So People On Facebook Are Going Crazy Over This Analogy To God

[Take It In Blood]

shyt like this is why I deleted my Facebook account.

delete facebook and put ur face in a book

 

[AsTheWorldBurns]

This is why God is a woman.

 

[King_Sage]

I actually do not know, & that is what makes me an agnostic.
Religious people are sure there is a God, atheists are sure there is not a God.
Humans feel discomfort saying they do not know.

I think being an agnostic is the most practical & scientific approach to life.
I believe that not only I don't know the answers to your question but also that neither do you!

would you agree that science is parallel everywhere (including Physics, Astronomy, Math, etc.) based on what we know to date? Would you also agree that it has to be designed by someone or something for it to be parallel in our visable field of space?

 

[BoBurnz]

I mean you're literally ignoring human growth and development 101 here to make this stupid facebook post try and seem like it has anything resembling a point. Infants don't even develop the ability to see in color until they're 4-6 months old, they don't begin to process anything other than instinctual responses to stimuli until 6-8 months. This whole thing is so god damn stupid and the way you frame the thread "15 techniques people CAN'T BELIEVE lets them get one over on the IRS" type shyt is just so stupid.

What the hell is the point of this thread? Letting us know idiots believe stupid shyt on facebook? Cool, I already knew that.

 

[BoBurnz]

I mean, yes, people are naturally inclined to believe in something on the basis of "faith" because we're naturally empathetic creatures who have an intense desire for physical and emotional meaning. You can learn any of this in a 2 hour free online psychology 101 lecture.

 

[rapbeats]

Stupid, babies can't talk. lol
Seriously, this is just an oversimplification of something very complicated.

There is nothing over simplifying about this analogy at all in regards to the belief in GOD. it is 100% accurate to what a believer believes vs a so called Non believer and why they think the way they do. its a perfect analogy.

 

[rapbeats]

Babies aint thinking about that shyt.

Adults are ACTIVELY searching for answers and not finding any. Not twins. BILLIONS of people have lived and died asking these questions.

These babies having an active intelligent conversation and knowing what the umbilical cord is doing. Religious ppl will do anything to hold on to something old that doesnt translate into making sense in these modern times.

How do you know what babies are and are not doing inside there? You dont. you actually have no idea of what they are thinking at a certain point in the womb. and yes a billion people have died asking these same questions. per the analogy a billion babies have been born and can't remember that they asked this question before they got out because their brains were still developing rapidly. it doesnt mean the observations did not take place.

But the point of the analogy is not for your to get stuck on the babies thinking. It's for you to see a simple reality to life itself. How do you know something is beyond what you see? You dont, and you can't unless you have faith. It's not making the non believer feel bad. It's telling their story on why they believe what they believe. They can only believe what they see. They have a very hard time having FAITH, therefore they are stuck with using only their outside senses. Perhaps that is not enough to see beyond where you are at the moment.

 

[rapbeats]

I mean, yes, people are naturally inclined to believe in something on the basis of "faith" because we're naturally empathetic creatures who have an intense desire for physical and emotional meaning. You can learn any of this in a 2 hour free online psychology 101 lecture.

but what you can't learn in an 2 hour free online psych course is WHY we have such an intense desire for emotional meaning. There is no such answer to that in our psych books.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

There is nothing over simplifying about this analogy at all in regards to the belief in GOD. it is 100% accurate to what a believer believes vs a so called Non believer and why they think the way they do. its a perfect analogy.

Is this about the belief in god or the after life? If it is the after life many religions believe as many different things about it. So yeah it's complicated.

 

[BoBurnz]

but what you can't learn in an 2 hour free online psych course is WHY we have such an intense desire for emotional meaning. There is no such answer to that in our psych books.

Yes, there is:

A reason to believe

People are naturally predisposed to use the cognitive abilities we have which make us distinct from other organisms to fill gaps in that cognition through patters we perceive, to give meaning and structure to the world around us. It's not complex. Whether you believe in a God or not is irrelevant to the human element that pre-disposes people to belief and why that is. That's why religious differences aside, most systems of belief have an afterlife, a set of rules and guidelines, and a hierarchical system. People want to believe there's something after life because death is confusing and clashes with our internal cognitive models.

 

[rapbeats]

I mean you're literally ignoring human growth and development 101 here to make this stupid facebook post try and seem like it has anything resembling a point. Infants don't even develop the ability to see in color until they're 4-6 months old, they don't begin to process anything other than instinctual responses to stimuli until 6-8 months. This whole thing is so god damn stupid and the way you frame the thread "15 techniques people CAN'T BELIEVE lets them get one over on the IRS" type shyt is just so stupid.

What the hell is the point of this thread? Letting us know idiots believe stupid shyt on facebook? Cool, I already knew that.

again. you're stuck on trying to rationalize why are babies talking and rationalizing anything. that is not the point of the analogy at all. dont be so quick to respond because you dont agree with the premise.

the analogy is less about babies have the brain power to talk and discuss. and its more about if they could what would they think if they had these two different views on if there is something else beyond the womb. This would be a logical conversation for them if they could think at that level and speak at that level. you can't deny that. The babies are actually there to say you and I are babies in reality. we dont know all that much about everything that is around us and especially if anything is outside of what we physically see/hear/touch/smell. And its very difficult for some to understand where God is, if he truly is all around us. How do you know something/someone exists if you are within them? outside of faith and, you really can't know.

 

[MBwithadream]

So I'm agnostic but religious people are loving this.
Thoughts?

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”The other replied, “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 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 listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

Maybe this was one of the best explanations of the concept of GOD.

 

[BoBurnz]

again. you're stuck on trying to rationalize why are babies talking and rationalizing anything. that is not the point of the analogy at all. dont be so quick to respond because you dont agree with the premise.

the analogy is less about babies have the brain power to talk and discuss. and its more about if they could what would they think if they had these two different views on if there is something else beyond the womb. This would be a logical conversation for them if they could think at that level and speak at that level. you can't deny that. The babies are actually there to say you and I are babies in reality. we dont know all that much about everything that is around us and especially if anything is outside of what we physically see/hear/touch/smell. And its very difficult for some to understand where God is, if he truly is all around us. How do you know something/someone exists if you are within them? outside of faith and, you really can't know.

So you're ascribing cognition to something that doesn't have it in order to rationalize it through your own lens.

That's literally how belief works. It's called the cognitive blind spot, it's why we attribute human elements to animals.

 

[rapbeats]

do the babies have 1,000 conflicting sets of rules to get to life after delivery?

actually they do have a ton of rules to be born. if you only knew how many things have to lineup to first conceive a child then let alone deliver a baby and let alone deliver a healthy baby. its more than 1000 rules. now you said conflicting rules. Actually there arent that many rules. those 1000 rules are there to prove you can't keep all of those laws so dont even try. what you should do is try to follow the spirit and let it control your order your steps. vs you trying to be in control of everything and constantly make bad decision after bad decision even when you're trying to do the right thing. If you keep those commandments, which is simple, love God and love thy neighbor this will cover the remaining 1000 rules. But you just dont get that. If you truly Loved God, you would truly love yourself, therefore, you would truly love your neighbor/your family/friends, etc. your neighbor is your family too, as well as your actual next door neighbor. neighboring towns,cities,counties, states, countries. it means love everyone as God loves you. If we did that, we wouldnt have to worry about 1000 rules. But since we rather try to follow some rules we get stuck doing that. its a bad cycle. oh by the way which contradicting rules you speak of?

 

[rapbeats]

So you're ascribing cognition to something that doesn't have it in order to rationalize it through your own lens.

That's literally how belief works. It's called the cognitive blind spot, it's why we attribute human elements to animals.

you're still intentionally missing the point of the analogy. its an analogy not science. why would yall try to science up an analogy? unless you're doing that to get away from the actual point of the analogy. The only thing thats real about the analogy as far as science goes is that you have a womb and babies in it and an umbilical cord that feeds them. this was not a science quiz yall. relax. read the analogy. stop with the science. this is not that and wasnt intended for that purpose.