Good Business

Canon PowerShot S90

ƒ/5.6

14.976 mm

1/500

Religion blooms in regions of income disparity (a pattern between countries, and within countries).

This brand new temple in Mathura, India stands out starkly from the poverty that surrounds.

The billboard proclaiming “No Fee” and “No Donation” and “Photography Allowed” also has a URL that explains:

“This great Powerful Saint Baba Jai Gurudeo has been preaching for upliftment of soul through his religious discourses under the name of JAI GURUDEO which is the name of God. This Great Saint attributes the present state of humanity to the five-fold inner weaknesses of man : i.e. lust, anger, greed, attachment and egoism. The Saint is therefore busy day by day in what He calls ‘The reconstruction of the real temple – Human Body’, a job which only a great powerful Saint can do.”

41 responses to “Good Business”

jurvetson

Feb 19, 2011 at 4:21 am

no need to delete. I have driven by that Mormon temple many times, and am in the middle of reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven. Mormonism and Islam spawn fundamentalist splinter religions…. hundreds of them. That book is a frightening testament to the common viral elements of the world’s fastest growing religions (Mormon in the U.S. and Islam globally). If modern prophets can be gods, why not you and me?

Reply
solerena

Feb 19, 2011 at 5:03 am

if only each person would become his or her own "god":) not guru or god for others… these images look both spooky and funny to me (do not want to hurt anybody’s religious feelings here)… just would not be able to "buy it"… some grotesque comedy show:D of course if people like this have real power over others – it stops being even funny…

Reply
drona

Feb 19, 2011 at 5:57 am

Excellent post!

Somehow I’d missed your "wealth and religiosity" post earlier…excellent points in both posts…and so true of the India I know, having grown up there…(although I’ve been an American for >50% of my life). There is a direct correlation between (poverty + lack of education) and adoption of religion…it’s a form of escapism. This is also why the entertainment industry (such as Bollywood) does well.

Religious institutions in India rake in Billions of Dollars in donations…they’re a good place to recycle "black money" — money laundered through various nefarious activities, and even clean money that becomes "black" because no taxes are paid.

Donating part of it to Religion, not only cleans people of their sins…

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 6:02 am

Your post and observation on the relationship between religion and poverty got me googling for "religion in China", for several reasons:

1) since in China, as I know so far, Taoism and Buddhism are main cultural practices, but are mistaken for religions (there is no God for Buddhists),
2) there’s also a great amount of poverty among the population (regardless of its power as a macroeconomy) ,
3) because they are one of the oldest cultures/societies in the world.

I found this interesting links:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

"Generally, the percentage of people who call themselves religious in China has been the lowest in the world."

"The remaining section of the population, ranging between 40% and 60%, is mostly agnostic or non-religious; purely atheists are 14-15%."

"In the 18th and 19th centuries, with the introduction of Western ideology into China, Western religions gained a foothold, notably causing the Taiping Rebellion. The atheist Communist Party of China came to power in 1949. It viewed traditional religions as backwards, and Western religions such as Christianity as the tool of Western colonialism."

And this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

"Since the start of far-reaching economic reforms in the late 1970s, growth has fueled a remarkable increase in per capita income and a decline in the poverty rate from 64% at the beginning of reform to 16% in 2004. At the same time, however, new disparities have increased. Income inequality has risen, propelled by the rural-urban income gap and by the growing disparity between highly educated urban professionals and the urban working class. There have also been increases in the inequality of health and education outcomes. Exact statistics are disputed, as there have been reports of China underestimating the poverty rate."

My impression is that religion is more related to culture, law, tradition and government of a country (what defines a nation and a state, preserves it and reproduces it), more than to its economy or demographics ( rich / poor gap)…

People, imo, tend to do what they are told to, or taught to, or simply learn by imitation, or do the same thing in order to belong to their group… very few break the pattern, and this applies to any economic status. The rich do what rich do, the poor do what the poor do… now, who dictates that? What I mention above.

That’s my impression, I mean.

What do you think? And what is your opinion for China?

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 6:28 am

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/drona] Vas, good points. Specially this, I agree most on:

"it’s a form of escapism. This is also why the entertainment industry (such as Bollywood) does well."

I posted a while ago at another photo of Steve, about the relationship I see between the american fast-food driven obesity epidemic and religious practices.

The pattern goes into that I see religion – entertainment – food addiction (and any other addiction applies too) as part of a same numbing way to be. It’s not just about a numbing system, it’s about a type of brain, even a biological correlation between the state of your brain, or brain type (with its (dis)balance of neurochemicals and neurotransmiters) and preferences for (excessive) numbing activities.

In other words, if you cannot think about why you are so fat and cannot stop the habit, you most likely prefer to see movies and tv or be a workaholic, or an alcoholic or whatever, as much as you may likely be religious, whether because you need to put the blame outside, or because you want a pre-cooked worldview so that you don’t have to think too much or argue against.

(It’s a generalization, and as that, is always unfair, but we are just thinking aloud in rough numbers)

I don’t know if I made sense…

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 6:31 am

Here the previous post, fyi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/5246536813/comment7215762...

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 6:33 am

Btw, it’s good to mention that I am a testimony myself of most of what I talk about… a long an winding lifelong and tough, say, "learning experience"…

Reply
jurvetson

Feb 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm

I cannot speak to China from much personal experience, but from what I read, it seems to fit the pattern. The hope for upward mobility rings strong, and I would expect that the urban rich are less religious than the rural poor. You see some dramatic social changes with urbanization, e.g., their birthrate drops dramatically.

From Larry Summers, Obama’s former economic policy advisor over lunch a few months ago:
“The average standard of living in London went up 50% from the time of Pericles to 1820.

It went up another 50% in one lifespan from 1820 to 1865, and we saw the power of the Industrial Revolution.

And now, the standard of living goes up 50% every five years in China. That gives you a sense of how unprecedented it is.

But before we romanticize it too much, income inequality has also increased spectacularly in China between coastal urban and inland rural areas.”

Ask yourself what they are betting on… That their children will live better lives and have better economic options? Or that they better punt on this world and bet on the next one?

As with religion, it’s perception, not reality that matters.

When Kevin Kelly was traveling in China in 2006, he found that every elementary school in every village had a sign over the door in Mandarin with the following guidance:

LOOK UP TO SCIENCE.
CARE FOR YOUR FAMILY.
RESPECT LIFE.
RESIST CULTY RELIGION.”

It’s the hope for betterment that maintains stability in the face of current inequality. Without fluidity, people will want to overthrow the system.

Ironically, the modern fusion of the secular paths – capitalism and technology – may polarize the very rich-poor gap that they assuage. Capitalism (without the network effects of technology) has been a path for improvement for many. In the winner-take-all economies of the future, I’m not so sure.

Vas: wow. Billions. It’s worse than I realized…. I wonder how far they can push it before people get Egyptian on those institutions?

For a sense of the contrast, this is the monkey business across the street….

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Would you please define what "religious" exactly means to you?

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm

Because for what you express here, I don’t see how China fits the pattern, having been for a veeery long time very anti-culty religion -Buddhism is totally anti-culty religion in its teachings for example, just as that Mandarin sign says.

"The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. Hence, Buddhism is often aptly described as a "spiritual philosophy" whose sole aim is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[2][3] called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.[6][7] Some theists beginning Buddhist meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,[8] but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana,[9] the highest goal of Buddhist practice."

One of the Buddha teachings = "Rejection of the infallibility of accepted scripture: Teachings should not be accepted unless they are borne out by our experience and are praised by the wise."

"According to tradition, the Buddha emphasized ethics and correct understanding. He questioned everyday notions of divinity and salvation. He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens; and the Buddha is only a guide and teacher for beings who must tread the path of Nirvāṇa (Pāli: Nibbāna) themselves to attain the spiritual awakening called bodhi and understand reality. The Buddhist system of insight and meditation practice is not claimed to have been divinely revealed, but to spring from an understanding of the true nature of the mind, which must be discovered by treading the path guided by the Buddha’s teachings."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Reply
jurvetson

Feb 19, 2011 at 9:32 pm

Agreed. I see China as relatively non-religious.

Religion and progress are opposing forces. Religion hinders progress and progress hinders religion.

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 10:51 pm

OK, so I understand better what religion means to you. Now, my last questions ( for today 😉 ):

– What does "to be religious" mean to you? This is: if you had to, how would you describe a religious person? How are they, what do they think and do?

– Are all religious person made equal to your eyes? Is there a possibility that what you consider religious may not be exactly what other people consider as such?

Is there a chance that in one person can inhabit both religious beliefs and a respect and following of science (the scientific method) as a form to acquire valuable knowledge and progress?

Thanks 🙂

Reply
angry shock

Feb 19, 2011 at 10:52 pm

(dunno why I can’t edit posts)

Reply
Mo, In The 415

Feb 20, 2011 at 5:37 am

Deep, y’all. I just came to see the monkeys.

Reply
angry shock

Feb 20, 2011 at 3:44 pm

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] v, hey, I don’t know if you are answering in general to the conversation or to my last questions.

Scientists are people. And the reasons that may make a person have or keep a religion sometimes are of another order than those which make them be scientists. Just like so many of us people do things that can be seen as contradictory (you try to keep fit, but do unhealthy things, the most clear case). We are not fully logical beings, even when a big part of us goes in that direction. The neocortex is a rather new feature…

On the other hand, there can be people who use the methods of science — which show as to be lot more reliable than "scriptures with revealed truths"–, to discover the path to God. Or thinking of it with plain faith and conviction, that the mission God gave to them was that. You can be a biologist, trying to find the means and evidences to understand "where the souls is", having a firm belief that there is one. You can be a scientist and have the belief that God gave us intelligence and a tool like science to find or way to paradise, and that progress in in the path that God charted for us…

So many other examples…

That’s why I am asking what does "to be religious" mean to you (all)? Because perhaps what you consider as such, is what I consider religious fundamentalism, and what you consider simply "spirituality" I may tend to label it a religious behaviour too…

We need to clarify these big concepts, what they mean, because I think it’s the root of great part of all misunderstandings (here and everywhere)…

I think… 😉

(There’s a story of Descartes…
Rene Descartes walks into a restaurant and sits down for dinner.
The waiter comes over and asks if he’d like an appetizer
"No thank you" says Descartes, "I’d just like to order dinner"
"Would you like a drink before dinner?" the waiter asks
Descartes, so impatient, is insulted, since he’s a tee-totaler
"I think not!" he says indignantly, and POOF!
He disappeared.) 😀

Reply
angry shock

Feb 20, 2011 at 4:09 pm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein’s_religious_views

————-
Three styles of religious belief:

In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religious belief. A poor understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels […] the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature […] and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner of the third style.[6] As he wrote later, "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies […] science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind […] a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."[7]
———————

I see this third style very closely touching with the pilar concepts of buddhism I mentioned above.

Reply
solerena

Feb 20, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Oh, I am with Einstein on deep mysteries of life part…the greatest of which is a human as a whole… rereading Bill Bryson’s "A short history of nearly everything" on a plane…modern science has a humility in understanding its boundaries…. religion lacks it in this regard…and ability to change and adapt… my personal mantra is always equilibrium and balance…life and love for life is a very precious gift…

Reply
angry shock

Feb 20, 2011 at 6:48 pm

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] [http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] Agree with you both. =)

V, true on that about the link 😉

S, would you recommend me that book, "A short history of nearly everything" ? I think I read about it here and there…

Here for you, you will like it, I just found it searching for more on Einstein:
themindofeinstein.com/

Reply
solerena

Feb 21, 2011 at 1:10 am

Yep, good book, was mentioned by hardcore geeky people here…so I got it:D like the author’s attitude…

Reply
angry shock

Feb 21, 2011 at 2:58 am

Cool! I will try to get me a copy. Thanks!

Reply
jurvetson

Feb 21, 2011 at 3:13 am

Enjoyed Bryson’s book, but it does not hit these topics directly.

Gi^2: Substitute "astrology" for "reliigion" in each of your questions and perhaps you can see why rationalists would find the dialog absurd.

Reply
angry shock

Feb 21, 2011 at 4:21 am

Jeez, I deleted the post while trying to edit it for a typo, what’s going on that I can’t edit?!

Thanks V, 😉 I will try to repeat what I said and you replied to:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] Aha, OK. But astrology isn’t directly related to religion… they are not synonyms. I think this clarification has to be explicitly made, or talk against astrology directly, if you will, but not against everybody holding a religious belief of some sort in general.

Btw, Venus squares Jupiter these next weeks, making it a real blast for love and good luck 😉

Reply
angry shock

Feb 21, 2011 at 4:25 am

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] There it is. A glitch in the Matrix 😉

Reply
solerena

Feb 21, 2011 at 4:38 am

Are we on good living topic, science, monkeys or religion… or some cosmopolitan blend thereof… with a cherry on top?

Reply
angry shock

Feb 21, 2011 at 4:49 am

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] that cherry is mine!!! I saw it first!!! 😀

Reply
angry shock

Feb 21, 2011 at 5:01 am

LOL!

Reply
solerena

Feb 21, 2011 at 8:11 pm

🙂 and god thanks for my dad’s sense of humor:D all virtual and astrological cherries are yours in both Americas:D

Reply
angry shock

Feb 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm

Super! Appreciated! 😀

Humor is a survival trait, isn’t it? I cannot imagine how we could survive with this kind of worrisome, quarrel-some, questioning intelligence that we have, without the faculties to make fun of ourselves, and life and laugh… (and play)… at the same time.

Steve, btw, now seriously, I would really like if you could give me a list (short or long) of the authors / books you are reading on this topic which contribute to / reflect / expand your vision on it. I’d like to read.

Reply
jurvetson

Feb 22, 2011 at 4:15 am

Sure, Sam Harris (Moral Landscape, End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation), Richard Dawkins (God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Jon Krakauer (Under the Banner of Heaven)

Reply
angry shock

Feb 22, 2011 at 4:26 am

Thanks for the summary. Taking note, so I can get them directly in English soon, for I guess down here won’t find them (also would avoid translations, if possible). =)

Reply
jurvetson

Feb 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Cool. As a bridge from these topics, I would suggest starting with the last chapter of Sam Harris’ End of Faith. He extols the virtues of transcendental meditation, Buddhist texts and Eastern mysticism. Then start at the beginning, and his scathing critique of what we commonly call religion and God will be set in a proper context.

These terms (religion and God) are so overloaded with associated meanings, and have been semantically hijacked for millennia, that it is not productive to try to define spirituality and wonder with reference to those loaded terms.

Einstein tried. His sense of spirituality was in the Spinoza sense, not the religious or God sense. And so he has been misunderstood ever since to his great frustration:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
–Albert Einstein, 1954, Albert Einstein: The Human Side

“I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.” – Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”
-Albert Einstein, letter to Eric Gutkind (more quotes)

Dawkins’ God Delusion opens with a detailed analysis of Einstein’s beliefs and was aimed at the rational scientist in the closet, to try to hook them with a baby step away from their cluster of inconsistent beliefs. Dawkins shares that 60% of scientists and 90% of accomplished scientists do not believe in God, but most reveal this only in anonymous surveys.

As it pertains to the scientific mind, Dawkins and Harris have many comments. While The Moral Landscape focuses on morality, it does have a section on the incompatibility of the religious and scientific mindsets. In summary, "few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than an attachment to religion." (p.176). Harris also gives a detailed analysis of Francis Collins’ “intellectual suicide” (p.160.) in his efforts to harmonize religious belief and scientific pursuits. (He chose the highly visible Collins because it is difficult to find an accomplished scientist who is willing to try to defend religion.) As the most recent book in the lot, I also recommend it highly as it advances some interesting notions (which Dennett describes more in the abstract, as a general call to study the natural phenomenon of religious belief).

Reply
angry shock

Feb 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] V, those kind of statements (that some within) sciences make, I totally agree that put them at the same level of what they talk against. Like I used to say long ago: "Science is upgraded / the new religion."

For some, unfortunately I think, it works that way. It’s so strong the need to counteract and oppose the religious force, that they end up doing exactly the same: being fundamentalists, irrational, emotional, aggressive and defensive towards what they believe is the truth (or the closest). It always happens, this kind of polarization. You shout, I scream, and the spiral downwards never ends, or ends too badly, telling people apart, apart and apart…

Happily, tho, most of scientist are not this way. They do their craft, they just do what they believe is true, not in need to belittle any other people’s feelings and beliefs. Happily, too, many people who hold a creed of some sort, do exactly the same.

And they both do good things for the world, each from their space. But they don’t make it to the news, they are not written about in books, they are nothing worth the mention. But they make it for the most of the world.

Extremes make it to the news, and the bookshop shelves. And unfortunately, given our brain tendency -need- to make generalizations, we tend to take those particular examples of personal (or societal) behavior and make then a representation of a whole set of human beings. In both cases (in all cases) this is a failure in reasoning, and a failure in basic understanding and empathy to distinguish the particular from the general in the human condition. And mostly, unfair.

That is why for me is crucial, not as a mere intellectual level of debate of ideas, but as a human being, to help bringing light in the confusions [Einstein’s "fatal errors"] arising from the conflicted forces, arising for the misleading generalization from particular cases or minorities under big words like "science" "religion" "good" "bad"… in order to see the common ground and look forward to the future, together. As together as we can be.

I am a peacemaker, I will never be able to defend positions that separate people rather than get them together, will never let that happen in front of me, when I see that a big part of the problem is misunderstanding and wording.

I think Einstein was also a peacemaker and an eclectic thinker. The problem with peacemakers and eclecticism is that we live in the shade-of-gray realms… the absolute relative, and at first glance (and a second and a thrid) looks either that we are confused, or crazy, or silly, or just don’t get it, or simply trying to accommodate ourselves were it’s more convenient. None of those are true (not in my case). I am an eclectic thinker. 🙂

The world needs a variety of people and skills and sensibilities to evolve the better and the faster. In my opinion, the limit is respect (both in mind and in our actions) of the other human beings. Otherwise, no matter which side it comes from, it’s repression, dogma, terrorism, indoctrination and running over human rights.

And that deeply moves me in many ways.

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] Thank you immensely for your post. Why yes, that is, I need to understand, I need to read the books you read. Because many times these conversations end up in a bunch of short answers, which are confusing or misleading (give a different impression of what you mean to say). I want to understand further. Not because I don’t understand you by now, as is, or before, but because I need to try to set my mind to your way of thinking -your "language"-, I need to get the whole idea as original as possible. As close as possible. To build the bridges to understanding.

Now, given your more extended explanation, there I see so many points of contact we can find as common ground with what I been mentioning. It makes sense to me. In my posts on Einstein, I never say he was religious. He was not in the ordinary -loaded- sense of the word. As I said to you many times: I am not religious, but, if you include in that concept things like Buddhist philosophy or things alike, hey, well, I will fall in that category. I am not religious but I don’t negate the possible existance of a God (but definitely not believe in the possibility of a person-like God). I just think we are too far from knowing what (if) there is "beyond’ what we understand. Perhaps there is nothing. Perhaps this is all there is. Perhaps it is in our minds, it’s all a construction, perhaps, perhaps. I think we have to keep some kind of humility in our human perspective. And I think science is the most important way to tread he path, but not the only one, specially when we talk about inspiration and letting open to imagination those unanswered questions. Now, if this open position makes me a religious person, just because I am not negating absolutely a "God" of some sort like a creative force, etc etc… then, hey, that’s too stiff a concept.

And as we know it, what cannot bend will break. And that’s no good.

If we are forward to a world in which we won’t commit the same mistakes and aberrations made by past and present societies, by the hand of / in the name of (a) religion(s), we have to be very careful that science doesn’t become the next religion: for closing itself to itself, clamming as valid only what it’s within its domains and neglecting any other forms of knowledge / experience of life just because it doesn’t comply to the scientific method.

One thing is true for all of us here: we want to be part of the process of making a better world. We want that our future will be better than our present, and past, and that our freedoms to flourish as individuals and as a whole of mankind, are not only granted but enlarged. We are for a more mature society. The question is: how to get there.

I will get me the books. And I will try to have them signed by a good friend of mine. =) I will begin from where you point out. Thank you again for being open and for the patience.

Reply
solerena

Feb 22, 2011 at 10:42 pm

Cool reading, like exploring different views any way…and play with different ideas…it would be a boring world without…

Reply
angry shock

Feb 23, 2011 at 6:05 am

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Thanks, V, I’d be sure writing something one day, and I won’t forget the advise on the subject preferences, to add some data to it, and to hand you a complimentary copy. 😉

The one I am awaiting the book from is our host himself… He is just left to write a book, now that he has planted a tree… http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/5466835255 😀

Hope for peace, is the last thing to lose…

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] …it’s like a reversal of entropy…

Reply
Happy Tinfoil Cat

Feb 23, 2011 at 7:53 am

Most my family is Chinese and follow traditions and superstitions, but it’s not religion. Mao pretty much killed religion. There are a few people who become extremely religious spending all their time and money in the temples or churches, but they are rare. It’s like a drug.

Personally, I was raised LDS, RLDS and Allred. I was baptized into each of these Mormon factions. As I understand it, each person can attain godhood over his own personal world, if he is pious enough. I think he wouldn’t be ruling anyone but his own family at that point (I never really thought about it).

A few months ago we had Jehovah Witnesses regularly visiting so I asked them a question, "Can you give me one, single concrete bit of evidence that God exists?" They responded that He exists because they know it in their hearts. I told them I really wanted to believe but needed something. They tried to say that because the world exists, He must. I asked them again, for any tangible proof and asked them to return when they have something. They were eager to research it but never returned.

Reply
Happy Tinfoil Cat

Feb 23, 2011 at 7:34 pm

Yes, magnetic beads. When the door-to-door Baptists asked which religion I was, I replied "Heathen". They haven’t been back.

Reply
angry shock

Feb 23, 2011 at 9:26 pm

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/belleville] Very interesting addition, thanks! Good to have someone to deliver first hand data on a realife example of Chinese customs on this regard.

About the proof of G’s existence, it’s an epistemological conundrum to me… I like that saying (Einstein’s again?) "You can live life as if everything was a miracle, or as if nothing was a Miracle." Applied to this = Everything that is proves G’s existence to a believer. We, the universe, all… are irrefutable proof, for them. Just like with same conviction, for you everything that is doesn’t represent valid proof whatsoever. To me, what matters is not which side are you on, only if it s secured that what ever is true for you, springs from your own heart and mind, not out of indoctrination or imposition. No-one should have the right to impose a God / No God concept into another person, I think… Very hard to achieve such an ideal, I know…

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Happily, SJ has far too many topics he can right interesting books about… not necessarily has to be this. However, I would go for that one, too. 😉

Reply
angry shock

Feb 23, 2011 at 9:40 pm

In a more nicer way, looking to the future… this is an interesting topic in terms of the synthetic and artificial life we humans are beginning to create.

Reply
solerena

Feb 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Although can really misteries of life be a prove of god existence per ce? They are gateways into the unknown but this boundaries are getting pushed by science (thankfully)…I am not saying one should or should not believe in god… these type if believes reside in the feelings area and the last is too intimate to be shared on flickr directly… however science has improved our lives…and religion lost a power to be the obstacle of progress..humans like to feel that they have immortal soul…this one is still a very major religious claim…together with other more subtle textures…or patterns…also either meditation or some religious practices is a way of tuning human soul…cleansing us if you will…

Reply
angry shock

Feb 23, 2011 at 11:19 pm

LOL! Didn’t read that in your comment either!! 😀

It might be difficult with such a variety of things on the table, to choose what to write about -enough to make it a book-… (re:SJ, not me)

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] Agreed.

Reply
robertlima564

Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 am

This written piece gives fastidious understanding yet. http://www.nomoreh1b.com/greg-jacobs-incredible-dream-machines-r...

Reply

Good Business

41 responses to “Good Business”

Leave a Reply to Happy Tinfoil Cat Cancel reply