fogbank of drivel in your link.
I might suggest that if you had actually read what you ask others to, you would probably know that her name was Kübler-Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross, and if you had a critical thought in your brain housing group, you would probably know about Google and alternative ideas like this one http://www.slate.com/id/2107069/
my homeless friend is right. If something had been written by god and it was like actually real, everybody would accept. It would also have one meaning for everybody.
To some people the bible is everything. But what about some other books not included n the bible, or other books from the time and area, and the koran
Anyways, on tv I've heard many books named. It's there somewhere in the internet where they tell you in a few sentences what all these books are and what they are all about.
Why? Why not? It's like when they have it on Jeopardy "the bible" and the participants know.
So why not know? I don't even know why I know what I know about the bible. Like everybody has been programmed to know something but not something else.
Are they all little stories or do they tell people what to do? They all must have their good things I guess.
man you are living a fantasy. If in fact the true word of god was available - and unfiltered - there would be absolutely NO NEED for a clergy of any faith. they would be out of a job... and worse... most would be condemned for the falsehood they preach.... for the cowardness they display.... for the hatred they promote.
Perhaps the best display of God - or the word of god is the story of Pontius Pilot questioning Jesus on "truth" "what is truth?" certainly it is not found on the internet - try as wikifuckingpedia tries....
look at it this way - the attributes of God make it impossible to understand and know God fully.... how can we, with a finite life span truly understand a being who is eternal - to whome time is meaningless - that is the past present and future are all exactly the same.
heck on a good day- most of us are barely able to connect the dots....
Only Eddie the Magical Electric Panda can save us all. He's the bestest imaginary friend ever.
it is very easy to believe in God. Even my athiest friends have internal moral compasses... who put that there? and who manipulates that to create a hitler or bin laden? or for that matter the military dictators of Burma.
I love #27.... why? See the link. or read the work of Kubla Ross. some would say that those images are the result of a neurochemical melt down... Perhaps.... or perhaps not. either way, it is very interesting. I've had events happen in my life that it would be very easy to dismiss as neurochemical events... but there is a purpose to the images or reality of whatever I experience.
As I state... it is easy to believe in God... cause the opposite of God is apparent everywhere.
I imagine makes "some" sense, considering the fact that nobody actually knows for sure how the universe et al was created. The idea of an all powerful God starts getting a little ridiculous, and "all" religions don't just border on the absurd, they equally crash through the bounds of common sense.
People are free to believe what they want, and if people want to believe in fairy tales that's their right. When it comes right down to it however, Scientology makes every bit as much sense as Catholicism or any other "major" religion.
plankton thru and including humans have certain behavior patterns, and most of that doesn't involve lying around passively like an inanimate system would.
So is it a big surprise that people are happiest when they are DOING something, and that lying around is often regarded as a 'mental illness' called depression?
It doesn't seem to matter that much WHAT people do - but using belief systems to line others up in the same direction makes lots of people happy - eg sure made Pat Robertson happy.
So people develop these ideologies. Scientology and Catholicism are good examples, among others. Whether they have any intellectual discipline is pretty much beside the point - they are monstrously profitable.
What tickles the shit right out of me is that we have massive academic institutions that are often unable to see the conflicts among the varying belief systems - ie., assuming the existence of god or a particular ideology simply doesn't hold up to the critical system we call western science.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just that I'm not going to believe a person just because he claims to be wearing a lab coat, or know a constitutional scholar.
I agree with you completely. Religion is not only immensely profitable, but it is also a way to control the masses.
I too find it difficult to understand how supposedly rational, educated, otherwise intelligent people try to justify their belief, not only in a higher power, but in a specific dogma over all others. Trying to apply reasoning or even the appearence of reasoning to a matter of total faith is the ultimate fallacy IMHO.
they are complementary systems of social control, and have powerful incentives to reach a mutual accomodation. If the state can't beat something into or out of a person, the church has a fair chance of psyching them into or out of it.
"Proof" is ultimately a matter of opinion. Some people have good reason to take something on somebody else's word - eg, we usually trust any document the county recorder has stamped, and the Navy's astronomers are usually pretty reliable about the time of day.
OTOH, other sorts of proofs are less reliable. Eg, internet allegations should probably stand on their own 2 feet - but then there are things that eg Pat Robertson sells, almost all of which fall either in the category of "so what?" or "yeah, right".
There's an idea called "best evidence" that asks why a person shouldn't produce the most reliable evidence available. Eg, why settle for a photocopy if you have a sealed original handy? Similarly, if logic can be laid out to demonstrate itself, why settle for conclusory claims of authority ("I'm a scientist - see my white coat?" "I'm the Pope - see my funny hat?")
One of the things that amazes me is how readily people do accept symbols of authority, often rejecting the original logic at the same time, because they don't seem to recognize it. You more or less expect that in social sciences (and I use those terms together in the loosest sense), but I've also seen many MDs do this.
Eg, you assume God and also religion, and don't bother to describe either, or the difference - but you know this because you see the opposite everywhere.
You assume a "moral compass" and that it must have been "put there".
I think you have to say you BELIEVE these things, with the obvious footnote that you believe them in the absence of any evidence that can actually be described.
The average engineer or cop would probably think you just pulled this stuff right out of your ass, but that's really not true. A short trip down to the supermarket and you can find all the proof you need in the tabloids at the checkout. I'm sure joyful soul scholars write them.
They are not two separate entities; one perfect and the other "man-made." Religion makes up god.
All religions are fundamentally identical. They are based on two fears: a. Fear of Death and, b. Fear of (or perhaps discomfort with) the Answer "I don't know."
I don't need religion (or an imaginary friend) because I don't fear death. Don't get me wrong, I fear dying and if I had my way I'd rather die like Nelson Rockefeller (immensely wealthy on top of my secretary). But, I have no fear of what awaits me on "the other side."
I am content that all of the answers are extremely unlikely to be attained in my lifetime. The intermediate answers are fascinating enough. I do not, like a child, demand an answer to the nature and extent of the universe RIGHT NOW.
A cursory look at the history of the world's religions belies the notion that religion and faith in an imaginary friend impart a "moral compass."
fogbank of drivel in your link.
I might suggest that if you had actually read what you ask others to, you would probably know that her name was Kübler-Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross, and if you had a critical thought in your brain housing group, you would probably know about Google and alternative ideas like this one http://www.slate.com/id/2107069/