Rose of the anonymous Snow-mobile wrote:
>If two equally improbable and mutually exclusive ideas are faced, it is
>better to take the one that brings the most benefit/the least pain.
>
>Now, even if I thought your sources were reliable in disproving the
>validity of the Bible, even if I could believe it as truth, look at what you
>stand for.
It doesn't matter what I stand for, except to myself.
And who is "you"? I think the fact that there are twenty different people arguing about what the entire "universe" means to them right now shows that we are not one homogynous, faceless group like YOU are. And why would you want to believe the truth? You have every reason not to.
Now, my reliable source is the Almighty Squid, and I think I have as much proof of His/Her divinity as you do for your deity. It's because I say so.
>If you saw a person talking to another about a family crisis,
>and the listener says, I will pray for you, youd call em sick. On the
>other hand, if nothing else, it is psychologically beneficial, to know
>someone is doing what they can, [which you would see as nothing] to help a
>situation, or to do what you can in a situation that otherwise cannot be
>affected. Better to do nothing and feel like youre doing something than to
>do nothing at all. If theres no God, I havent lost anything. Ive gained
>a peace-of-mind, and security concerning the afterlife. And if Im wrong,
>when I die, Ill meet some all-forgiving entity thats open-minded and
>RATIONAL? Either way, Im in good shape.
So, in other words, you want us to swallow the cherry-coated poisonous pill in favor of our very own Cod-Liver Placebo? That sounds pretty shady to me. Thanks, but I'll forego the lifetime of self-delusion, Bob.
~kjs