rkt.india Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 Oh dear' date=' these religious people come up with the dumbest of analogies. :haha:[/quote'] I want to know that dumb thing it has.
Raghav_12 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Some solid counter perspective against the OP. For a start, the womb that you are trying to suggest is just too big.
swatpulla Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I want to know that dumb thing it has. The whole thing. It's a nice analogy, but analogies don't prove a point. Scientific assertions are based on evidence while religious people look for "lack of evidence" or clever play of words (like such analogies) to prove their point. While this method is a nice way to stir up a debate, it is still not good enough to be taken seriously.
Brainfade Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 If society would allow this experiment, a skilled surgeon could do a C-section-like operation in a sterile environment, keep the umbilical cords intact, let the twins see their mother (after all they are clever enough to see and talk in the uterus), carefully place them back, and let them be delivered normally or by a full C-section at another time. We are already doing this with fetal surgery. Yes, surgeons can do surgery on a developing fetus when still inside the uterus (https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/fetal-surgery). The uterus is opened up to access the fetus, surgery on the fetus is completed, fetus is placed back in the uterus and the uterus is closed. If the fetuses are close to full development, it may be difficult to put them back, but if surgeons could find a way to do surgery on a fetus, they can find a way to overcome this issue, too. Heck, we are even able to go into an embryo and edit genes (http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378). What we are talking about here is relatively easy. /thread?
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The assumption by many on this thread appear to be based on what we (the science we understand or studied) know today is all there to know However, there are 1. Things we know that we know (known knowns) 2. Things we know that we don't know (known unknowns) 3. Things we don't know that we don't know (unknowns unknowns) Ironically, if you call yourself 'inclined towards science' but argue based on point #1, are you really scientific in your assessments?
Desi Cartman Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Analogy: Twins talking to each other in their mother's womb Since we don't know something it must be God because some people thousands of years thought so, it must be true.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 PS Talking about the known knowns If I am not wrong there was a study done by * DeCasper and Fifer which suggested that Newborns recognize their mom's voice * Mehler and colleagues which suggested that Newborns recognize their native language
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 "Good" religion and "good" science usually work together, not against each other. To illustrate: In the olden times, it was said that one should not eat at night. This was said because there was no electricity at that time. Eating in darkness or under not so ideal lighting conditions could mean that you could end up eating something bad or insects could get in to your foods, something you may not notice in poor lighting condition Same would be true for sayings such as "Food on floor is for ghosts" This is to stop people from eating possibly contaminated food lying on the floor (usually dirty) In order to make people obey such basics, religion was used Similarly, in Islam eating pigs is not allowed. Now I may assume that such a law was created because a) Pigs live in extremely dirty conditions, and b) eat almost anything, so they are likely to carry germs that may cause wide spread diseases. It could be that there was some disease spreading by eating pigs when such a law was created In a time when access to quality education was limited, spreading ideas through religion was the best way to help people adapt practices that would benefit them .... And reasons are logical What probably gives religion a bad name is people who don't understand its purpose try to create impractical laws, use religion for their own benefit, continue to use laws/practices that are past their expiry date, etc.
punjabi_khota Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 To OP: I propose that there is an invisible entity which kills 50 babies everytime you write a post on ICF. Just because you cannot see that entity doesn't mean it is not there. So think twice before posting.
rkt.india Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 To OP: I propose that there is an invisible entity which kills 50 babies everytime you write a post on ICF. Just because you cannot see that entity doesn't mean it is not there. So think twice before posting. now you go invisible from this thread. :agree:
moniker Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 There have been numerous similar analogies that have been discussed thoroughly and all flaws pointed out, so the onus is on the storyteller to come up with something that already addresses all those counter-arguments to be considered seriously. For example, here is one of those flawed analogies: The "watchmaker" analogy The "watchmaker" analogy, originally formed by William Paley for the existence of God (the argument from design) and since reused as an argument for intelligent design, is cited as an example of a false analogy. In it, Paley suggested that an analogy could be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe. The analogy is as follows: The universe is like a watch. A watch must have a watchmaker. The universe, being like a watch, must have a designer. The false analogy can be shown by a reduction to the absurd, highlighting the many differences between the universe and a watch. Similar absurdities can be built from almost every other characteristic of watches: The universe is like a watch. A watch can be used to cover a tattoo on one's wrist. The universe, being like a watch, can be used to cover a tattoo on one's wrist. Also, there are problems "disguised" in the assumptions of the analogy. A watch bears little resemblance to the universe, therefore the entire analogy is invalidated in step 1. Paley's original argument also focused on the hypothetical scenario of coming across a watch in heath, and its apparent complexity and appearance of design can be compared to stones and grass around it. Because of this, the analogy fails at a more subtle level; we have seen watches designed and made by intelligent entities and we have seen rocks and grass made by non-intelligent, natural mechanisms. The universe, however, is all we have seen—there is nothing on a similar scale and scope to the universe that implies it is non-natural. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy Almost a similar set of flaws can be pointed out in the OP's analogy as well.
Precambrian Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Why can't Baby A and Baby B just disagree, continue to eat the food the uterus provides, play with each other, and then when delivery time comes,just get out? Let Baby B then tell Baby A "see you were wrong" and let baby A accept it then. Delivery is a reality, and the mother is not going to care for baby A any less than she would care for baby B anyway! So all these debates are just stupid and pointless. Much ado about nothing. Let's eat, drink and be happy together...
rkt.india Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Why can't Baby A and Baby B just disagree, continue to eat the food the uterus provides, play with each other, and then when delivery time comes,just get out? Let Baby B then tell Baby A "see you were wrong" and let baby A accept it then. Delivery is a reality, and the mother is not going to care for baby A any less than she would care for baby B anyway! So all these debates are just stupid and pointless. Much ado about nothing. Let's eat, drink and be happy together... Those so called godmen and religious fanatics dont understand that.
Precambrian Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Those so called godmen and religious fanatics dont understand that. Same is applicable for atheists who want to shovel their views down others' thoughts. Live and let live.
rkt.india Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Same is applicable for atheists who want to shovel their views down others' thoughts. Live and let live. But atheists are not killing people all over the world for their God.
Brainfade Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 rkt bhai, I don't usually do this, but my curiosity got the better of me this time :-). Did you share my argument with whoever generated the OP? That you can easily take fetuses out, show them their mom and put them back whereas you cannot do that with God. So, not seeing Mom is not the same as not seeing God?
punjabi_khota Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 ^ In b4 "some people have claimed that they died for few seconds and saw the "light"..then they came back to life "
zen Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 But atheists are not killing people all over the world for their God. What? On the other hand, there are people who save/serve thousands in the name of God .... Atheists may not kill in the name of God, but they could for some different reasons. Hitler was an Atheist, if I am not wrong People kill for their nations (race, etc.) too. So should the concept of nationality be considered as bad?
Roshanrocks Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied' date=' “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.” “Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?” The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.” The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.” The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.” The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.” “Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.” The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?” The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.” Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.” To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.” What kinda nonsense is this....? 1) How can u link this to earth and heaven? Doesnt make any sense to me.... On earth even after death the body exists on earth.... in the womb after the baby is born the whole baby comes out... The baby doesnt remain in the womb... Now this analogy would make sense if after death we disappear into a hole or something... 2) WHat happens if the foetus dies in the womb? Then its dead...then whatevever the second baby said doesnt make sense... Once ur dead...u cant see ur mother... u cant eat with your mouth, walk with your legs wateva!!! ANd if the baby dies in the womb, the body remains in the womb till taken out by the doctor... Same a human body which remains on earth until consumed by bacteria or cremated/buried... Basically dying in the womb is the same as dying on earth... :whatchutalkingabout
Recommended Posts