| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Euan Troup" |
| Date: |
01 May 2005 07:26:11 AM |
| Object: |
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a giant
bug?
--
...mostly harmless.
.
|
|
| User: "Tristan Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 07:56:05 AM |
|
|
Greetings.
In article <slrnd79in5.5c4.etroup@etranger.localdomain>, Euan Troup wrote:
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a giant
bug?
Why would a 404 prove that God is a giant insect?
Or did you perhaps mean to type
<http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.html>? ;)
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Vreeland" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 09:01:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 14:56:05 +0200, Tristan Miller
<psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
Greetings.
In article <slrnd79in5.5c4.etroup@etranger.localdomain>, Euan Troup wrote:
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a giant
bug?
Why would a 404 prove that God is a giant insect?
Or did you perhaps mean to type
<http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.html>? ;)
Regards,
Tristan
how does Mt. Rushmore prove ID?
Okay, I get it. "Because they are designed." That's stupid, we know
how they were designed and built. How was the ant nebula designed and
built?
__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 09:43:21 AM |
|
|
"On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:01:33 -0400, in article
<j4o971pmac71d56np63kh8i1f6cucr8imu@4ax.com>, John Vreeland stated..."
On Sun, 01 May 2005 14:56:05 +0200, Tristan Miller
<psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
Greetings.
In article <slrnd79in5.5c4.etroup@etranger.localdomain>, Euan Troup wrote:
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a giant
bug?
Why would a 404 prove that God is a giant insect?
Or did you perhaps mean to type
<http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.html>? ;)
Regards,
Tristan
how does Mt. Rushmore prove ID?
Okay, I get it. "Because they are designed." That's stupid, we know
how they were designed and built. How was the ant nebula designed and
built?
The problem with arguing from an analogy is that no analogy is
perfect.
The problem with arguing from design is that, to accept it, you
have to believe that *nothing* about the analogy is applicable to
the issue at hand.
We know that, however Mt. Rushmore was designed, it was designed
using *some* materials and methods. We might (to allow the ID-ers
as much as possible) not have any idea about the materials and
methods, but we know that there were some. Creation by an all-
powerful Being, however, by its very nature, is not restricted by
materials and methods.
And we know that, in every example of design that has ever been
given -- and, I dare say, this is what "design" means -- that a
design is a solution to a problem. Once again (to allow the ID-ers
all that is possible), we might not know what the problem is, but
there is a problem. However, if we're speaking of a "designer"
which is powerful enough to change the laws of physics, this is a
designer who, presumably, would find it a piece of cake to make
life without "fine-tuning", life which was not carbon-based, life
not dependent upon water or the earth.
"Design", therefore, points to a very limited "designer".
Some people are comfortable with having a "designer" which is
just another finite being. That is all -- even granting the
soundness of the analogy -- that the argument from design can
possibly point to.
It should give considerable pause to monotheists when they
realize that the argument from design is pointing to a second-rank
being (a creature) as deserving all of this attention. Do people
really want to think that they are -- rather than creatures of
God -- the product of some "demiurge"?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Enigmatic One" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 04:03:04 PM |
|
|
TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:d52pu902s21@drn.newsguy.com:
Some people are comfortable with having a "designer" which is
just another finite being. That is all -- even granting the
soundness of the analogy -- that the argument from design can
possibly point to.
It should give considerable pause to monotheists when they
realize that the argument from design is pointing to a second-rank
being (a creature) as deserving all of this attention. Do people
really want to think that they are -- rather than creatures of
God -- the product of some "demiurge"?
Why not?
If nature points to any sort of creator, it points towards a creator that
is not omnipotent, omniscent, or omnibenevolent. Fits rather well with,
say, Anishinaabe (Chippewa in US, Ojibwa in Canada) creation myths.
(Familiar to me as, well, I am.) I could also buy a creation by comittee.
Of course, I see no scientific value in assuming or exploring such.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Vreeland" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
02 May 2005 10:36:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:03:04 GMT, The Enigmatic One
<try@again.spammers> wrote:
TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:d52pu902s21@drn.newsguy.com:
Some people are comfortable with having a "designer" which is
just another finite being. That is all -- even granting the
soundness of the analogy -- that the argument from design can
possibly point to.
It should give considerable pause to monotheists when they
realize that the argument from design is pointing to a second-rank
being (a creature) as deserving all of this attention. Do people
really want to think that they are -- rather than creatures of
God -- the product of some "demiurge"?
Why not?
If nature points to any sort of creator, it points towards a creator that
is not omnipotent, omniscent, or omnibenevolent. Fits rather well with,
say, Anishinaabe (Chippewa in US, Ojibwa in Canada) creation myths.
(Familiar to me as, well, I am.) I could also buy a creation by comittee.
Of course, I see no scientific value in assuming or exploring such.
-Tim
I a similar vein, I was never sure what to make of a "jealous god" who
demanded to be worshipped. A perfect God is surely inscrutable, but
why does He go out of his way to sound petty? Sometimes reading the
bible gives me the feeling that I am the unfortunate pet of a small,
sociopath child. The best you can hope for is to be left alone.
__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Weldon" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
02 May 2005 04:56:37 PM |
|
|
"John Vreeland" <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fphc71lo4sctghcnnm7hukdjga6sh5d4l2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:03:04 GMT, The Enigmatic One
<try@again.spammers> wrote:
TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:d52pu902s21@drn.newsguy.com:
Some people are comfortable with having a "designer" which is
just another finite being. That is all -- even granting the
soundness of the analogy -- that the argument from design can
possibly point to.
It should give considerable pause to monotheists when they
realize that the argument from design is pointing to a second-rank
being (a creature) as deserving all of this attention. Do people
really want to think that they are -- rather than creatures of
God -- the product of some "demiurge"?
Why not?
If nature points to any sort of creator, it points towards a creator that
is not omnipotent, omniscent, or omnibenevolent. Fits rather well with,
say, Anishinaabe (Chippewa in US, Ojibwa in Canada) creation myths.
(Familiar to me as, well, I am.) I could also buy a creation by comittee.
Of course, I see no scientific value in assuming or exploring such.
-Tim
I a similar vein, I was never sure what to make of a "jealous god" who
demanded to be worshipped. A perfect God is surely inscrutable, but
why does He go out of his way to sound petty? Sometimes reading the
bible gives me the feeling that I am the unfortunate pet of a small,
sociopath child. The best you can hope for is to be left alone.
__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.
You know, that would make a good plot for a star trek episode.
Robert Weldon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Enigmatic One" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
02 May 2005 07:53:29 PM |
|
|
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fphc71lo4sctghcnnm7hukdjga6sh5d4l2@4ax.com:
I a similar vein, I was never sure what to make of a "jealous god" who
demanded to be worshipped. A perfect God is surely inscrutable, but
why does He go out of his way to sound petty? Sometimes reading the
bible gives me the feeling that I am the unfortunate pet of a small,
sociopath child. The best you can hope for is to be left alone.
Yup.
If you read some Christian-influenced writings from soon after the
protestant reformation you'll find a relationship with the christian god
that, in many ways, resembles that between an abused and his or her abuser.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
02 May 2005 11:54:48 PM |
|
|
The Enigmatic One wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fphc71lo4sctghcnnm7hukdjga6sh5d4l2@4ax.com:
I a similar vein, I was never sure what to make of a "jealous god" who
demanded to be worshipped. A perfect God is surely inscrutable, but
why does He go out of his way to sound petty? Sometimes reading the
bible gives me the feeling that I am the unfortunate pet of a small,
sociopath child. The best you can hope for is to be left alone.
Yup.
If you read some Christian-influenced writings from soon after the
protestant reformation you'll find a relationship with the christian god
that, in many ways, resembles that between an abused and his or her abuser.
Calvin's writing always made me feel like this.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Enigmatic One" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
04 May 2005 03:38:58 PM |
|
|
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in
news:suDde.690069$w62.126887@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
The Enigmatic One wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fphc71lo4sctghcnnm7hukdjga6sh5d4l2@4ax.com:
If you read some Christian-influenced writings from soon after the
protestant reformation you'll find a relationship with the christian
god that, in many ways, resembles that between an abused and his or
her abuser.
Calvin's writing always made me feel like this.
Sure. One I was specifically thinking about was Anne Bradstreet, 17th
century American poet--Calvinist-influenced puritan of course.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 08:49:38 AM |
|
|
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in
news:5506874.IPjeMdN6yT@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET:
Greetings.
In article <slrnd79in5.5c4.etroup@etranger.localdomain>, Euan Troup
wrote:
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a
giant bug?
Why would a 404 prove that God is a giant insect?
Is not a 404 error a "bug"?
Or did you perhaps mean to type
<http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.html>? ;)
What? You expect the Emmy-winning journalist Kent Brockman to
get such petty details correct? D'oh!
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
They win just by being on the same platform."
- Bob Park
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kari Tikkanen" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 04:57:34 PM |
|
|
Interpretation ! It's up to interpretation !
The deceptive name was given when telescopes were much poorer and
smaller.
Or inventor was very shy..
To me that familiar high quality pic has allways reminded
con..
...(blushing)..
....
con..
...
...some kind of contraceptive things..
.. i dont know sure..
perhaps couple used..mixed in space.. as left stand stil..?
...(even more blushing red)..
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
02 May 2005 01:44:24 AM |
|
|
Kari Tikkanen wrote:
Interpretation ! It's up to interpretation !
The deceptive name was given when telescopes were much poorer and
smaller.
Or inventor was very shy..
To me that familiar high quality pic has allways reminded
con..
..(blushing)..
...
con..
..
..some kind of contraceptive things..
. i dont know sure..
perhaps couple used..mixed in space.. as left stand stil..?
..(even more blushing red)..
I can see you really are in the familial way. so you are knowledgeable.
josephus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Cleveland" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 02:47:18 PM |
|
|
On 1 May 2005 12:26:11 GMT, Euan Troup <etroup@etranger.localdomain>
wrote:
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a giant
bug?
There seem to be bugs everywhere.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005/12/images/b/formats/web_print.jpg
This looks like a chironomid pupae (midge) to me. And its getting
ready to emerge!
Haldane was right but obviously He likes other bugs in addition to
beetles.
g.c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords |
01 May 2005 03:01:06 PM |
|
|
George Cleveland wrote:
On 1 May 2005 12:26:11 GMT, Euan Troup <etroup@etranger.localdomain>
wrote:
If Mount Rushmore proves that ID is true does
_this_ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050501.htm mean god is a giant
bug?
There seem to be bugs everywhere.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005/12/images/b/formats/web_print.jpg
This looks like a chironomid pupae (midge) to me. And its getting
ready to emerge!
Nah. It's a Fyarl Demon.
http://www.action-figure.com/Article9966.html
Haldane was right but obviously He likes other bugs in addition to
beetles.
g.c.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
