And some people say there's no God..........

[Robibnikoff]

That's nice, deary.

Now, f*ck off, you pompous piece of shit.

[655321]

Oooooh... "far beyond." Over the rainbow, I presume.

(Sigh)

Hand-waving noted.

Since when? This "Almighty alpha and omega" must then have an even

*more* "fantastic design" than that which he/she/it/they designed!

Uh-oh, someone is picking up a clump of straw and giving it humanoid form...

And differing aesthetic sensibilities apply exactly how?

655321

[Rev. Karl E. Taylor]

Then, who designed the designer?

[655321]

Posted to: alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian, rec.gardens

One of these things is not like the others....

655321

[Brian E. Clark]

What ever happened to "finders keepers"?

[Chris Johnson]

Too bad you wouldn't answer the replies. Again: assuming a designer, how do you derive Christian theology?

Acknowledging paintings as smearings on canvas does not detract from their beauty.

[Brian E. Clark]

Weren't you reading closely? Try again:

So here we have a creature, with a brain maybe the size of a grain of

Yahweh wuz here! Rock 'n roll 4ever! 2006

sand, and likely less than a year old, building something any civil engineer would show with great pride.

[Chris Johnson]

Does he follow a specific creed, or does he believe more in something like Spinoza's god?

[Robibnikoff]

Bwahaha! :)

[Uncle Vic]

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Victor Faraday ( [e-mail]) made the light shine upon us with this:

One must believe something is a design before he can designate a designer. Take the human body, for example. Perfect in every way. Or is it? If we were designed, why did the designer build in a self-destruct module known as the appendix, which serves no purpose other than to become inflamed and destroy us? And what can be said of a designer whose design fails during the critical stage of reproduction? A designer (described by worshipers as perfect in every way) that allows horrible birth defects to happen is either a monster, or a figment of your imagination.

[Cary Kittrell]

And beyond that, the Intelligent Design enthusiast needs to justify a moral Designer who creates the various astonishingly clever mechanisms which allow organisms to inflict endless misery and death on humanity.

Such examples are endless, but my favorite is the trypanosome which causes malaria. This organism sports a mechanism whereby it continually shuffles the proteins on its cell surface, thereby causing the human immune system to be forever one step behind, playing an endless futile game of catch-up. This amazingly simple and elegant Design feature has caused the death of countless millions.

As I say, such examples of intricate, elegant, and seemingly malevolent Design can be multiplied endlessly; parasitology alone provides many more. It's hard to see any way out of this dilemma for the ID'er. I suppose some possible justifications might be:

-- the Designer didn't create THOSE bits, subsequent evolution did. -- the Designer's evil twin, the Malicious Designer, got to muck about in the Workshop. -- humans deserve it, so what's the problem here? -- the Designer's ways are mysterious indeed. -- any other suggestions?

-- cary

[Jangchub]

I do not mean to offend any Christians, but I am a Buddhist practitioner and as a Buddhist I do not believe in god. There is no creator in Buddhism. Everything derives from the last moment of itself, moment by moment.

If there was a creator, it would be ourselves. Our parents don't create us, they give us our bodies, but the mind moves in and out of vessels when the bodies they occupy die. In Buddhism, everybody dies, but nobody is dead.

[John Baker]

From "Patriot University?"

Science is based on facts as far as we can know them. Religion is based on superstition and wishful thinking.

Your lack of comprehension is not evidence for a god.

And you remind me of gullible marks who can be fooled into seeing miscellaneous smearings of paint on canvas (Jackson Pollock, anyone?) as "priceless works of art."

Idiot.

[Jangchub]

Again I will bring up my own religious belief; I am a Buddhist practitioner in the Gelugpa tradition, Mahayana sect, the Greater Scope. Much of Buddhism is scientific. You cannot have the first thing. It's nice to think god created the original chicken, but atheists do not believe in that.

It's a harder thing to buy for YOU, but for me it makes perfect sense. I don't like being called "these atheist types" because I don't go off saying a harsh word about your beliefs. I assure you, I grew up in NYC, I am by no stretch of the imagination a hayseed, and I've stood in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and thought, look at that miscellaneous smearing of paint on a canvas. It doesn't make me ignorant to see art the way I see it. It's way too subjective, so this is just another generalization you are making.

[Jangchub]

Good question and makes the point that there was no FIRST designer. Everything comes directly from the previous moment of itself. In Buddhists terms it's called Mind Stream, or Mental Continuum. It's pure mind and encompasses everything. WE are the creators of our world, each of our worlds.

[Uncle Vic]

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Cary Kittrell ( [e-mail]) made the light shine upon us with this:

My father had malaria, picked it up in the South Pacific during WW2. Incurable. He didn't die of it, but he was always cold. He'd wear a thick sweater in the desert in the summertime. He had to sell our house near the beach to buy one about 20 miles inland because he couldn't take the cold. I don't recall ever seeing his bare arms or legs. Some design, eh?

[Witziges Rätsel]

Can you present any evidence that everything comes from the previous moment of itself? Can you present any evidence that we are creators of our world(s)? Aren't you simply saying people imagine everything?

[Tough Tonto]

Was there a companion video demonstrating the cucumber's design and fit in relation to girls? What a clever old perv that "creator" is!

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

oh please, that's not evidence of god, but show me a water stain in the shape of the virgin mary, or jesus's likeness on a slice of bread, now there's a real honest to goodness all-powerful sky pixie for you.

[Sheikh Yapeter]

Careful, or you will have Virgil and Sniper and friends on your case for showing too much sarcasm towards their hypothetical ('might be') sky pixie.

Now we've got Free Lunch joining them in arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) is false, then denying that is what he is arguing! Go figure.