now a faith-healer). She had recently been stung by a wasp, and was wondering "what is the purpose of a wasp? What function do they serve? I mean, bees give us honey, but what does a wasp do?" The underlying assumption was that all organisms have a purpose, and the subtle underlying underlying assumption was that this purpose was ultimately to serve Man. My answer to her was "the purpose of a wasp is to make baby wasps. Same purpose as any other plant or animal. They don't have to serve us, or any recognisable purpose, they just have to have been successful at reproducing."

Survival of the fittest...how that phrase has been mis-used...a strong, powerful man who lives to be 100, but has no children, is not "fit" in the darwinian sense. A weakling who dies at 20 after fathering a couple of kids (who themselves successfully have children) is much more fit.I agree. I find it amusing that some folk (in my experience, religious folk, but my experience may not be typical) think that the message of evolution (pronounced evilution) is to compete, lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder...whatever it takes to get your genes to the next generation. They don't realise that cooperation, peace, and love have been pretty darned successful reproductive strategies themselves.

Apollyon! You know, in reference to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants?

Excerpt from The Advent of Dionysus, chapter 6 ...

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

So anyway, Goozeberry, as I was saying...

It dumbfounds me that something as simple, yet elegant, as natural selection, something with so much evidence backing it up, something so parsimonious yet complete, is discarded in favor of elaborate, fantastical webs of meaning (to be said with deep, profound voice), which are inferred from next to nothing, have no evidence, but allow us to maintain a tenuous grasp on the belief that we are somehow special, that the laws, and final mortality, of nature do not apply to us. You are right, more people should read Dawkins. And Gould. And maybe some Sagan. All of these are very approachable, in my opinion.

Well, let's not forget that things have their spiritual correspondences as well.

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

"As well"? Sorry, there is no spiritual correspondence here. I am very sorry you were able to read the first 4 posts of this thread and still think a spiritual correspondence has any place in this. It shows the lengths you will go to to shoehorn your world-view into places it has no business being.

Well, here's another correspondence regarding bees and wasps. Perhaps you can even draw the correlation yourself?

From the thread, Inquiry about Roy Masters ...

Do you mean the part about the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants and its reference to Revelation 9? Or, the part where I burned the six or seven books I had of Roy Masters and poured the ashes out in back of the house where a yellow jackets nest popped up? Yes, that actually happened.

You also need to understand that a wasp isn't altogether different from a honey bee, and in that sense the honey bee would represent The Church, in the truest sense, and the wasp that which is false and hence maligned.

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

Wow...hey...I really do see a pattern emerging!!!! It's so obvious now! The pattern is...you will latch on to the flimsiest thing which can be forcibly mauled into agreement with your philosophy, then consider that to be "evidence" on par with the best science can provide! Even if it means ignoring all of science to do it! See! I do see a pattern!

(as an aside, I laughed aloud to read "a wasp isn't altogether different from a honey bee"...first off, which species of wasp? From just one of many websites you could check, we find the following:There are about 19,000 known species of bee, a similar number of species of wasps and a good many more of each that we have yet to discover and catalogue.
Many of these insects are solitary in habit, but some of them are social and live in colonies varying in size from a few dozen up to many thousands. All in all, we humans are outnumbered by bees on this planet by an estimated 20,000 to 1. There are also many thousands of other insects that are equipped with stings, yet incidence of any insect stinging a human being are very rare. Bees are in fact very gentle creatures if left undisturbed. Wow...and if you read the whole site, it won't mention correspondences at all. The truth about bees and wasps is much more wonderful than this tripe you are making up. Any two species of wasp are as alike as humans and orangutans--wasps and bees are as alike as humans and, say, lemurs. Do you still maintain that they are not altogether different?)

Bees and wasps are much more similar than they are dissimilar. Besides, I am not the one who brought it up. While the essential differences that do exist, are the very ones I used to highlight my analogy, so you can't fault me in that respect. And yes, everything does happen for a reason.

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

You are the one who brought up the similarity. I brought up that they do not exist to fit my cousin's idea of everything serving Man, or (now) your idea of everything happening for a reason. It was you who made more of it...and I say "made more" rather than "recognised more", because everything you say about them has been the product of your imagination, not of reality.Oh? Could you elucidate what those "essential differences" are? And do you mean differences between the thousands of different species of wasps? Between the thousands of species of bees? Or just between "bees" and "wasps", a phrasing which implies all wasps are the same, all bees are the same. (oh, right, rules of grammar...never mind.)Would you care to explain how this is not circular? I have pointed out, in more than a couple of threads, how similar things you have said have been circular in logic, and thus meaningless. Perhaps this time is different; maybe you read about circularity and are writing something different this time. I don't know, I'm not god, or it, or whatever, all I can do is explain circularity several ways and include a link to another site for you to read...so tell us, Iacchus, how is your claim not circular?

Oh yeah, while speaking of bees and wasps in the same breath huh? It's too bad I didn't miss that one huh?

Yes, and here she is asking what purpose they serve, almost as if, yes, everything happened for a specific reason. Hmm ...

While here's what I just got through posting on the other thread ...

Yeah, and come to find out that this whole theory that we use to describe our existence (any theory really) is entirely circular. Wow!

And yet I think it was you who mentioned the fact that bees were gentle (hmm, would that be all bees?) and didn't sting unless provoked.

Cause-and-effect dictates there's a reason for everything.

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

Even if this weren't incorrect about there being a cause for everything, you are once again confusing definitions.

The "reason" that cause-and-effect suggests is simply the cause. Gravity is the reason a raindrop falls. The "reason" that you are shifting this meaning to suggests a "plan". God reasoned that this place needed rain.

The two definitions are at odds with each other. It is a pity that we cannot have separate definitions for the two concepts, but then, we already have more words than anyone can handle, so we have to make a single word do double or multiple duty.

But it is not hard to see when you are shifting definitions in mid-stream, which is great for puns, but not for intelligent discussions. It fools only a very few people, mainly those for whom intelligence is painful. That's right. Those for whom smarts smarts.

Shifting the blame huh?

How about this one? God reasoned that everything should happen as a matter of course, so as not to give His little secret away.

No, all this implies is there's an original cause or intent, versus the apparent lack thereof. Either way, the outcome is still contingent upon the reason.

All depends on whether you can accept the Universe was put here intentionally or not. In fact there are too many laws in effect -- effect? ... huh, what? -- to suggest otherwise.

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

So, the "same breath" you speak of is that my cousin referred to both creatures. There was no other connection made in my post. It could just as easily have been cows she referred to--it would not have made a difference to my example, but a huge difference to yours. Again, you are making up the connection yourself."any theory really"? No. Not at all. Your understanding of circularity is lacking. For your own benefit, and for the benefit of any who read your ideas, you really should review that circularity link, or perhaps any of a number of other sites or books that could help you.That was a quote from the link I used. Do you seriously want to challenge that person's expertise? Or would you rather take the quote in context, and remember the last two words of it. No, even your silly apologetics link says (then conveniently ignores) that "cause and effect" defines two sets of events which are linked in a manner that one is the result of the other. These two sets, however, are not exhaustive. Some things happen without causing other things to happen. Some things happen without being caused. Start paying attention to the things you read.

Surely even you can understand the vast difference of meaning between "cause" and "intend". In a murder trial, it might mean the difference between manslaughter and a death sentence. In the origin of the universe, it is the difference between a cosmic accident and a planned creation. Unless, of course, you are trying to claim that God created the universe, but did so accidentally.

What do you mean by cosmic accident? That would imply that the Universe already exists. How can the Universe accidentally create itself? Besides, there's no such thing as an accident. Unless of course you believe in the laws of happenstance.

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

Utterly without meaning. Please reply to what Gooze actually said.

Can you build house upon sand without a foundation? Well, I suppose it's possible, except you'll likely have to rebuild it everyday. In which case I ask, does meaning exist in the absolute sense? In which case the answer is yes.

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

The process of natural selection is constantly rebuilding our world, Iacchus...So you may have stumbled upon a truth...meaning does not exist in the absolute sense (which you have never adequately explained), and our existence, built on sand, changes constantly.

"So apparently, even with clear examples provided, you cannot tell the difference between the words. I guess I overestimated you, Iacchy. I feel like such a schmuck.

I know full well what the difference between the words mean. Where the one implies determinism the other implies free will. However, the world does not function from the standpoint of one or the other, but both. While here free will is more a matter of "first cause" (God in other words) and determinism is what extends from it. And the whole world is an interaction between "life" and its "effects."

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