Why Did God Make Tapeworms to Live in the Bodies

[mondo joe]

of kittens, hungry children and even lambie pies?

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. So THAT's what's wrong with my children.

I've been telling them they need to choose between food and shelter because I can no longer afford to provide them with both.

[ret5hd]

2. it's a test of your faith, you heathen doubter!

[Kraklen]

3. Why does God have a penis?

Men are created in God's image, therefore He has a penis.

What does he use it for?

[mondo joe]

4. But does he have nipples?

[Kraklen]

6. Of course he does.

Because men have nipples.

[SoCalDem]

5. He paints with it?

:)

[Deja Q]

9. Well, if he created the heavens & earth in 7 days, where's Mrs God?

:scared:

[Kraklen]

11. The concept of a "Mrs. God" is blasphemous.

Currently theological thought is stuck on the question, "is God so well hung that he can penetrate his own anus."

Men are created in God's imagine, and they, for the most part, can't. But if you say God can't, then God isn't all powerful. But He is all powerful.

It also brings up the question, is God a top or a bottom?

[MsTryska]

29. well duh....

where the hell do you think rain comes from?!

[mainer]

7. Why did God make mosquitoes to kill a million people every year

with malaria?

Come to think of it, why did god make malaria?

why did god give us brains to become scientists if we're not supposed to use them?

[chaumont58]

14. You beat me to the question

Why did God make mosquitoes to live anywhere?

[patcox2]

15. Everyone is so self-centered, what about the mosquitos?

Its as if, for some mystical, religious reason, you think your life is worth more than the millions of parasites who live off you, even now.

Whatever gave you guys that idea? Do they not have a right to live? You are allowed to eat animals that are clearly conscious and aware, cows and such, yet you deny the mosquito its right to a little blood? You deny the microbes their right to live and reproduce?

You'd think you believed the world was created for your sole enjoyment.

[chaumont58]

27. I posed this question of a religious friend, and she replied....

so swallows can have something to eat!

I don't know for sure if she was serious or not.

[mondo joe]

18. Because god thought it would be lovely to see children die of

mosquito borne disease, of course.

[mzmolly]

59. Your arguing against the fundi christo fascist interpretation of "God."

Perhaps Free Republic would be a better place to take such questions?

[patcox2]

8. He made our bodies for the tapeworms to live in, of course.

Oh how the lightweight intellectuals of our culture, especially Twain and Vonnegut, act so silly about this stuff. Its like they think they have proven God cannot exist because if he did, nothing bad would ever happen to anybody.

All they have proven is that they are whiners and that they have the wrong conception of the nature of God, apparently wanting God to be a big huge daddy in the sky who will make sure nothing bad ever happens to us.

[mondo joe]

10. So God is a Tapeworm Who Created Us to Deliver Food

to its likenesses?

[patcox2]

13. Of course not.

But existence is wonderful, isn't it? Tapeworms are beautiful. Everyone dies, everyone must at some time die. Is there a logical proof for the proposition that, when it comes to a time to die, "later" is always an better time? And what is time? Is our perception of it the only true perception of time? Is its apparent linearity really only an attribute of our perception of it? From another perspective, is the shorter life qualitiatively different than the longer life?

Blake said that only by opening up the doors of perception can we see that the world is beautiful, that it is paradise, that what we perceive as tragedy and pain is so only because of our limited perceptions.

So did the film "American Beauty." It was all so beautiful, every single thing in it.

Or perhaps They Might Be Giants, "everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful."

They all got it.

Happiness and fulfillment are not equated with comfort and ease. It is not rational to assume that "good" equates with "free from disease" or that happiness is the same as "protected from all harm."

[antigone382]

16. Or, if God is everything, and we exist sucking resources from everything,

...it could be that we are God's tapeworm(s). Or maybe his liver flukes.

[dummy-du1]

12. My favorite parasite: Dicrocoelium dendriticum (lancet liver fluke)

It's impossible to explain the life cycle of this critter with evolutionary theory. Only an intelligent designer could do this, and he seems to have a very sadistic character. :sarcasm:

"This parasite, in the order Plagiorchiida, and family Dicrocoeliidae, is an interesting example of how a parasite manipulates the behaviourial patterns of its intermediate host to aid in its transmission to the definitive host.

The adult worm, commonly known as the lancet fluke, inhabits the bile duct of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and cervids and on rare occasions humans. It measures about 8 mm long and 2 mm at it widest. It has two testis just below the ventral sucker a single ovary and a convoluted uterus which occupies most of the lower half of the worms. The vitellaria are lateral and confined to the mid portion of the body. The ventral sucker is well developed and the tegument possesses no spines.

The eggs which are released in the host faeces are ingested directly by the land snail Cionella lubrica. The eggs hatch go through 2 sporocyst stages before producing the cercaria. The cercaria are released from the snails embedded in the snails mucus slime balls which form in the snails respiratory chamber and are eventually deposited on vegetation. They gain entry into their second intermediate host, the ant Formica fusca, when they eat the slime balls. Once in the ant most of the cercaria encyst in the ant's abdomen. However, one or two of the cercaria first undergo a migration to the head of the ant to the sub-oesophageal ganglion where the encyst. These metacercaria do not become infective but instead substantially alter the behaviour of the ant, such that when the temperature drops as evening approaches, the infected ants, instead of returning to their nests, climb to the top of the vegetation and clamp on to the leaves with their mandibles. They stay there immobile until the next morning. When the temperature warms up the ants then resume there normal behaviour. This very strange behaviour places the ants in a region where they are likely to be eaten by browsing herbivores, which tend to eat late in the evening or in the early morning thus enhancing the chances of transmission of the parasite to the next host. Once eaten by the definitive host they metacercaria excyst in the duodenum and migrate up the bile duct to the liver where they can cause severe biliary disfunction. Large numbers, up to 50,000 per sheep, have been found in a single animal. Maturation of the adults takes from 6 to 7 weeks."

(stolen from: http://martin.parasitology.mcgill.ca/jimspage/biol/dicro.htm)

[mondo joe]

17. Yes, Darwin clued into God the Sadist as well

Dawkins did too:

"If there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is he a sadist who enjoys spectator blood sports? Is he trying to avoid overpopulation in the mammals of Africa? Is he manuvering to maximize David Attenborough's television ratings? ... the true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival. But DNA is not floating free; it is locked up in living bodies and it has make the most of the levers of power at its disposal."

[manic expression]

19. Because

that's their niche, their role, their dharma. They live off of organisms, we live off organisms, it is the cycle of life.

One thing to remember is that Tapeworms are part of nature and the balance thereof. Organisms we think of as disgusting are actually essential to the world.

[mondo joe]

20. But if God intended earth to be a paradise, why were creatures

that can only exist by causing suffering to others created?

[manic expression]

21. Look,

if there is creation, there must be destruction. This is obvious. Existence has death to it, but there is birth and life. To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, this is karma (look at Newton's Third Law of Motion if you are unconvinced). Destruction is only one essential part of this. Everything has an end, but do not be saddened by this, because everything also has a new beginning, and beyond and within this cycle, everything is eternal (just look at the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter if you don't believe me). The 'death' of something matters little, as existence is infinitely more. Look to what is constant and eternal throughout everything to see what is important and true.

On a more practical level, there are many "parasites" that are have mutualistic relationships (both organisms benefit) with their hosts, and they do outnumber the parasitic ones. However, it is the role of a tapeworm to try to live off of a host, and it is the host's role to try to stop this. Know that the suffering provides for another, just as we take lives to live, so does the tapeworm inflict pain to live.

If you haven't noticed, I'm not working off of the Judeo-Christian worldview, as I have been using Vedic terms the entire time.

[mondo joe]

22. You're applying physical laws to God.

And I wasn't asking about animals in a symbiotic relationship.

I'm asking about animals that can only survive by destroying or hurting other animals.

I did notice the Vedic terms - so I don't know why you're talking about God.

But even if you go with must-be-destruction and so on, why must it be painful? Why couldn't God create the prey animals with a sense of peace when they are being eaten alive? Why couldn't tapeworms live on sweet manna from heaven rather than taking food from the stomachs of hungry kittens?

[manic expression]

24. And?

Of course physical laws can apply to existence not only on the physical level, but in many other ways as well. It is simply proof of deeper truths of the world.

Life demands death. Humans can only survive by destroying life. The only reason new individuals can be born is because departing individuals give them "room", and the cycle continues (quite sublime, isn't it?). Plants depend on the sun for part of their fuel, but also depend on animals to create CO2. Those animals depend on the plants for food. It is mutual.

Here's a comparison: Rainstorms are scary. They are powerful and can cause pain for people. However, the rain nurtures that which we need, and look what ultimately comes from the storm: life.

Things are painful because people are obsessed with the senses. If you want pleasure, you must also have pain. They are really the same, just the meaning behind the feelings are different. Bear the pain patiently, for it is fleeting and unimportant.

Why do you think that Vedic terms do not apply to "God"? It has everything to do with "God", which is within everything.

[mondo joe]

26. If there's a god life can't DEMAND death. It can only be given death

by the architect. The architect can set it up any way He chooses.

You're saying how things are is how they have to be. In an uncaring universe that may be so, but if God would have other options.

[manic expression]

28. Of course it can

if you look at ANYTHING, you will see these qualities. It is not feasible for creation to occur without destruction.

The thing you have to realize is that throughout all of this life and death everything is the SAME. One's true soul cannot be affected by what happens to the physical body.

If you really look at it, there is no beginning or end on one level, because it is all eternal. However, if you look on the physical level things begin, live, die and begin again. How is this bad? Death is only a continuation of one's existence and nothing more, this is nothing to be completely saddened over at all.

The idea of an all-powerful entity that can negate death is mistaken, for we are all architects of our own lives, we are all individuals, yet completely connected as one. Even a God must "die", but s/he will never perish, just like you and I. What is more important is that the "idea" that s/he embodied will be eternal as well.

Do not try to fight what is true, but realize it. Be mindful of how you are eternal, and how pain cannot affect you on the highest level. Look beyond the life and death, and you will see what you are, and ultimately, what everything is as well.

[mondo joe]

30. Again, you are arguing from how things ARE. But God is the

author of how things are - not the slave of it. So God can create any reality it likes.

You say "One's true soul cannot be affected by what happens to the physical body" and I must realize that. But first off, I don't know there is a soul at all, and if there is we have no means to measure it, so you have no way to know that.

But again, telling me things have to be this way because this is how they HAVE TO BE is irrelevant to a talk about God because a God can make things any OTHER way.

[manic expression]

33. That's not true

It would do you well to stop looking at the universe like it is some person's sandbox. Truth cannot be altered. Why do you think some "God" out there is able to do anything he/she damn wants? Excuse me for saying so, but there is no way this can be. God IS everything, and not separate from what you are or what I am or what anything is.

We are the slaves of nothing, only our ignorance and delusion blinds us. If only we would realize the truth, the freedom we already possess would be utilized.

Of course you can see that there is something more to life. Physics has proven that there is a connection between all objects; this alone is something "more". There are documented cases of reincarnation.

That is the way the world works: look PAST it to see what it TRULY IS.

[mondo joe]

34. If there is a God the universe is someone's sandbox.

But when you went on about physics proving "there is something more to life" and documented reincarnation I laughed too much to wantto write a lot more.

[manic expression]

36. Laughed, you say?

Here, this should give you a few chuckles:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1886940037/qid=1118960869/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/104-2015883-2191907?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Why are you so against science? Science and religion compliment each other. Science is only proof of the truth of the universe on one level.

And if you really think we're living in someone's sandbox, that's just ridiculous.

"OMG! It's raining and now I'm all wet! WHY DOES GOD HATE ME!?!?!" :sarcasm: :eyes:

[mondo joe]

37. Let me know when you find a peer reviewed scientific journal

including the documentation, would you?

And I don't think we're in anyone's sandbox because I have no beliefs about any gods.

But if I did believe in God I'd have to acknowledge this is his crappy sandbox.

[manic expression]

39. Wait,

who's depending on science now? Anyway, that is well documented, and it points to reincarnation pretty clearly.

Why do you insist that if there is a God, then it must be some big guy who does everything? Don't get caught up in that mindset, because you'll be misled.

Crappy is your term to describe the universe? Look into the night sky and tell me how crappy you view the stars. Tell me how crappy the cycle of existence is. Most importantly, look into yourself and tell me how crappy it is.

God IS everything. God is within everything. It is reality, and that transcends pain, pleasure, life and death. The truth is within us and within everything.

[mondo joe]

40. If it proved reincarnation it would win a Nobel prize.

But as it is, it's just a published book like DaVincio Code or one of Rush Limbaugh's pieces of crap.

Who said if there is a God it must be a big guy? Not me. But if there is a God it must be the creator. Otherwise it's just using some God to describe something ELSE. Like if I call my shoe God and say "See, it's a shoe and it's God".

As to CRAPPY: For an unfeeling, uncaring universe this is a pretty goodone.

However, if there is an architect and this is is the best the architect could come up with, it's crappy. It chose suffering where it could have chosen bliss, ignorance where it could have chosen widsom, and cruelty where it could have chosen kindness.

As to your many statements about what IS, the funny thing is so far the only reason you can give to believe them is your say so. Not convincing in the least.

[manic expression]

41. First of all,

The Nobel Prize is not given to advancements in the spiritual field. Secondly, I said it gives strong reason for reincarnation. And finally, the author is an award-winning Swedish journalist, so don't even think of comparing it to anything like what you said.

What did this God create? Everything is constant. There was never a true beginning and there will never be a true end. Everything is eternal. Creation of the physical worlds, of different forms of life, yes, but there can be neither creation nor destruction or anything in the deepest sense. In this way, there can be no altering the truth.

Another thing is that creation happens, and destruction happens, and so your belief that "God" "must" be the creator is accurate, but you must also look at the other part of existence: destruction. This only reflects what I have said.

If you call your shoe God, that is not wrong at all. As I said, everything is God, divinity is in everything, so why not your shoe? As long as you are genuine at heart you will find God in your shoe.

Why do you think the world is so uncaring? Yes, pain occurs, but this is ONLY superficial and cannot affect the true self of anything or anyone. Furthermore, there is supreme beauty in the world, in nature, in just about anything. Nature is in constant balance, everything provides for something else, everything has its role...this is beautiful.

For any suffering, there is bliss; for any ignorance, there is truth. Everything has truth, but it is when people deny it and blind themselves in ego and foolishness that things go wrong. Although the world may seem kinda sucky in some ways, but so does winter, and snows will always melt away and give way to the spring again. Also, beyond all this suffering, beyond all this ignorance, there is the truth that is eternal and omnipotent, omniscient. That is what everything truly is.

I have proof of what I say: Karma = Newton's Third Law; Eternal existence = Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter; Dharma and the harmony of everything = Just about all of Biology; Connection of individuals = Attraction of all objects.

[mondo joe]

43. Spiritual? I thought you said this was documented - you said physics

proved things. That's science.

Otherwise it's just claims. Like I said.

You keep making a lot of claims about how things ARE and what things ARE.

But you have no evidence to support any of these claims.

You have badly misunderstood Newton's 3rd as well as the law of conservation by making them metaphor and pretending your metaphor is evidence.

[manic expression]

45. It is well documented

but the Nobel Prize categories are: physics, chemistry, peace, medicine, economics and literature. Which category would reincarnation fit into? And again, I never said it was definitive, only very strong.

Science helps to prove things, and I think that it works in conjunction with other forms of thought.

Try to prove what I have said as wrong, please, I implore you.

Newton's Third Law: To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tell me how this is NOT Karma. These scientific laws only help to prove the truth of all things on more than the physical level.

I think you are guilty of pretending my arguments do NOT have any evidence.

[mondo joe]

48. Newton's 3rd Law is not metaphor - it describes physics.

If you can demonstrate it applying to oogie-boogie things go right ahead and revolutionize the world, win the nobel prize.

But you won't, because you can't.

[manic expression]

52. Is someone frustrated?

The laws of nature apply to deeper levels of reality. Your effort to ignore this is pitiful and quite comical. I'm applying it to the world with logic. Try it sometime.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Try to prove that this does not apply to the world.

Again, the Nobel Prize is only given out in certain fields, or else Swami Vivekananda would have won one for his wisdom already.

[mondo joe]

54. Again, more unevidenced assertions.

"The laws of nature apply to deeper levels of reality."

Prove it.

"I'm applying it to the world with logic."

To the contrary, you are applying wishful thinking and assertion.

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Try to prove that this does not apply to the world."

Prove that it does.

[manic expression]

61. Blaming me for what you are doing

I didn't think that anyone on DU could stoop to RW tactics. Oh well.

To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is Karma. When the US invaded Iraq, a resistance has begun to fight the injustice of the occupation. When Israel oppresses the Palestinians, the people use the means they have to fight it (suicide bombers). When the Soviet Union chose authoritarianism instead of populism its demise was ensured. The Mughals invaded India, imposing harsh rule on Hindus, only to find that the people they subjugated gradually destroyed the empire that was once so strong. When a storm rages across a habitat, some things face an amount of loss, but the reaction to this is the growth and nurture of the environment, ensuring the continuation of its existence.

These are all actions with reactions. There is MORE proof of what I say. Have fun denying it and wallowing in your ignorance.

[mondo joe]

64. Newton's third law can be evidenced and measured.

Your claims are neither. If you can't measure it you can't know that it is qual, nor can you know it is opposite.

Alas, you are making shit up.

[manic expression]

66. Thanks for proving me right....again

How about this: if I go and hit someone on the street, they will react. Even if they do not "react" as in even feel it, there still was a reaction.

Anyway, all of those examples are clearly actions with reactions.

You are hopelessly trying to deny the mountain of evidence against your insipid arguments. Have fun doing more of the same....

[mondo joe]

71. Again, you need to measure the action and reaction empirically.

That you have not done, and can not do. Hence you are doomed to unevidenced assertions.

It's a tragedy when people hear rumor of science and confuse physics with metaphor. Real science must just be to unaccessible for some.

[manic expression]

73. Oh, really?

What I'm citing is the meaning behind the actions and reactions. Where the hell did you get the notion of empirical data? The fact that actions create reactions in the world is obvious. Please, try to deny that FACT that I have proven time and again.

It's a tragedy when people don't quite think, and rely on their petty beliefs to insulate themselves from the truth. Real thought must be inconceivable to some.

[mondo joe]

78. Sorry but your claims are not facts and not evidenced. Just

assertions.

If it's obvious it should be able to be empirically measured.

[manic expression]

80. Your ignorance knows no boundaries

Umm...the sky is blue, do I have to empirically measure that? White is not black, should I empirically measure that?

I have provided more than enough evidence and what is your response? "Well, it's not empirical!!" :eyes:

Do me a favor: THINK. Get back to me after you do that.

[mondo joe]

89. All these things CAN be empirically measured. Your claims can not.

You provided no evidence - only claims. Evidence by definition is empirical. And you've mannaged none of that.

It's a shamme to see you try to co-opt the language and authority to try to bolster your baseless claims.

[manic expression]

94. Covering your eyes won't help you

If you refuse to look at what I'm saying, you truly are hopeless. You won't even address the nature of my arguments, and I find that not only sophomoric but also a bit disrespectful.

Co-opt the language? Are you saying that I'm trying to write better than you are just for effect? It's called expressing oneself...try it sometime.

[mondo joe]

104. "Arguments" are not a substitute for evidence.

When you get some evidence you'll have an argument worth response.

[manic expression]

106. The point of a discussion is to address

different points. I have provided examples, ones are valid. Address them, or you lose the argument and I prove that I am right. Simple as that.

By the way, you have provided NO evidence and your arguments that you tried to produce were throughly cut down. Care to stonewall some more?

[mondo joe]

108. Arguments without evidence are worthless.

Adios to your empty claims.

[manic expression]

110. Check....awaiting your move...

Have fun being wrong.... Since you haven't even tried to make an argument, I haven't even been challenged yet (or since you last tried, and failed).

How's it feel being ignorant and wrong?

[mondo joe]

112. Your repeated logical fallacies do not impress.

It's your job to support your claims - not mine to address.

[manic expression]

114. Who has been repeating themself?

Let me think.....Who could it be???

Oh yeah, that idiot...mondo joe!

My claims have been supported and you have not even tried to disprove them.

CHECKMATE! It's all over!



HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT! :hi:

[mondo joe]

115. Insults instead of evidence? Not surprising.

I've been down this road with Christian fundies too.

Whenever they are cornered by their own lack of evidence they resort to insult as well.

Perhaps it's something in the theist mindset.

[manic expression]

117. Hmm....

exactly, who has been denying EVERYTHING I've said.

I've provided EVIDENCE, while you've provided....uh....the old "that's not true!" technique.

Perhaps it's something in that mindset? Hypocrisy...you insult me while saying I insult too much. Hmm....interesting. Perhaps it's something in the IGNORANT MINDSET.

[mondo joe]

120. Sorry: claims and metaphor are not evidence.

When you have evidence we can continue.

If you have no evidence, continue with the ad hominems.

[manic expression]

122. So you will not address any claims?

So why are you on this website?

Here: To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is proof of karma.

I have put forth arguments, you have put forth ignorance...which wins? I do believe I have.

[mondo joe]

124. I must accept your inability to provide evidence as the end of your

case.

Thank you for your efforts, such as they were.

[manic expression]

126. I have provided proof, you have provided nothing

I must accept your inability to think or to discuss anything.

Thanks for your ignorance, it is a testament to the blindness of people.

[mondo joe]

129. Congratulations. In the insults instead of evidence department you

rank right up there with some of the funniest fundies I've yet encountered.

[manic expression]

131. I like that you have sense of humor...

if only you could think as well as you foolishly laugh.

The fact is that I have decimated all of your arguments, and so you have resorted to stonewalling. You are fooling yourself. I don't think I could find a "funny fundy" that has the sheer ignorance you possess.

HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mondo joe]

133. Yes, the Newton's 3rd Law Proves Karma certainly decimated me.

I'm feeling quite in awe.

[manic expression]

134. And why does it not?

Refer to my other reply.

[mondo joe]

137. Like I said, I'm decimated by your brilliant Physics as Metaphor

proof.

How you don't have the attention of the world's scientists AND religious leaders is quite a mystery.

[manic expression]

138. If you will not address my arguments

and if you will resort to sarcasm and mockery, it is truly pitiful, and so are your beliefs.

[mondo joe]

141. How can I address them when I just agreed I'm decimated?

I'm just waiting for your Netwonian proof of Karma to change the world.

[manic expression]

143. Why don't you just address them?

Seriously.

[mondo joe]

146. I'm sitting here with bowed head. Thanks for showing me what Hinduism

is about.

By both your sound arguments and the way you have conducted yourself, I am now convinced!

[manic expression]

148. So, you really won't address me at all

I'm glad you've reared your true head of foolishness.

Your insults are pretty lame, too.

[mondo joe]

151. Yes msaster, I am but a grub before you. Please teach me what Dalton's

Law of Partial Pressures proves.

Or Gaus's Law? How about that?

[manic expression]

157. See post 154. eom

[manic expression]

154. If there is smoke, one can correctly assume there is a fire

That is called logic. What I have brought shows the way the world works on the physical level. These truths are reflected on a deeper plane of existence.

If the trees are swaying, does that tell you something is blowing and moving it?

[patcox2]

153. If there is no god, than how are you so sure of god's abilities?

You're arguments are nice, but all they prove is that the state of the world is inconsistent with the existence of "god" when God is defined as a big powerful being, sorta like superman, who exists to be nice and pamper us individually with creature comforts.

Well, okay, you win, that must not be what god is like.

[manic expression]

159. Why do you think the world was 'designed'?

The universe was made just like other universes before it (remember the cycle). A universe was created, lived and then was destroyed before this one, and before that one the same thing happened. Creation, life, destruction and life again is the way existence IS, and it is the only way life can exist on THIS level. Look beyond this cycle to what is eternal and ultimately important within you and around you. For that does not suffer death or pain.

The Big Bang theory, as well as the hypothesis of it reversing supports this. Remember, if one sees smoke, one knows there is a fire.

[LSdemocrat]

86. Earth is not meant to be a paradise

[mondo joe]

91. But per some religions it was meant to be a paradise. Out of respect to

those religions I ask god created tapeworms.

[msmcghee]

23. OK - Here's my question.

If, in paradise, Adam and Eve and all the animals were like, not eating and killing each other . .

. . and if Adam and Eve are the one's who fucked up

. . why did God give man dominion over all the animals of the earth - for us to rule them?

Why isn't it the other way around (tapeworms excepted)?

Maybe God was a Republican. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Maybe god IS a tapeworm and created us for handy food

Hell, that's as plausible as any other explanation for there being such a thing. Maybe god is just the leader of a bunch of parasitic species and needs to sucker some arrogant bipeds to think THEY'RE in control, so the munching can be unmolested.

[Johonny]

31. I think you'll find

Scientific evidence clearly shows tapeworms evolved long before kittens, children or lambs.

I mean tapeworms seem to me far more natural than Laura Bush's skin texture.

[RalphReedsWreckedEm]

32. Please use the correct term: "Republicans" not "Tapeworms"

Also, when a dog drops a brown thing out its ass, we don't use the word "turd" to describe it - we use the term "Republican"

[hemp_not_war]

35. i'll take a stab

everything has a good part to it and a bad part to it. It's like the ying and the yang. Every technology is a double edged sword, it can be used for good or bad. Humans can be thought of as a parasite on earth. Likewise tapeworms can be thought of as wonderful. If everything on earth did not have this duel nature we would not call it earth, we would call it heaven or hell.

[mondo joe]

38. That's a nice answer abouthow things ARE. But if this was designed

by a God why design it so that there is so much built in pain and suffering?

Why did God design the tapeworm so that it lives by causing suffering, rather than - let's say, subsisting on manna from heaven?

Why not design prey animals to simply die sweetly and serenely as the wild dogs devour them still living?

[manic expression]

42. Wow.

OK. Nothing is really made by some God. Just like osmosis, things occur naturally, it is the way of the world. You're fooling yourself if you think that God "designed" the cycle of life. Why do you keep thinking that it COULD be different, when your vision of something better is nothing more than a false dream that does not equal existence, because life must have death. If there was no death, then there would be no birth. On a certain level, what you are looking for is there: nothing dies, everything is eternal. However, the physical aspects of reality are temporary and are in constant motion. Look BEYOND the life and death.

Most of the time, wild dogs crack their prey's neck before eating them, so it is a pretty quick death. Regardless, it MATTERS NOT how it feels, but the idea behind it. Pain and pleasure are the same: they are sensations felt because of action. On the most practical level, they allow us to react to our environment. The pain is insignificant, as it is temporary and meaningless. The meaning behind the pain is what matters: and the meaning behind animals killing another is that destruction provides for life.

If you do not want to feel anything, why live? Pain and pleasure is part of being alive and conscious of the physical level.

"Although you mean well, Arjuna,
your sorrow is sheer delusion.
Wise men do not grieve
for the dead or for the living.

Never was there a time
when I did not exist, or you,
or these kings; nor will there come
a time when we cease to be.

...Physical sensations - cold
and heat, pleasure and pain -
are transient: they come and go;
so bear them patiently, Arjuna."
-Bhagavad Gita

[mondo joe]

44. You're fooling yourself if you think there's a God. :-)

"You're fooling yourself if you think that God "designed" the cycle of life."

You're fooling yourself if you think there's a God. :-)

"Why do you keep thinking that it COULD be different, when your vision of something better is nothing more than a false dream that does not equal existence, because life must have death."

Again, you confuse what IS with what MUST be. If there were a god it COULD be something else.

That's what you consistently misunderstand.

[manic expression]

47. What you consistently misunderstand

is that your vision of what it COULD be is ridiculous. "Well, why can't death be FUN?!? I don't want to feel ANYTHING...unless it feels good!!" :sarcasm:

(Again, look at the real reason for a death: it brings about creation)

You're the one foolishly arguing that God had to create EVERYTHING, including the way of the universe. On this level (physical), things begin, live and end. Sorry, to think it could be any different is absolutely insane. Everything is eternal, it does not end, but the form of it on this plane of existence does end, before it manifests itself once again. So, on one level, nothing dies.

If there was no god, there would be nothing. That power itself is what is life (we are that power). Want to find God? Simply look around.

(edited: deleted a sentence that didn't make sense)

[mondo joe]

50. "If there was no god, there would be nothing." HAHAHAHA

Funny, since your universe with a is exactly what a universe without a God would look like.

[manic expression]

53. You really are delusional

Laugh in your ignorance all you want, you can't change reality.

There is no "this" look or "that" look when it comes to reality, as the truth can take ALL FORMS. So your drivel about "looking like" there is a god is perfectly idiotic. EVERYTHING IS GOD, and so it can take any look and it would ultimately be the same.

Your problems is that you conclude that there isn't any god because it doesn't "look" like it...why don't you look outside? See that tree? That's god. See that person? That's god. Everyone and everything is the ultimate force in the world.

[mondo joe]

56. Whenever people who make unevidenced assertions of fact say I'm delusional

it fills me with delight.

Thank you. :-)

[manic expression]

58. Umm....

You're the one who is screaming that I'm making stuff up when it comes to the laws of physics. I have yet to hear you even try to argue against what I have said, but you choose to ignorantly believe that you're right in the face of obvious facts.

Ever hear the saying "ignorance is bliss"? Well, you have no need to thank me for your idiocy. Only know that you are blind.

[mondo joe]

62. I needn't ague against your unevidenced claims. It is your burden to

support them, since you made them.

Newton proved his laws. It's your job to prove your claim that it extends to the unmeasured realm you claim exists.

PS: Just repeating that it is so is not evidence.

[manic expression]

82. OK, here we go again...

Let's look at light. Light, in the form of white light, is the amalgamate of all colors. However, when it hits a certain surface, some of it is lost (it ends for the time being: like the death of a person), and the light takes another color. The same thing can take more than one form, depending on what surface it hits.

Let me guess: you're gonna say..."It's not empirical!" or "That's not proof!"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mondo joe]

84. That's true of light, and we know it is because it is empirically proven.

Your claims about other things with the same properties are not.

Get to work on your evidence.

[manic expression]

88. Just like I said!

I'm getting good at this! :rofl:

The thing is that this proves what I'm saying. The light can take on different colors depending on the surface, therefore, the truth of the world is the same, but it takes on different forms depending on the circumstances. In this way, the truth of the light that we see is reflected in existence itself.

[mondo joe]

92. No. The effect of light is empirically measured. Your claims that other

things are LIKE it are not.

[manic expression]

97. No, not really,

because the wisdom we find from observing the light can give us the truth that is reflected in all things. Sorry if you want to deny it, but that's the way it is.

[mondo joe]

99. Sure, you can misunderstand physics - christian fundys do it all the time

- and try to apply it as a metaphor in a vain effort to bolster your own unevidenced claims.

But it doesn't get you any closer to proving your case.

[manic expression]

101. Sure, you can play that game...

It won't get you any closer to any knowledge.

Why, exactly, does it not apply to what we are talking about?

[mondo joe]

105. Your unevidenced arguments won't get anyone closer to knowledge.

You've mistaken repeating what you want to be true with knowledge.

[manic expression]

107. And look at all the evidence you've brought to the table....

...........

:rofl:

Address my arguments or you are proven wrong. Or you can do this some more: :hide:

I'm calling check.

[mondo joe]

109. I've made no claims that require evidence.

And shifting your burden to evidence your own claims is another logicall fallacy.

Try again.

[manic expression]

111. CHECKMATE!

You've made NO VALID CLAIMS...PERIOD. My arguments have gone unchallenged, and are clearly right.

HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mondo joe]

113. More ad hominem? Taking debate lessons from Rush Limbaugh?

If you had 1/10 the evidence you do insults you'd have made progress by now.

[manic expression]

116. Taking debate lessons from a brick?

That was ad hominem. Nice try.

I have been making progress, your denial doesn't change it.

CHECKMATE!



HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT! :hi:

[mondo joe]

118. Tch tch. If requests for evidence bring out this side of you, you might

reconsider your religion.

[manic expression]

119. I've already brought both evidence and arguments

what have you brought?

Maybe you should reconsider your ideas, all of them, thoroughly.

Hey, look!

[mondo joe]

121. If you can't provide evidence just continue with the ad hominems.

That's what they're there for.

[manic expression]

123. If you can't argue, just continue to stonewall

that's unfortunately what I have to deal with when I talk with fools.

[mondo joe]

127. We've established you have no evidence. Any last insults you'd like to

toss out in place of evidence?

[manic expression]

128. I have given my evidence and arguments

continue to deny them if you wish, but it is your fault for being blind to the truth. We have established that you have no capacity to provide any argument or counterclaim. Therefore, I must conclude that you have no real argument.

Any more claims of: "you have no evidence!" when there is clearly evidence in front of you?

[mondo joe]

130. Newton's 3rd Law Proves Karma? Thanks - I'll take that to the bank.

They can use a laugh too.

[manic expression]

132. Why doesn't it?

it surely shows that actions have reactions. If one applies this morally, it works the same. Just think of the light: it is the same, but different when seen on different surfaces.

[mondo joe]

135. Sure. Newton's 3rd Law proves karma. And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

proves Genesis and Revelation.

[manic expression]

136. Explain to me how it does.

However, if you will persist in ignoring my arguments in such a fashion, I have no more to say.

[mondo joe]

140. I'm not worthy to instruct you in the art of physics as proof of religion.

I'm sure you'll see the connection yourself, Guru.

[manic expression]

142. Actually, I don't think you are worthy

you've proved it yourself by not even addressing my arguments and evidence. Your ignorance is unparalleled. You have been soundly defeated, and so your wrong beliefs have been exposed as such.

I'll say it again:

HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT!!!

[mondo joe]

144. No no, I never even understood how Newton proves karma. I'm not at

all worthy to even address you.

Thank you for the lesson in Hinduism. You've certainly convinced me!

[manic expression]

145. You aren't addressing me at all, which is pretty pathetic

Thank you for making a potentially honest discussion a flame-war. Thank you for stonewalling my arguments and giving absolutely no reasons for you idiotic beliefs.

Have fun being ignorant!!!

[mondo joe]

147. Yes, I am pathetic and I am responsible for the flame war. My Guru, I

ask you to teach me more of your enlightened ways.

[manic expression]

149. Who's using insults, now?

Look over my early posts before you started to pout and use the silent treatment.

HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT!

[mondo joe]

152. I'm sorry if by failing to insult you I have insulted you! I lack insight

and knowledge, as you well know.

Please teach me.

[manic expression]

155. What I said was that you are insulting yourself.

Please, look over what I have said before you threw a tantrum when you ran out of arguments if you really want to learn. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, please go ahead, I do find it quite entertaining.

[manic expression]

158. See post 156. eom

[manic expression]

156. It's called logic.

For instance, if one sees smoke, one knows there is a fire. It is the same here.

The facts I have brought to you are apparent on one level, but more importantly, they signify the reality of existence within all levels. Truth is not restricted to one field, it is pervasive and omnipotent. In this way, the evidence I have presented (action/reaction, eternal existence, insignificance of pain, one entity taking different forms as demonstrated with light) is evidence of the way of the universe itself, not in one way but in all.

You, my misled colleague, have brought neither arguments nor logic nor evidence to this thread. I await to hear your next excuse, unless you have something intelligent to say.

[Johonny]

46. But the tapeworm

evolved before kittens, people where even on the planet. The tapeworm is very, very ancient. Thus it clearly wasn't designed to cause pain and suffering.

[mondo joe]

49. That's true if you accept evolution as an unguided process.

But if you accept a deity weho designed it all, it had to be intended to thrive at the expense of others.

[manic expression]

57. At the expense?

YOU ARE ALIVE BECAUSE SOMETHING DIED. On the physical level, life cannot exist without death. A tapeworm's niche, is to live off of a host animal. It does hurt the host, but this is necessary for the life of the organism. That is the role of the tapeworm. With creation comes life, with life comes death, with death comes creation again. Pain is ultimately immaterial.

[mondo joe]

60. Yes, in a godless universe that's how it is: something dies, something

lives. The universe is no more loving than it is cruel, which is to say neither: it doesn't care at all.

But a universe with a god would be something different.

[mzmolly]

63. That depends upon how you define "God" and God's role in the universe.

:hi:

[mondo joe]

68. True. If by "god" you mean something that does nothing it's easier to

accomodate it in this universe. :-)

[mzmolly]

74. Some who belive in God, feel that God doesn't oversee Earthly matters.

There are many definitions of "God" and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all who believe in "God" believe X Y or Z.

[mondo joe]

76. I agree. That's why I say if by God you mean something that doesn't do

anything it's easier to accomodate it in this universe.

[mzmolly]

77. Clarification do "anything" as it pertains to "this universe."

;)

[manic expression]

65. Yeah, so cruel

that when something dies, it ultimately provides for something else and nurtures life. Oh, the humanity! :eyes:

The universe with a god would be different? What, exactly, do you propose to have with this "Godfull" universe? Mountains of cotton candy? Theme parks with no wait lines? Can I get a PSP in this awesome-world? :rofl:

The fact is that existence with pain, death, providing for pleasure and life is more beautiful than any dream-world you could create. Look beyond all this and you will find the truth, that which is everything, eternal and infinite. That is what you should be looking for.

[mondo joe]

67. If it comforts you to think there is a god, by all means cuddle up with

your security blanket.

When you want to talk reality, get ready to deal with empirical evidence.

[manic expression]

69. Look who's been denying evidence all along!

My "security blanket" is everything I have seen in the world. It seems your security blanket is your ignorance, as well as the kick you get out of telling other people they have security blankets.

Hypocrisy, idiocy. A sad combination.

[mondo joe]

72. To the contrary - I've denied no evidence. Your claims are not evidence -

they are not empirical.

When you have evidence you'll be talking science. Let me know when you do.

[manic expression]

75. Welcome to crazy world

person: "Hey, mondo joe, there's a marching band"
(mondo joe has hands firmly over eyes)
mj: "I DON'T SEE ANY MARCHING BAND!!! GIVE ME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!"
person: "Well, don't you hear the music playing?"
mj: "I TOLD YOU I WANT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!"
person: "Look, it's over there"
mj: "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU POINT! IT'S NOT EMPIRICAL!!!!"
(person walks away, shaking head)

Have fun with your delusions! :hi:

[mondo joe]

79. Silly example -- the marching band can be empirically measured.

But your claims cannot be.

[manic expression]

81. It can be proven by a simple look...

you have not been willing to do the equivalent here.

[mondo joe]

83. No, we both see the marching band. But you state (without evidence)

that the band means something, based on nothing but your say so.

And again, even the marching band CAN be empirically proven. Your claims can not be.

That's where fairy tale beliefs all fall apart - evidence.

[manic expression]

85. Wrong again!

This might be a new record for DU.

We both hear the music, but I see the band coming around the corner and I beckon you to look, but you ask me for proof of my "assertion", and promptly sit down, look at your feet and tell me that the music isn't proof.

That's where the idiotic beliefs fall apart: truth.

[mondo joe]

87. "But the flower lives because a fairy spirit animates it!"

"Why can't you see the fact of the fairy animating the flower?"

[manic expression]

90. I can see...

that the rain, which you idiotically consider to be "bad" because it causes pain, gave that flower the means to grow.

And, oh yeah, there is a soul in the flower, as there is a soul in all things. Just as every eukaryotic organism has the same basic cell makeup (variations of the same thing), and just as DNA is the same for all things, so does the ultimate and eternal reality pervade throughout ALL THINGS.

[mondo joe]

93. I don't mind your belief in animating fairies, but the idea that I'd

accept it based on your say so is simply insulting to my intelligence.

:-)

[manic expression]

95. You're insulting your intelligence far more than I could ever do

and plus...you're not showing me any intelligence that I could insult.

Seriously, I have given you arguments and you have refused to approach them, why? I do believe you are hiding in your security blanket of you own ignorance.

[mondo joe]

98. Ad hominem attacks are a poor substitute for a cogent argument or

evidence.

[manic expression]

100. Ignorance is a poor substitute for insight

And I have given you argument after argument and what do I get? (cue crickets)

[mondo joe]

102. Every lunatic claims insight. I'll take evidence, thank you,

which you have not provided at all.

"Arguments" - or claims in your case - are not evidence. It matters not if you make 1,000 arguments if you have no evidence.

[manic expression]

103. Hey! A marching band!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Get a grip.

[ismnotwasm]

51. I don't know about tapeworms

But I vaguely recall from biology classes that atomospheric and physically evolution was basically started by cute lil' bateria-type buggers who needed a home. Designed the whole damn thing.

[mzmolly]

55. Ahhh, here we go again, defending God through the fundi mindset.

:eyes:

[head like a hole]

70. Great anti-neocon bumper sticker

I'm driving around town and I pull up behind a car with all sorts of democrat and anti-neocon stickers on it. One says, "Jesus never rode on an elephant". It took me a minute but he/she's right. All the stories in the bible have Jesus riding an ass/donkey into town. Come to think of it, the only person I can think of that was famous for riding and elephant was Attila the Hun.

Hmmm.....I think I see a pattern here.

[Crunchy Frog]

96. Why would a loving God have created Republicans?

That's what I want to know.

By the way, there may actually be some benefit to intestinal parasites. I've read that there is apparently some linkage between lack of exposure to parasites, and certain autoimmune diseases. So tapeworms I could understand, but Republicans I just don't get.

[pissed_American]

125. If God is a Man, why then....

do we call it Mother Nature ?? Hmmmmmm ?

[mitchum]

139. It's all part of his crazyass fucked up plan

[manic expression]

150. I just wanted to say...

before I go....

HAVE FUN BEING IGNORANT!!!