Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
It doesn't do anything, but if you pray for something it isn't entirely unfeasible that you get it, but of course this isn't because of prayer, it's due to chance.
I was thinking about this when an extremely large group of people had a "prayer circle for Haiti" in Times Square. I doubt it did anything for Haiti in the least, but it probably made a few people feel better about having "done something" to help.
My statement was simple and equitable. How you see an insult in there is beyond me, unless you feel your position is shaky, and tied to your self worth.
Why give up so easily? One single shred of independently verifiable evidence, and I'll be right there with you. Too stringent a test? It's not. A simple stone on the ground meets the criteria.
I answered "disagree" - prayer helps people to fool themselves to believe they did something to influence a situation they can't influence. Also has it been demonstrated that prayer influences others, people in hospital that know others are praying for them to get well actually do less well. Perhaps this can be explained by raised stress levels "I must be really sick that they are praying for me" or "now since everyone is praying for me I MUST get better". So yes prayer has some effects indeed.
Actually it has been demonstrated that the people lie about prayer helping those in hospitals.
Under proper controlled double blind conditions, prayer does nothing. If people know they are being prayed for, and if they also beleive in prayer, then it frequently helps. It's called the placebo effect. It's what faith healers utilize. And con men.
[2 points]2 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 2 years ago by dauguy
Its interesting how you all seem to think that we only pray to ask things... we pray to communicate with God. In this communication we may tell Him our problems and ask for help, but the main thing is to talk with him.
You also seem to think that the prayer would show its result in a material way, but mostly what you recieve when you pray is something spiritual; a new feeling, a new thought,a new connection, that may help you with your problem.
I think that it can also have material effects, but I wont argue this point, because I think is a matter of faith harder to explain.
Just wanted to point that you may recieve much more spiritually for praying, than what you can see materially.
Well, for us is not the same thing, as we feel that we receive something back in the communication. Anyway is a matter of faith, and i wont argue it, because i have done it plenty times before; you can look my comments and you will see.
You just have to realize that your "feeling" doesn't make something true, and your "faith" doesn't make it real. There is real harm done in the world when people opt for prayer over medical attention, for example. It's not as benign as you make it out to be. To say, "It's a matter of faith" is equal to saying you'd rather give up your ability to think rationally in favor of the euphoria of self-delusion.
I know that the feeling doesnt mean that its true, thats why i say its a matter of faith, because it isnt something that i can probe in a kind of material way, you just believe or not. It doesnt mean that i dont think rationally, there are rational ways to probe the existence of God, but at the end you can relativize everything.
And we obviously encourage people to take medical attention, it would be stupid not to do it, but praying helps you to get through the illness, and ofcourse i think that miracles can happen.
I noticed that you didn't address the fact that faith doesn't make it real either. It's just another "feeling", and you go on to repeat that prayer is a matter of faith. Faith is not wanting to know what is true. To act on faith is to abandon reason. It is antithetical to rationality, so of course it means you aren't thinking rationally. "Just believe or not," as you say, is no way to "probe" [sic] /prove anything. And believing in miracles is just another malignancy. Look at 'TheSheep's link above for incontrovertible proof that prayer is at most futile and at least is harmful.
Additionally, I looked at your other instances of "arguing the point," and you remain overwhelmingly both unconvincing and unconvinced.
Puedes no tener pruebas para algo y que sin embargo exista. Para nosotros no es abandonar la razón, es dar un paso más allá de ella.
Yo creo; tengo motivos para hacerlo desde el punto de vista racional y espiritual, sé que ninguno te va a convencer, por eso digo que no tengo pruebas, simplemente porque a ti no te van a bastar, porque no las encontrarías válidas. Para mi al final es sólo un acto de fe. Si relativizamos se ve caos para los dos lados, para mí es una igualdad, y dentro de esto decido creer. Además me parece más lógico y menos absurdo dentro de este caos que Dios exista, pero eso ya es cosa mía.
El problema está en la significación de la palabra "existir". No debemos usarla sin pruebas. Como dices, es posible no tener pruebas para algo y que exista, pero, no podemos decir que existe hasta tenemos prueba. Sin pruebas, que nadie tiene (todavía), es lo mismo que no existe. Además no es razonable en la vida a actuar en algo que no existe.
"Un paso más allá?" Un paso más allá de razón es sinrazón!
Como dice 'Promethean' debajo, "For us" isn't..." Es lo mismo cuando dices "Para nosotros no es abandonar la razón." - Sí, en este caso abandonástela.
Cosa de fe? Faith can only be blind, and therefore is by definition irrational. Abandoning reason to blind faith, and considering it a virtue, is one of the grandest disgraces of western civilization.
No es más logico "creer". Es lo contrario. Es OK decir que crees en algo (familia, amigos, que venga la mañana, etc) pero por favór, no digas que es de logico! Es exactamente porque existe caos, que digo que no existe Diós. Si existiría, no habría ningun caos.
Pero sí, me bastarían pruebas reales si se encuentren un dia en el futuro, pero todavía no tenemos.
Nosotros lo vemos como caos, porque es una realidad increíble que nos supera, y a mí por lo menos me asombra tanto que me hace difícil no creer en la existencia de Dios. Es en ese sentido en que me parece más lógico, porque veo que debió existir siempre algo incausado para poder haber causado lo demás.
Puede existir algo de lo cual no tengamos pruebas, lo único que pasa es que no es demostrable, pero puede ser perfectamente verdadero y estás llegando a ello a través de la fe. Es difícil de explicar, para nosotros además la fe es una virtud sobrenatural, por lo que comprendo que no sea tan fácil para ustedes creer.
De todas formas sólo veo cosas buenas en creer, por lo menos en el tipo de fe que tengo yo. Sé que eso no basta, pero además para mí es la verdad.
Ustedes se escandalizan bastante porque uno crea, porque uno pueda estar equivocado. Y si nos equivocamos al final... ¿Qué perdemos?, ¿Habernos engañado?, yo creo que saco muchas cosas más de la fe. No malinterpreten esto, no estoy diciendo que sea mejor vivir engañando, porque no pierdes nada.
Me asombra mucho tambien, pero no me indica que hay diós. Esa es una desconexión de lógica causal. Es como decir, "Hay hadas en mi jardín por que no puedo entender cualquier otra razón para lo que me asombra."
"y estás llegando a ello a través de la fe" - No se puede llegar a la verdad a través de la fe. la verdad se llega a través de pruebas verificadas de forma independiente, que culminó en el conocimiento. La verdad no puede ser alcanzado a través de un proceso interno, como la fe. Es la antítesis de las definiciones de "fe" y "verdad."
"..que debió existir siempre algo incausado para poder haber causado lo demás" - Está bien decir "no sabemos aún", en lugar de hacer a los seres imaginarios como causas de las cosas que no sabemos aún.
"fe es una virtud sobrenatural" - Esta declaración no tiene sentido en la realidad.
"por lo que comprendo que no sea tan fácil para ustedes creer." - Sí, es bastante facíl, pero no es una cosa de creencia. Si se afirma que algo va a actuar sobre la realidad, entonces debe ser probado a hacerlo.
"sólo veo cosas buenas en creer," - Entonces, es probable que no has vido mucho en la historia de lo que han hecho, y continúan haciendo, de creer.
"para mí es la verdad" - La verdad no es una proposición relativa. Por la definición de la palabra, debe ser el mismo para todos.
"Y si nos equivocamos al final... ¿Qué perdemos?" - Haga investigaciones sobre la Apuesta de Pascal. Lo que dices es sólo esto. Es refutada.
Las cosas son racionales o no por sí mismas, no por lo que el resto crea; así como las cosas son ciertas por sí mismas, no porque las afirme una mayor cantidad de gente.
Pero qué agresivo! no hay necesidad! te escribo en español porque es mi lengua materna y me expreso mejor en ella. No es muy difícil entenderlo usando el traductor de google, además varios acá lo entienden. Si te molesta tanto puedo escribirlo en inglés también, pero tendrías que pedirlo bien!
"cosas cierto y racional por sí mismas" Es lógico circular. It doesn't stand. Things are not rational because of the number of people who believe in them, yes. But this is your undoing, not ours. Things are rational because they are proven to be so through independently verifiable evidence. Through the reason of the scientific process. Your belief is ever so much puffy smoke.
"relativize" is just a spin word to try and put subjective anecdote and personal feeling/opinion on equal ground with fact/rationality/reason. This fails.
The Five Ways are logical fallacies, long ago shown to be exactly that. I'm surprised you'd trot them out in the 21st century. You damage your credibility.
The automatic gainsay of an assertion is no convincing argument. Neither is a pot shot at how rigorous someone's thinking has been/will be. It is theists who have been intransigent in their views in the wake of evidence against their assertions, not athiests or free-thinkers. We welcome and adjust for new evidence. Go ahead, the burden of proof is on you.
No you do not welcome and adjust for new evidence. How many years after the discovery of germs did it tale for surgeons to wash their hands? How many of you atheists or free-thinkers will even look at the congruences between modern physics and Christian beliefs? You don't want to hear it if it doesn't conform to your prejudices. It's like your insistence that Christians are idiot rednecks without a clue. If you are going to call yourself a free thinker, get rid of your prejudices, get the real facts and deal with them. This other stuff you've been spouting is wishful thinking, at best.
Ok, I tried reading your comment and it literally went to white noise in my head, as you wrote a ton of stuff that essentially said nothing. He asked you to provide one rational way to provide the existence of God. Do you have one or not?
I grew up without religion, so I seem to be missing the essential trigger that makes me want to care if there is a God or not. I think other things are far more important, like whether people are fed and have access to healthcare.
Got to tell you, there is no "rational thinking" that leads to the existence of God if you don't care about the outcome to begin with. Note: that doesn't mean I dispute the existence, I just don't care. And so it is not very worth my time to chase my tail trying to prove the existence of that which I could care less about. So you may either hand it to me on a "silver platter" so I might change my mind and find it important, or take it elsewhere, because frankly, arguments that involve "you are too closed minded and are not trying hard enough so it is your fault" fall within the same realm of thinking that suggest "people born within extreme poverty only stay there if they want to", and the like. It does nothing to address the problem and is only used as a defense by people who have no other.
Yeah, wow! Oragina not only deleted all of his/her comments, which were numerous, but deleted his/her user account. Perhaps he/she has gone off to digest some of the issues raised to challenge his/her cozy belief system. That is probably wishful thinking however, and he/she has probably just gone running back to cry in the arms of mother church... or to pray for our poor lost souls. Well, we all know how that turns out.
HA! Whoever it was hit me with both barrels before he deleted. They were filled with peanut butter, though. He took deep exception to my not caring, and suggested I was closed minded. I'd suggest I'd be totally open minded if someone could just give me a REASON to be, but the most I ever get from people is something along the lines of, "don't you care what happens to you when you die". To be fair, that wasn't the argument he gave; he refuted everything I said without ever answering the original question. And totally did not understand what I was trying to tell him. Oy.
weskos, You made 2 logic errors based on factual errors.
1) Prayer instead of medicine is practiced by by a very small fringe group. Christian hospital systems are some of the largest and most advanced in the World. They represent Christian belief, not your stupid fringe group.
2) Thinking and rationality go with Faith just as they go with scientific evidence. They are two ways to arrive at conclusions. To say that there is only one way to acquire knowledge is a logical fallacy because it requires me to accept your Faith. It is exactly the same error Christians make by quoting the Bible to atheists.
1) No errors were made. I didn't say that all christians believed in prayer *instead* of seeking medical help. But for those who have done so, only their belief in prayer is to blame.
Hospitals of any kind, Christian or otherwise, are advanced and effective because of medical science, not belief systems connected to them. Is it belief that cures disease or successfully performs an operation? NO. It's competently trained human beings.
2) Trying to place faith on par with rationality/science is dishonest, and you know it. Faith is belief without evidence. It can yield no factual conclusions only subjective belief. Subjective beliefs aren't independently verifiable facts.
There is only one way to acquire knowledge, and that is not a logical fallacy by any means. You need not accept any faith of mine. The scientific method stands without faith.
Nope. You don't pray to win. You pray to play with a clear head and to be the very best you can be. You pray for protection from injury. Then you start praying for your own team. The winning will take care of itself.
That's dancing around the issue. Jesus said in Luke 11:9, "Ask, and it shall be given you."
You seek to redefine the parameters of prayer to make it fit with what you wish, but in the bible, material results are promised... just never delivered.
Pray to be the best you can be? Can you not be that without praying for it?
Pray for protection? Then, if you're protected, it's God, and if you are not, then his plan is different? or he's "working in mysterious ways"? How very convenient.
And "praying for yur own team." What does that even mean?
I had a good friend who believed he could read minds. This of course was so much self-delusion. He had been severely abused as a child and learned early and completely how to read body language to know another's intentions against him.
It doesn't do anything, but if people want to pray for themselves or any one to get well, I say more power to them. As for me I would go and see a doctor.
I agree with you for the most part, but would modify those statements this way:
If you think it works, it doesn't.
If you don't think it works, it also doesn't.
Causative reality is not a matter of choice. One can either show the results of an action or not. No one has ever shown a positive correlation between prayer and its supposed result.
That's like saying the car will run if you maintain its parts, put gas in it, drive it correctly, sing london bridge, and wave your hands in the air. Two of the list are unequivocally ineffectual.
They aren't needed at all. Preparation and action suffice for making things happen. Silly Bible.
Actually, fundamentalists have done way with all of it except faith. Doesn't matter what you do to others, how destructively, cruelly, and filled with hate you live your life; if, with your dying breath, you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you are saved.
Hell, you can be a Hitler and Stalin combined, as long as you accept Jesus into your heart, you are saved.
"A man sits in a railway carriage reading The Telegraph. After finishing each page, he rips it out, stands up and throws it out of the window (this was in the days when you could). After he's reached the middle of the paper, the man opposite can contain himself no longer. "It keeps the elephants away," explains the ripper. "But there are no elephants round here," responds the man, still baffled. "That just shows how successful my policy is."
There's that word "communication" again. It implies either an exchange of information, or the acknowledgment of information received. None of that takes place with prayer. If you want to amend your assertion to "attempted communication," that would seem reasonable, since there is no proof that the receiving party exists.
Faith doesn't bring understanding, basic, fundamental, or otherwise. Knowledge does.
However, there's nothing "pre-" about my determination about God not existing. God not existing is intrinsically related to prayer not working, so my argument is hardly misplaced.
I am not "bent" on a "belief" that God doesn't exist. It is a default neutral position which I will gladly alter when and if any evidence whatsoever can be provided that he does exist. The burden of proof is on those who claim he does. And then show me one instance where prayer has yielded anything different than would have resulted by talking to oneself inside one's own head. There's nothing that prayer has supposedly accomplished that could not have been done without it. I will change my position however, if it is ever shown that it does anything measurable.
You accuse me of an intransigent belief, when that is precisely the position from which you make claims of "different kinds of understanding" and "faith bringing understanding". These statements are indeed meaningless if you can't make your case for such claims, and shouldn't be taken seriously by people who want to function productively in the real world.
Assuming that it would be pointless to defend your assertions just means you don't feel your case is strong enough to try.
"If they are intrinsically related, and you take a neutral position of believing God doesn't exist, then just how relevant is your opinion on prayer not working?"
It's relevant like this - If a god exists, it's most probably not the one espoused in any human religion, and doesn't seem to be one that engages in or cares about prayer, since the evidence for prayer having any effect on the real world is nil (apart from that placebo effect/negative placebo effect mentioned and linked to earlier).
"No, I've actually been this route before many times. It's simply that a question regarding God or prayer would entail an answer of the like, obviously."
No, not "obviously."
What your saying is god can only explain god, and god stuff can only explain god stuff. That's conveniently circular, now isn't it? And certainly not an "explanation" in even the broadest sense. Why is it that theists will not simply admit
they cannot fulfill such a simple request as to provide evidence for their assertions, instead of insisting on redefining basic concepts to try and prop up floundering reasoning?
"Oh boy, and in your experience have you seen anything near sufficient? I would have to research that beforehand, but it is there."
Not yet. But as I said, I don't just wait, I actively look for such evidence too. And I for one HAVE been researching, from inside and outside religion for decades. When you say "but it is there," your assuredness betrays your lack of having researched the issues yourself.
You asserted that "What you're saying is, God can only explain God, and god stuff can only explain god stuff. That's conveniently circular, now isn't it? And certainly not an "explanation" in even the broadest sense. Why is it that theists will not simply admit..." and "I for one HAVE been researching, from inside and outside religion for decades."
Allow me to put this in a way that might satisfy some of your concerns. People tend to look for what they expect they will find. You expect to find scientific evidence for God if there is a God and to not find scientific evidence if there is no God. Since you can not find the right kind of evidence for God, you naturally conclude that God doesn't exist.
The only thing that conflicts with your conclusion is that 85% of the American people disagree with you on some level. Don't talk to me about whether it's a popularity contest or not. Popularity is not the point. You have asserted that Theists are deluded. But as a rational man, I must challenge you to find 85% of any large country and prove that they are ALL delusional while 15% are not.
In evolutionary terms, the 85% delusional fact has to mean that believers are superior to non-believers because non-believers have not superseded the believers.
A more likely explanation is that God is very real and impossible (at this point) to scientifically detect. If that is true, then the nature of your questions has to change.
"..you naturally conclude that God doesn't exist."
Naturally. That is the only responsible thing to do, given the evidence.
"The only thing that conflicts with your conclusion is that 85% of the American people disagree with you on some level. Don't talk to me about whether it's a popularity contest or not. Popularity is not the point."
On the contrary. "popularity" is indeed the point, or more accurately, the majority being wrong about an issue. You seem to believe that it's too improbable for the majority of highly functional beings in a group to be wrong about something. That is fallacious, and I'm sure you yourself can think of numerous examples where this is true.
The majority of any population believing in a god or gods other than your own, is one example. The majority of US children believing in Santa Claus is another. We both know he doesn't exist.
Here's a question for you. The majority of people in Norway don't believe in any form of god. Are they all delusional? By your logic, they can't be.
"But as a rational man, I must challenge you to find 85% of any large country and prove that they are ALL delusional while 15% are not."
Because you have no proof, and know it, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof to the negative; essentially "prove God doesn't exist." Any rational person knows this is not logical. You can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that Russell's celestial teapot doesn't exist, or invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean that the automatic solution is to believe in them and have your life guided by that belief. If that were true, you'd have to accept all gods and mythological beings as existent and affecting reality.
You can be a rational man, but fail to be rational or informed on some issues. The burden of proof remains solidly on the positive assertion that God exists. That is what must be proven. As for your challenge, I refer you back to Norway.. or Saudi Arabia.. or India.
"In evolutionary terms, the 85% delusional fact has to mean that believers are superior to non-believers because non-believers have not superseded the believers."
It appears you don't understand evolution, biological or social, nor the difference between them. Evolution doesn't say anything about a superior model superseding an inferior one. This is a common misunderstanding. It simply allows for mutations providing characteristics not suitable to a particular environment not to be propagated. That's why, when the environment changes, whole species can go extinct, because they become "wrong" for the environment. Change may take place over a long period of time, or a short one. To say that any one given stage in that change represents an optimal or superior model, is not taking the dynamics into consideration.
To put it simply, and in social terms, most people used to believe the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it. They were all wrong. They weren't delusional until, on religious grounds, they denied the truth in the face of evidence.
"A more likely explanation is that God is very real and impossible (at this point) to scientifically detect. If that is true, then the nature of your questions has to change."
Again, to jump to a conclusion that a god, and in particular, the god you ascribe to, exists, and is the solution to an unanswered question is causally flawed. It's like saying, "I don't know how mushrooms grow in a ring on the ground, therefore faeries must be planting them that way." The causal connection is not established.
Your whole line of thinking assumes that nothing exists beyond our senses and calls my reasoning circular because I can't prove anything beyond our senses. Huh? If I could prove anything beyond our senses, it wouldn't be beyond our senses. Your demands for that kind of proof are illogical.
What "Huh?" You've shown yourself the answer. Only it isn't the demand for proof that's "illogical," it's the claim of existence to begin with. Demands for proof aren't unreasonable in any sense, and certainly aren't illogical. Do you know how to critically evaluate something using logic, or do you just like to use the words 'logic'/'illogic' to try and bolster your failing argument? If someone claims something to be true, or that something exists, yet offers no measurable evidence for it, then it hasn't been confirmed to be true or existent, and shouldn't be treated as such. If it is claimed to be 'beyond our senses' (or beyond instrumental augmentation thereof,) then that claim is baseless and inactionable.
My line of thinking does NOT assume that nothing exists beyond our senses, simply that anything with no measurable parameters has no bearing on us until it enters that purview.
The religious line of thinking is, let's not only assume that something beyond our senses exists, but let's ascribe certain attributes to it, and let's worship it. That is patently irrational.
You don't acknowledge or try to refute my point that the majority of a population can indeed be wrong about something. Should I assume you agree then?
Now you find it necessary to lie about religion to make your point.
"The religious line of thinking is, let's not only assume that something beyond our senses exists, but let's ascribe certain attributes to it, and let's worship it. That is patently irrational."
The religious line of thinking is, What is the origin of everything? What is the intelligence that guides us? How do we know to be intelligent? Why did thing get done the way they did? How are things done? Why not do it another way? What kind of person is best? Why? What is up to us and what is predetermined?
It seems the height of arrogance to believe nothing exists beyond our senses. That is not true of Agnostics, however. They are just saying that those questions I posed can not be answered yet. They do not know what exists beyond our ability to examine, but they think we Christians probably have it wrong. I find that to be an intelligent decision based on what they know just as I base my decisions on what I know.
But Atheistic, stick your head in the sand, if I can't see it, it doesn't exist thinking is preposterous.
"Now you find it necessary to lie about religion to make your point."
No. What I've said sums it up pretty well.
"The religious line of thinking is, What is the origin of everything? What is the intelligence that guides us?"
Assumes the existence of an intelligence, and further assumes it is guiding us.
"How do we know to be intelligent?"
We don't "know" to be intelligent. We simply are.
"Why did thing [sic] get done the way they did? How are things done? Why not do it another way? What kind of person is best? Why? What is up to us and what is predetermined?"
And then, like I said, instead of rationally being content to use reason to investigate perfectly good questions, or admitting, "we don't know yet," religious people try to fill the gaps with mythology. They are too desperate for the comfort of knowledge to wait for real answers. I don't blame human beings for craving knowledge the way we do. I think that's a good thing. But fudging evidence, and rushing to conclusions without proof is not responsible.
"It seems the height of arrogance to believe nothing exists beyond our senses."
The height of arrogance is to act as if one "knows" that such a something is necessarily interested in human beings, or earth, when we most certainly don't know that. Atheists and critical thinkers do not actively "believe that nothing exists beyond our senses." We simply don't make the presumption to act on that which is not proven. That is just being responsible.
"That is not true of Agnostics, however. They are just saying that those questions I posed can not be answered yet."
Atheists say that too. Sometimes the only difference between Atheists and Agnostics is their willingness to take a stance about what is really known.
"They do not know what exists beyond our ability to examine, but they think we Christians probably have it wrong. I find that to be an intelligent decision based on what they know just as I base my decisions on what I know."
As we all do. I find that reasonable. We all also base our decisions partially on subjective perception, which is true of every human being. That's why we often find it hard to come to a consensus. The difference is, I place objective fact before personal subjective belief.
"But Atheistic, stick your head in the sand, if I can't see it, it doesn't exist thinking is preposterous."
Like I said. It isn't preposterous to be sceptical, or to insist on proof for outrageous or extraordinary claims. It is just being responsible and honest about what you/we really know.
If you want to say that your interpretation of subjective experience or feeling is a more important part of what guides you, then I can't argue with you on that. What I have a problem with is the assertion that it is currently verifiable as reality. When religions hold fast to unreasonable bronze age stories and fables to answer important questions of the universe, continue to propagate those myths as real solutions, and cling to them like a child who refuses to believe Santa isn't real; That's what I call sticking one's head in the sand.
If I was holding fast to unreasonable bronze age stories and fables to answer important questions of the universe, and clung to them like a child who refuses to believe Santa isn't real; Then I would be sticking my head in the sand. But that is exactly the opposite of what I did.
So, what you're saying you did, as the opposite of that, is you didn't pre-form your conclusion based on what you wanted to believe, and looked for evidence to support that conclusion after the fact, as it would appear. But instead, you objectively looked at the body of verifiable evidence, and that evidence supported a conclusion that your bronze age stories and fables were fit to answer important questions of the universe?
What does that say about your ability to evaluate reality? I think the answer to that is obvious.
I never intended to imply that you or any other Atheist is delusional, only that Christianity is not. Calling the other side delusional is a sign of intellectual ineptness. I was trying to turn it around to show how silly that statement really was.
Acting on a non-existent, or as of yet unconfirmed entity is irresponsible.
Ascribing certain characteristics [creator, moral dictator, judge, saviour] to that entity is irrational.
Worshiping that artificial construct is delusional.
If a god, creator, or other such thing exists, it most probably is nothing like anything the human mind has conjured [Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin]. Thinking that any of those exist is what is silly.
What you said is ONLY true for atheists. It's like death. You believe that there is nothing after death. For you, that's true. For me, it isn't.
You can't be certain that God is an artificial construct, but you live as if you believe that. What you said is consistent with your belief, but not with mine. I think my belief is superior to yours because I don't have to ignore phenomena to believe mine.
"What you said is ONLY true for atheists. It's like death. You believe that there is nothing after death. For you, that's true. For me, it isn't."
Truth is not subjective or based on opinion. Truth is truth for all. I live my life on what I know, and what I've experienced. The verifiable knowledge portion outweighs the subjective experience part. That may be the other way around for you, but a reasonable person would understand how that is not responsible.
Because you base your thought processes firstly on belief instead of confirmed fact, you make the mistake of ascribing belief to me concerning something that is not a matter of belief. The truth for all is that the body dies and the bio-chemical energy that is our consciousness dissipates. Those are the facts. It is no more than wishful thinking to assume anything of ourselves remains after that, and again delusional to claim knowledge of any details of any other possibility.
Believing in something does not make it true. It seems that religious people just have a heck of a time learning that lesson.
"You can't be certain that God is an artificial construct, but you live as if you believe that."
The responsible default course of action is to live one's life based on evidence you DO have, not on evidence you don't, can't be sure of, or on what you might have in the future. I don't "live as if I believe" that God is an artificial construct. I live and make decisions based on knowledge first and foremost, not wishes, not wild speculation, not myth.
The gods of human religion are most certainly nothing but artificial constructs. How convenient that each god favors the people of the very region in which they were conceived. How coincidental that gods of humanity have human emotions, concerns, proclivities, needs, and appetites. How predictable that each one germinated in a specific locality, and proceeded to spread outward from a geographic point, just like any natural, and artificially constructed cultural phenomenon. Wouldn't a real god, especially an omnipresent one be ubiquitous and self-evident over all time and location?
If there is a god, or gods, to think that they are in any way like the petty deities conjured by humanity is ridiculous, especially in a universe so astoundingly incomprehensible as this.
"What you said is consistent with your belief, but not with mine. I think my belief is superior to yours because I don't have to ignore phenomena to believe mine."
You're attempting to place my statements in the arena of belief, along with your claims, in order to somehow put them on equal footing. Your beliefs are your beliefs. What I've said is verifiably true. But you can't see the difference between fact and belief, or how fact is more germane to reality than belief.
I've already shown you how I am not ignoring phenomena, just refuting your claim about that phenomenon.
You said, "I live and make decisions based on knowledge first and foremost"
That may or may not be true. But you argue as if only concrete facts have any meaning. You argue as if you live your life without love, music or truth.
I have all those things in my life, abundantly. I just don't ascribe their origin and worth to a postulated and unconfirmed entity. Additionally, the only one that is at issue here is "truth". Curious that you place "truth" in among the subjectively appreciable concepts of 'love' and 'music.'
"Truth" is not subjective. It is verifiable reality by its very definition. It appears you seek to redefine it as some sort of metaphysical concept, when in fact it is not. Concrete facts are at issue when we use terms like "real," "exist," and "work." If you wish to claim any of these qualifiers for your God, then you must back them up with facts.
In general terms, evolution serves to fill niches with superior species. The Abrahamic religions have acted exactly that way.
Norway and Saudi Arabia have state religions. Those are becoming less influential. That is true of every state religion including Hindu in India. Islam is growing fastest in India, followed by Protestantism.
3.4 billion out of 6.2 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions. And the numbers are going up. This is evidence of God. (not proof) You said that you would welcome evidence.
Now you've crossed into Social Darwinism, which even educated Christians know to be a perversion of the theory. Basically, 'might, or superior number, makes right.' You know that's not correct!
If you proffer evidence, make sure it points in the direction of your supposition. Belief in something doesn't make it exist. And if lots of people believe in something, that doesn't make it exist more.
More people than ever believe in space aliens and bigfoot. That doesn't make them exist more, exist less, or exist at all. They simply aren't proven to.
Remember, the majority can be wrong, and often are.
Now you are being argumentative just to hear your mouth rattle. Social Darwinism is not the same as Social Evolution. (which I was arguing) "Might, or superior number, makes right" completely and intentionally misstates what I said. If you were the rational person you say you are, you would investigate an observed phenomena. Only someone anti-scientific in practice would see such a major phenomena and dismiss it as superstition. I have major doubts about your reasoning abilities.
"Now you are being argumentative just to hear your mouth rattle."
Or more likely, you simply still don't have real evidence for a claim of a god's existence, and are getting frustrated with your own lack of standing. I'm not trying to argue for argument's sake, but I wonder how important truth is to you.
"Social Darwinism is not the same as Social Evolution. (which I was arguing)"
Social Darwinism is the misuse of evolutionary concepts in Social Evolution, and that is exactly what you were doing. You tried to claim that the spread of Abrahamic religions was evidence for God's existence, and implied that this made them "superior" to other religions in some way (without providing parameters on which to base that superiority). That can be summed up perfectly well as, "might makes right," so don't try and wiggle out of that one.
I gave you an analogous example why that evidence was not valid for what you were claiming [aliens].
Here's another one. The spread in the popularity of vampire themed books does not make vampires real, even if the readers of those books were to fervently claim them to be.
"Might, or superior number, makes right" completely and intentionally misstates what I said."
How so? You said that evolution was filling niches with Abrahamic religion, and that the numbers were growing. That is the "might" part. You tried to draw an (unsubstantiated) correlation between that growth and the existence of God. In the minds of the religious, that's the "right" part.
All of that is beside the point, as I've said, and you have yet to concede, the majority of a population can be wrong about something, and an increasing number of people believing in something does not make that something more likely to exist.
"If you were the rational person you say you are, you would investigate an observed phenomena."
The phenomenon is indeed interesting, but doesn't support the claim you think it does. The causal connection you assume is unfounded.
"Only someone anti-scientific in practice would see such a major phenomena and dismiss it as superstition."
Pointing out that the phenomenon doesn't support your claim for the existence of God doesn't mean I am refuting the phenomenon itself. It just means your interpretation of it is incorrect.
"I have major doubts about your reasoning abilities."
Should I be worried that someone who doesn't understand the use of the term 'logic' has doubts about my reasoning abilities? Should I be concerned that someone who would put rationality and reality behind his own desperate need for an imaginary friend, doesn't like hearing the truth? Most probably not.
You are reaching here. I continue to say that you statements don't apply. You are arguing against another Christian. You have yet to address the points I brought up. You have yet to defend your belief in the powers of observation. You have just acted like it was the only way acceptable way to live.
I told you twice that I was not asserting that numbers automatically made me right. The fact that you insist on missing the point makes me think I might be wasting my time.
It's beginning to irritate me that I point out logic and you reject it. I point out verifiable evidence and you reject it out of hand. I point to widely accepted scientific theory and you reject it. What was it you said you would find acceptable? Or were you just lying?
[0 points]2 years ago by JWBrothersReplyEdited 2 years ago by JWBrothers
"You are reaching here. I continue to say that you statements don't apply."
I find it amusing how you append the statement, "You are reaching here," to at once attempt to show yourself, in some way, on solid ground and again to disparage my reasonable scepticism. But instead, it serves to reveal your frustration at your lack of persuasiveness.
You haven't once said that my statements don't apply. And even so, how is it that verifiable fact wouldn't apply? On the contrary it is belief, in this instance your belief, that is not congruent with the real world. And whether you understand and accept that, or not, that's the way the world works.
"You are arguing against another Christian."
What do you even mean by that. You could be trying to say that I'm not arguing with you, but with someone else. You could be trying to say that I am a Christian. Or you could be trying to say there is yet another person on your end with whom I'm arguing. Which one is it? Clarify your meaning!
"You have yet to address the points I brought up."
Who has there head in the sand? I addressed them quite succinctly, by showing that your "points" were baseless on the grounds that the evidence did not support your claims, or have any causal connection to them. So, don't try and pretend that they are somehow not dealt with.
"You have yet to defend your belief in the powers of observation. You have just acted like it was the only way acceptable way to live."
Perhaps you're just not capable of understanding what I've said. I do not have a "belief" in the "powers of observation." I never said anything of the sort. To base decision and action on independently verifiable evidence is not "belief". And "powers of observation" just doesn't make any sense. Observation is subjective until it is verified. Do you understand the scientific method? It appears that you think everyone is trapped inside a belief system, as you are.
"I told you twice that I was not asserting that numbers automatically made me right."
Good, then you were incorrect by doing so, or at least inaccurate by implying it. If you didn't mean what you said, go ahead and clarify what you were trying to say.
"The fact that you insist on missing the point makes me think I might be wasting my time."
Or perhaps, you just aren't making your point.
If you are frustrated that you have no evidence to back your claims, then by all means, run away. You won't be the first one to fail at the attempt.
"Social Darwinism is the misuse of evolutionary concepts in Social Evolution," You state that as a fact. It is an opinion."
Look at the consensus. Look at history. It is not opinion. It is fact.
'Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat.' by Mike Hawkins
And on top of that, you haven't set forth parameters by which you determined Abrahamic religion as somehow "better" than any other mythology. That's where you fail at fact vs. opinion.
"It's beginning to irritate me that I point out logic and you reject it."
You pointed out one social phenomenon, incorrectly applied a bastardized version of evolutionary theory to it, and then made a claim for it without showing causal connection. I simply pointed that out. If that's what you call logic, you seriously need to re-evaluate your critical thinking skills.
"I point out verifiable evidence and you reject it out of hand."
"Out of hand" implies I didn't consider or look at it. I did. The facts you gave just didn't point to the conclusion you made. I don't reject the facts. I just point out how your conclusion that it is evidence for your claim is incorrect.
"I point to widely accepted scientific theory and you reject it. What was it you said you would find acceptable? Or were you just lying?"
If you're referring to Social Evolution, just because you bring up facts in a particular field of science doesn't mean they support your assertion. You haven't shown them to do so by any means. Show the connection. How does the spread of Abrahamic religion amount to evidence of your God? I've given you analogous examples showing how the correlation you claim is faulty, but you still don't get it. They were simple enough.. or is it head in the sand time again?
United States
It doesn't do anything, but if you pray for something it isn't entirely unfeasible that you get it, but of course this isn't because of prayer, it's due to chance.
I asked the opposite question 212 days ago:
http://www.ask500people.com/questions/prayer-works
+1 Gobal Point
Yeah. It's still a good question. Unfortunately needs to keep being asked! :)
I was thinking about this when an extremely large group of people had a "prayer circle for Haiti" in Times Square. I doubt it did anything for Haiti in the least, but it probably made a few people feel better about having "done something" to help.
While people were dying. Well, as long as they felt better about themselves.
I'd say the purpose of prayer is to say something to God, in which case, it always works because he always hears the prayer.
It is equally viable to say that he never hears the prayers. You can't know either way.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Nothing we say will convince you if you refuse to be convinced. Why do you waste our time insulting us?
My statement was simple and equitable. How you see an insult in there is beyond me, unless you feel your position is shaky, and tied to your self worth.
Why give up so easily? One single shred of independently verifiable evidence, and I'll be right there with you. Too stringent a test? It's not. A simple stone on the ground meets the criteria.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Replybingo!
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyTechnically, yes, but practically, no, especially where prayer is concerned, since it is touted as a form of communication.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI answered "disagree" - prayer helps people to fool themselves to believe they did something to influence a situation they can't influence. Also has it been demonstrated that prayer influences others, people in hospital that know others are praying for them to get well actually do less well. Perhaps this can be explained by raised stress levels "I must be really sick that they are praying for me" or "now since everyone is praying for me I MUST get better". So yes prayer has some effects indeed.
Very interesting! I would like to see that study. Do you happen to have a link to the information? That should be investigated further.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567
Thanks! Thank you so much! :) +
Actually it has been demonstrated that the people lie about prayer helping those in hospitals.
Under proper controlled double blind conditions, prayer does nothing. If people know they are being prayed for, and if they also beleive in prayer, then it frequently helps. It's called the placebo effect. It's what faith healers utilize. And con men.
And I'd like to see that study/studies as well, because it would counterindicate the study that TheSheep posted a link to above.
Its interesting how you all seem to think that we only pray to ask things... we pray to communicate with God. In this communication we may tell Him our problems and ask for help, but the main thing is to talk with him.
You also seem to think that the prayer would show its result in a material way, but mostly what you recieve when you pray is something spiritual; a new feeling, a new thought,a new connection, that may help you with your problem.
I think that it can also have material effects, but I wont argue this point, because I think is a matter of faith harder to explain.
Just wanted to point that you may recieve much more spiritually for praying, than what you can see materially.
Or you can read a book.
Seems kind of impersonal to me.
So what you're saying is that I could get the same result by talking to a pile of stones. There's no way to tell the difference.
Perhaps you should take another look at the definition of "communication."
And when you say, "I wont argue this point," do you mean that you are not able to argue the point? I think so.
Well, for us is not the same thing, as we feel that we receive something back in the communication. Anyway is a matter of faith, and i wont argue it, because i have done it plenty times before; you can look my comments and you will see.
You just have to realize that your "feeling" doesn't make something true, and your "faith" doesn't make it real. There is real harm done in the world when people opt for prayer over medical attention, for example. It's not as benign as you make it out to be. To say, "It's a matter of faith" is equal to saying you'd rather give up your ability to think rationally in favor of the euphoria of self-delusion.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI know that the feeling doesnt mean that its true, thats why i say its a matter of faith, because it isnt something that i can probe in a kind of material way, you just believe or not. It doesnt mean that i dont think rationally, there are rational ways to probe the existence of God, but at the end you can relativize everything.
And we obviously encourage people to take medical attention, it would be stupid not to do it, but praying helps you to get through the illness, and ofcourse i think that miracles can happen.
I noticed that you didn't address the fact that faith doesn't make it real either. It's just another "feeling", and you go on to repeat that prayer is a matter of faith. Faith is not wanting to know what is true. To act on faith is to abandon reason. It is antithetical to rationality, so of course it means you aren't thinking rationally. "Just believe or not," as you say, is no way to "probe" [sic] /prove anything. And believing in miracles is just another malignancy. Look at 'TheSheep's link above for incontrovertible proof that prayer is at most futile and at least is harmful.
Additionally, I looked at your other instances of "arguing the point," and you remain overwhelmingly both unconvincing and unconvinced.
Puedes no tener pruebas para algo y que sin embargo exista. Para nosotros no es abandonar la razón, es dar un paso más allá de ella.
Yo creo; tengo motivos para hacerlo desde el punto de vista racional y espiritual, sé que ninguno te va a convencer, por eso digo que no tengo pruebas, simplemente porque a ti no te van a bastar, porque no las encontrarías válidas. Para mi al final es sólo un acto de fe. Si relativizamos se ve caos para los dos lados, para mí es una igualdad, y dentro de esto decido creer. Además me parece más lógico y menos absurdo dentro de este caos que Dios exista, pero eso ya es cosa mía.
El problema está en la significación de la palabra "existir". No debemos usarla sin pruebas. Como dices, es posible no tener pruebas para algo y que exista, pero, no podemos decir que existe hasta tenemos prueba. Sin pruebas, que nadie tiene (todavía), es lo mismo que no existe. Además no es razonable en la vida a actuar en algo que no existe.
"Un paso más allá?" Un paso más allá de razón es sinrazón!
Como dice 'Promethean' debajo, "For us" isn't..." Es lo mismo cuando dices "Para nosotros no es abandonar la razón." - Sí, en este caso abandonástela.
Cosa de fe? Faith can only be blind, and therefore is by definition irrational. Abandoning reason to blind faith, and considering it a virtue, is one of the grandest disgraces of western civilization.
No es más logico "creer". Es lo contrario. Es OK decir que crees en algo (familia, amigos, que venga la mañana, etc) pero por favór, no digas que es de logico! Es exactamente porque existe caos, que digo que no existe Diós. Si existiría, no habría ningun caos.
Pero sí, me bastarían pruebas reales si se encuentren un dia en el futuro, pero todavía no tenemos.
Nosotros lo vemos como caos, porque es una realidad increíble que nos supera, y a mí por lo menos me asombra tanto que me hace difícil no creer en la existencia de Dios. Es en ese sentido en que me parece más lógico, porque veo que debió existir siempre algo incausado para poder haber causado lo demás.
Puede existir algo de lo cual no tengamos pruebas, lo único que pasa es que no es demostrable, pero puede ser perfectamente verdadero y estás llegando a ello a través de la fe. Es difícil de explicar, para nosotros además la fe es una virtud sobrenatural, por lo que comprendo que no sea tan fácil para ustedes creer.
De todas formas sólo veo cosas buenas en creer, por lo menos en el tipo de fe que tengo yo. Sé que eso no basta, pero además para mí es la verdad.
Ustedes se escandalizan bastante porque uno crea, porque uno pueda estar equivocado. Y si nos equivocamos al final... ¿Qué perdemos?, ¿Habernos engañado?, yo creo que saco muchas cosas más de la fe. No malinterpreten esto, no estoy diciendo que sea mejor vivir engañando, porque no pierdes nada.
Me asombra mucho tambien, pero no me indica que hay diós. Esa es una desconexión de lógica causal. Es como decir, "Hay hadas en mi jardín por que no puedo entender cualquier otra razón para lo que me asombra."
"y estás llegando a ello a través de la fe" - No se puede llegar a la verdad a través de la fe. la verdad se llega a través de pruebas verificadas de forma independiente, que culminó en el conocimiento. La verdad no puede ser alcanzado a través de un proceso interno, como la fe. Es la antítesis de las definiciones de "fe" y "verdad."
"..que debió existir siempre algo incausado para poder haber causado lo demás" - Está bien decir "no sabemos aún", en lugar de hacer a los seres imaginarios como causas de las cosas que no sabemos aún.
"fe es una virtud sobrenatural" - Esta declaración no tiene sentido en la realidad.
"por lo que comprendo que no sea tan fácil para ustedes creer." - Sí, es bastante facíl, pero no es una cosa de creencia. Si se afirma que algo va a actuar sobre la realidad, entonces debe ser probado a hacerlo.
"sólo veo cosas buenas en creer," - Entonces, es probable que no has vido mucho en la historia de lo que han hecho, y continúan haciendo, de creer.
"para mí es la verdad" - La verdad no es una proposición relativa. Por la definición de la palabra, debe ser el mismo para todos.
"Y si nos equivocamos al final... ¿Qué perdemos?" - Haga investigaciones sobre la Apuesta de Pascal. Lo que dices es sólo esto. Es refutada.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyFor us there are, like the fives ways of santo tomas, but of course you can relativize that too
"For us" isn't a valid qualifier when discussing rationality. Either something is rational for everyone, or it isn't rational at all.
Las cosas son racionales o no por sí mismas, no por lo que el resto crea; así como las cosas son ciertas por sí mismas, no porque las afirme una mayor cantidad de gente.
Hva faen er det du skriver til meg på spansk for, din tulling?
Pero qué agresivo! no hay necesidad! te escribo en español porque es mi lengua materna y me expreso mejor en ella. No es muy difícil entenderlo usando el traductor de google, además varios acá lo entienden. Si te molesta tanto puedo escribirlo en inglés también, pero tendrías que pedirlo bien!
"cosas cierto y racional por sí mismas" Es lógico circular. It doesn't stand. Things are not rational because of the number of people who believe in them, yes. But this is your undoing, not ours. Things are rational because they are proven to be so through independently verifiable evidence. Through the reason of the scientific process. Your belief is ever so much puffy smoke.
"relativize" is just a spin word to try and put subjective anecdote and personal feeling/opinion on equal ground with fact/rationality/reason. This fails.
The Five Ways are logical fallacies, long ago shown to be exactly that. I'm surprised you'd trot them out in the 21st century. You damage your credibility.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThe automatic gainsay of an assertion is no convincing argument. Neither is a pot shot at how rigorous someone's thinking has been/will be. It is theists who have been intransigent in their views in the wake of evidence against their assertions, not athiests or free-thinkers. We welcome and adjust for new evidence. Go ahead, the burden of proof is on you.
No you do not welcome and adjust for new evidence. How many years after the discovery of germs did it tale for surgeons to wash their hands? How many of you atheists or free-thinkers will even look at the congruences between modern physics and Christian beliefs? You don't want to hear it if it doesn't conform to your prejudices. It's like your insistence that Christians are idiot rednecks without a clue. If you are going to call yourself a free thinker, get rid of your prejudices, get the real facts and deal with them. This other stuff you've been spouting is wishful thinking, at best.
I will do what I said I'd do. If you don't have any evidence, then just say so. It's a very simple proposition.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyOk, I tried reading your comment and it literally went to white noise in my head, as you wrote a ton of stuff that essentially said nothing. He asked you to provide one rational way to provide the existence of God. Do you have one or not?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThat is "ma'am".
So, if I cut through the bs, the answer is "no".
I grew up without religion, so I seem to be missing the essential trigger that makes me want to care if there is a God or not. I think other things are far more important, like whether people are fed and have access to healthcare.
Got to tell you, there is no "rational thinking" that leads to the existence of God if you don't care about the outcome to begin with. Note: that doesn't mean I dispute the existence, I just don't care. And so it is not very worth my time to chase my tail trying to prove the existence of that which I could care less about. So you may either hand it to me on a "silver platter" so I might change my mind and find it important, or take it elsewhere, because frankly, arguments that involve "you are too closed minded and are not trying hard enough so it is your fault" fall within the same realm of thinking that suggest "people born within extreme poverty only stay there if they want to", and the like. It does nothing to address the problem and is only used as a defense by people who have no other.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah, wow! Oragina not only deleted all of his/her comments, which were numerous, but deleted his/her user account. Perhaps he/she has gone off to digest some of the issues raised to challenge his/her cozy belief system. That is probably wishful thinking however, and he/she has probably just gone running back to cry in the arms of mother church... or to pray for our poor lost souls. Well, we all know how that turns out.
Too bad I missed out on all this. Sometimes people will believe a fellow believer when they get in over their head.
Yes. Mutual self-delusion can be comforting.
HA! Whoever it was hit me with both barrels before he deleted. They were filled with peanut butter, though. He took deep exception to my not caring, and suggested I was closed minded. I'd suggest I'd be totally open minded if someone could just give me a REASON to be, but the most I ever get from people is something along the lines of, "don't you care what happens to you when you die". To be fair, that wasn't the argument he gave; he refuted everything I said without ever answering the original question. And totally did not understand what I was trying to tell him. Oy.
weskos, You made 2 logic errors based on factual errors.
1) Prayer instead of medicine is practiced by by a very small fringe group. Christian hospital systems are some of the largest and most advanced in the World. They represent Christian belief, not your stupid fringe group.
2) Thinking and rationality go with Faith just as they go with scientific evidence. They are two ways to arrive at conclusions. To say that there is only one way to acquire knowledge is a logical fallacy because it requires me to accept your Faith. It is exactly the same error Christians make by quoting the Bible to atheists.
1) No errors were made. I didn't say that all christians believed in prayer *instead* of seeking medical help. But for those who have done so, only their belief in prayer is to blame.
Hospitals of any kind, Christian or otherwise, are advanced and effective because of medical science, not belief systems connected to them. Is it belief that cures disease or successfully performs an operation? NO. It's competently trained human beings.
2) Trying to place faith on par with rationality/science is dishonest, and you know it. Faith is belief without evidence. It can yield no factual conclusions only subjective belief. Subjective beliefs aren't independently verifiable facts.
There is only one way to acquire knowledge, and that is not a logical fallacy by any means. You need not accept any faith of mine. The scientific method stands without faith.
What happens when both teams in a sporting event pray to win and one looses-is God only on one side and the others can go to hell>>
Nope. You don't pray to win. You pray to play with a clear head and to be the very best you can be. You pray for protection from injury. Then you start praying for your own team. The winning will take care of itself.
That's dancing around the issue. Jesus said in Luke 11:9, "Ask, and it shall be given you."
You seek to redefine the parameters of prayer to make it fit with what you wish, but in the bible, material results are promised... just never delivered.
Pray to be the best you can be? Can you not be that without praying for it?
Pray for protection? Then, if you're protected, it's God, and if you are not, then his plan is different? or he's "working in mysterious ways"? How very convenient.
And "praying for yur own team." What does that even mean?
I had a good friend who believed he could read minds. This of course was so much self-delusion. He had been severely abused as a child and learned early and completely how to read body language to know another's intentions against him.
It doesn't do anything, but if people want to pray for themselves or any one to get well, I say more power to them. As for me I would go and see a doctor.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI agree with you for the most part, but would modify those statements this way:
If you think it works, it doesn't.
If you don't think it works, it also doesn't.
Causative reality is not a matter of choice. One can either show the results of an action or not. No one has ever shown a positive correlation between prayer and its supposed result.
Great point.
Prayer without works is dead. Even the bible says that. For those who believe--It's faith, prayer, preparation and action that makes things happen.
That's like saying the car will run if you maintain its parts, put gas in it, drive it correctly, sing london bridge, and wave your hands in the air. Two of the list are unequivocally ineffectual.
They aren't needed at all. Preparation and action suffice for making things happen. Silly Bible.
Althoguh singing London Bridge and waving your hands in the air might make you feel better. +
Actually, fundamentalists have done way with all of it except faith. Doesn't matter what you do to others, how destructively, cruelly, and filled with hate you live your life; if, with your dying breath, you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you are saved.
Hell, you can be a Hitler and Stalin combined, as long as you accept Jesus into your heart, you are saved.
Creepy, no?
Creepy, yes.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI find it hard to differentiate between Jesus and my Congressional representative. Both pay as much attention to my communiques. ;(
"A man sits in a railway carriage reading The Telegraph. After finishing each page, he rips it out, stands up and throws it out of the window (this was in the days when you could). After he's reached the middle of the paper, the man opposite can contain himself no longer. "It keeps the elephants away," explains the ripper. "But there are no elephants round here," responds the man, still baffled. "That just shows how successful my policy is."
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThere's that word "communication" again. It implies either an exchange of information, or the acknowledgment of information received. None of that takes place with prayer. If you want to amend your assertion to "attempted communication," that would seem reasonable, since there is no proof that the receiving party exists.
Faith doesn't bring understanding, basic, fundamental, or otherwise. Knowledge does.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYes, it appears you do "assume".
However, there's nothing "pre-" about my determination about God not existing. God not existing is intrinsically related to prayer not working, so my argument is hardly misplaced.
I am not "bent" on a "belief" that God doesn't exist. It is a default neutral position which I will gladly alter when and if any evidence whatsoever can be provided that he does exist. The burden of proof is on those who claim he does. And then show me one instance where prayer has yielded anything different than would have resulted by talking to oneself inside one's own head. There's nothing that prayer has supposedly accomplished that could not have been done without it. I will change my position however, if it is ever shown that it does anything measurable.
You accuse me of an intransigent belief, when that is precisely the position from which you make claims of "different kinds of understanding" and "faith bringing understanding". These statements are indeed meaningless if you can't make your case for such claims, and shouldn't be taken seriously by people who want to function productively in the real world.
Assuming that it would be pointless to defend your assertions just means you don't feel your case is strong enough to try.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply"If they are intrinsically related, and you take a neutral position of believing God doesn't exist, then just how relevant is your opinion on prayer not working?"
It's relevant like this - If a god exists, it's most probably not the one espoused in any human religion, and doesn't seem to be one that engages in or cares about prayer, since the evidence for prayer having any effect on the real world is nil (apart from that placebo effect/negative placebo effect mentioned and linked to earlier).
"No, I've actually been this route before many times. It's simply that a question regarding God or prayer would entail an answer of the like, obviously."
No, not "obviously."
What your saying is god can only explain god, and god stuff can only explain god stuff. That's conveniently circular, now isn't it? And certainly not an "explanation" in even the broadest sense. Why is it that theists will not simply admit
they cannot fulfill such a simple request as to provide evidence for their assertions, instead of insisting on redefining basic concepts to try and prop up floundering reasoning?
"Oh boy, and in your experience have you seen anything near sufficient? I would have to research that beforehand, but it is there."
Not yet. But as I said, I don't just wait, I actively look for such evidence too. And I for one HAVE been researching, from inside and outside religion for decades. When you say "but it is there," your assuredness betrays your lack of having researched the issues yourself.
You asserted that "What you're saying is, God can only explain God, and god stuff can only explain god stuff. That's conveniently circular, now isn't it? And certainly not an "explanation" in even the broadest sense. Why is it that theists will not simply admit..." and "I for one HAVE been researching, from inside and outside religion for decades."
Allow me to put this in a way that might satisfy some of your concerns. People tend to look for what they expect they will find. You expect to find scientific evidence for God if there is a God and to not find scientific evidence if there is no God. Since you can not find the right kind of evidence for God, you naturally conclude that God doesn't exist.
The only thing that conflicts with your conclusion is that 85% of the American people disagree with you on some level. Don't talk to me about whether it's a popularity contest or not. Popularity is not the point. You have asserted that Theists are deluded. But as a rational man, I must challenge you to find 85% of any large country and prove that they are ALL delusional while 15% are not.
In evolutionary terms, the 85% delusional fact has to mean that believers are superior to non-believers because non-believers have not superseded the believers.
A more likely explanation is that God is very real and impossible (at this point) to scientifically detect. If that is true, then the nature of your questions has to change.
"..you naturally conclude that God doesn't exist."
Naturally. That is the only responsible thing to do, given the evidence.
"The only thing that conflicts with your conclusion is that 85% of the American people disagree with you on some level. Don't talk to me about whether it's a popularity contest or not. Popularity is not the point."
On the contrary. "popularity" is indeed the point, or more accurately, the majority being wrong about an issue. You seem to believe that it's too improbable for the majority of highly functional beings in a group to be wrong about something. That is fallacious, and I'm sure you yourself can think of numerous examples where this is true.
The majority of any population believing in a god or gods other than your own, is one example. The majority of US children believing in Santa Claus is another. We both know he doesn't exist.
Here's a question for you. The majority of people in Norway don't believe in any form of god. Are they all delusional? By your logic, they can't be.
"But as a rational man, I must challenge you to find 85% of any large country and prove that they are ALL delusional while 15% are not."
Because you have no proof, and know it, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof to the negative; essentially "prove God doesn't exist." Any rational person knows this is not logical. You can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that Russell's celestial teapot doesn't exist, or invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean that the automatic solution is to believe in them and have your life guided by that belief. If that were true, you'd have to accept all gods and mythological beings as existent and affecting reality.
You can be a rational man, but fail to be rational or informed on some issues. The burden of proof remains solidly on the positive assertion that God exists. That is what must be proven. As for your challenge, I refer you back to Norway.. or Saudi Arabia.. or India.
"In evolutionary terms, the 85% delusional fact has to mean that believers are superior to non-believers because non-believers have not superseded the believers."
It appears you don't understand evolution, biological or social, nor the difference between them. Evolution doesn't say anything about a superior model superseding an inferior one. This is a common misunderstanding. It simply allows for mutations providing characteristics not suitable to a particular environment not to be propagated. That's why, when the environment changes, whole species can go extinct, because they become "wrong" for the environment. Change may take place over a long period of time, or a short one. To say that any one given stage in that change represents an optimal or superior model, is not taking the dynamics into consideration.
To put it simply, and in social terms, most people used to believe the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it. They were all wrong. They weren't delusional until, on religious grounds, they denied the truth in the face of evidence.
"A more likely explanation is that God is very real and impossible (at this point) to scientifically detect. If that is true, then the nature of your questions has to change."
Again, to jump to a conclusion that a god, and in particular, the god you ascribe to, exists, and is the solution to an unanswered question is causally flawed. It's like saying, "I don't know how mushrooms grow in a ring on the ground, therefore faeries must be planting them that way." The causal connection is not established.
Your whole line of thinking assumes that nothing exists beyond our senses and calls my reasoning circular because I can't prove anything beyond our senses. Huh? If I could prove anything beyond our senses, it wouldn't be beyond our senses. Your demands for that kind of proof are illogical.
What "Huh?" You've shown yourself the answer. Only it isn't the demand for proof that's "illogical," it's the claim of existence to begin with. Demands for proof aren't unreasonable in any sense, and certainly aren't illogical. Do you know how to critically evaluate something using logic, or do you just like to use the words 'logic'/'illogic' to try and bolster your failing argument? If someone claims something to be true, or that something exists, yet offers no measurable evidence for it, then it hasn't been confirmed to be true or existent, and shouldn't be treated as such. If it is claimed to be 'beyond our senses' (or beyond instrumental augmentation thereof,) then that claim is baseless and inactionable.
My line of thinking does NOT assume that nothing exists beyond our senses, simply that anything with no measurable parameters has no bearing on us until it enters that purview.
The religious line of thinking is, let's not only assume that something beyond our senses exists, but let's ascribe certain attributes to it, and let's worship it. That is patently irrational.
You don't acknowledge or try to refute my point that the majority of a population can indeed be wrong about something. Should I assume you agree then?
Now you find it necessary to lie about religion to make your point.
"The religious line of thinking is, let's not only assume that something beyond our senses exists, but let's ascribe certain attributes to it, and let's worship it. That is patently irrational."
The religious line of thinking is, What is the origin of everything? What is the intelligence that guides us? How do we know to be intelligent? Why did thing get done the way they did? How are things done? Why not do it another way? What kind of person is best? Why? What is up to us and what is predetermined?
It seems the height of arrogance to believe nothing exists beyond our senses. That is not true of Agnostics, however. They are just saying that those questions I posed can not be answered yet. They do not know what exists beyond our ability to examine, but they think we Christians probably have it wrong. I find that to be an intelligent decision based on what they know just as I base my decisions on what I know.
But Atheistic, stick your head in the sand, if I can't see it, it doesn't exist thinking is preposterous.
"Now you find it necessary to lie about religion to make your point."
No. What I've said sums it up pretty well.
"The religious line of thinking is, What is the origin of everything? What is the intelligence that guides us?"
Assumes the existence of an intelligence, and further assumes it is guiding us.
"How do we know to be intelligent?"
We don't "know" to be intelligent. We simply are.
"Why did thing [sic] get done the way they did? How are things done? Why not do it another way? What kind of person is best? Why? What is up to us and what is predetermined?"
And then, like I said, instead of rationally being content to use reason to investigate perfectly good questions, or admitting, "we don't know yet," religious people try to fill the gaps with mythology. They are too desperate for the comfort of knowledge to wait for real answers. I don't blame human beings for craving knowledge the way we do. I think that's a good thing. But fudging evidence, and rushing to conclusions without proof is not responsible.
"It seems the height of arrogance to believe nothing exists beyond our senses."
The height of arrogance is to act as if one "knows" that such a something is necessarily interested in human beings, or earth, when we most certainly don't know that. Atheists and critical thinkers do not actively "believe that nothing exists beyond our senses." We simply don't make the presumption to act on that which is not proven. That is just being responsible.
"That is not true of Agnostics, however. They are just saying that those questions I posed can not be answered yet."
Atheists say that too. Sometimes the only difference between Atheists and Agnostics is their willingness to take a stance about what is really known.
"They do not know what exists beyond our ability to examine, but they think we Christians probably have it wrong. I find that to be an intelligent decision based on what they know just as I base my decisions on what I know."
As we all do. I find that reasonable. We all also base our decisions partially on subjective perception, which is true of every human being. That's why we often find it hard to come to a consensus. The difference is, I place objective fact before personal subjective belief.
"But Atheistic, stick your head in the sand, if I can't see it, it doesn't exist thinking is preposterous."
Like I said. It isn't preposterous to be sceptical, or to insist on proof for outrageous or extraordinary claims. It is just being responsible and honest about what you/we really know.
If you want to say that your interpretation of subjective experience or feeling is a more important part of what guides you, then I can't argue with you on that. What I have a problem with is the assertion that it is currently verifiable as reality. When religions hold fast to unreasonable bronze age stories and fables to answer important questions of the universe, continue to propagate those myths as real solutions, and cling to them like a child who refuses to believe Santa isn't real; That's what I call sticking one's head in the sand.
If I was holding fast to unreasonable bronze age stories and fables to answer important questions of the universe, and clung to them like a child who refuses to believe Santa isn't real; Then I would be sticking my head in the sand. But that is exactly the opposite of what I did.
So, what you're saying you did, as the opposite of that, is you didn't pre-form your conclusion based on what you wanted to believe, and looked for evidence to support that conclusion after the fact, as it would appear. But instead, you objectively looked at the body of verifiable evidence, and that evidence supported a conclusion that your bronze age stories and fables were fit to answer important questions of the universe?
What does that say about your ability to evaluate reality? I think the answer to that is obvious.
I never intended to imply that you or any other Atheist is delusional, only that Christianity is not. Calling the other side delusional is a sign of intellectual ineptness. I was trying to turn it around to show how silly that statement really was.
If the shoe fits...
Acting on a non-existent, or as of yet unconfirmed entity is irresponsible.
Ascribing certain characteristics [creator, moral dictator, judge, saviour] to that entity is irrational.
Worshiping that artificial construct is delusional.
If a god, creator, or other such thing exists, it most probably is nothing like anything the human mind has conjured [Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin]. Thinking that any of those exist is what is silly.
What you said is ONLY true for atheists. It's like death. You believe that there is nothing after death. For you, that's true. For me, it isn't.
You can't be certain that God is an artificial construct, but you live as if you believe that. What you said is consistent with your belief, but not with mine. I think my belief is superior to yours because I don't have to ignore phenomena to believe mine.
"What you said is ONLY true for atheists. It's like death. You believe that there is nothing after death. For you, that's true. For me, it isn't."
Truth is not subjective or based on opinion. Truth is truth for all. I live my life on what I know, and what I've experienced. The verifiable knowledge portion outweighs the subjective experience part. That may be the other way around for you, but a reasonable person would understand how that is not responsible.
Because you base your thought processes firstly on belief instead of confirmed fact, you make the mistake of ascribing belief to me concerning something that is not a matter of belief. The truth for all is that the body dies and the bio-chemical energy that is our consciousness dissipates. Those are the facts. It is no more than wishful thinking to assume anything of ourselves remains after that, and again delusional to claim knowledge of any details of any other possibility.
Believing in something does not make it true. It seems that religious people just have a heck of a time learning that lesson.
"You can't be certain that God is an artificial construct, but you live as if you believe that."
The responsible default course of action is to live one's life based on evidence you DO have, not on evidence you don't, can't be sure of, or on what you might have in the future. I don't "live as if I believe" that God is an artificial construct. I live and make decisions based on knowledge first and foremost, not wishes, not wild speculation, not myth.
The gods of human religion are most certainly nothing but artificial constructs. How convenient that each god favors the people of the very region in which they were conceived. How coincidental that gods of humanity have human emotions, concerns, proclivities, needs, and appetites. How predictable that each one germinated in a specific locality, and proceeded to spread outward from a geographic point, just like any natural, and artificially constructed cultural phenomenon. Wouldn't a real god, especially an omnipresent one be ubiquitous and self-evident over all time and location?
If there is a god, or gods, to think that they are in any way like the petty deities conjured by humanity is ridiculous, especially in a universe so astoundingly incomprehensible as this.
"What you said is consistent with your belief, but not with mine. I think my belief is superior to yours because I don't have to ignore phenomena to believe mine."
You're attempting to place my statements in the arena of belief, along with your claims, in order to somehow put them on equal footing. Your beliefs are your beliefs. What I've said is verifiably true. But you can't see the difference between fact and belief, or how fact is more germane to reality than belief.
I've already shown you how I am not ignoring phenomena, just refuting your claim about that phenomenon.
You said, "I live and make decisions based on knowledge first and foremost"
That may or may not be true. But you argue as if only concrete facts have any meaning. You argue as if you live your life without love, music or truth.
I have all those things in my life, abundantly. I just don't ascribe their origin and worth to a postulated and unconfirmed entity. Additionally, the only one that is at issue here is "truth". Curious that you place "truth" in among the subjectively appreciable concepts of 'love' and 'music.'
"Truth" is not subjective. It is verifiable reality by its very definition. It appears you seek to redefine it as some sort of metaphysical concept, when in fact it is not. Concrete facts are at issue when we use terms like "real," "exist," and "work." If you wish to claim any of these qualifiers for your God, then you must back them up with facts.
In general terms, evolution serves to fill niches with superior species. The Abrahamic religions have acted exactly that way.
Norway and Saudi Arabia have state religions. Those are becoming less influential. That is true of every state religion including Hindu in India. Islam is growing fastest in India, followed by Protestantism.
3.4 billion out of 6.2 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions. And the numbers are going up. This is evidence of God. (not proof) You said that you would welcome evidence.
Now you've crossed into Social Darwinism, which even educated Christians know to be a perversion of the theory. Basically, 'might, or superior number, makes right.' You know that's not correct!
If you proffer evidence, make sure it points in the direction of your supposition. Belief in something doesn't make it exist. And if lots of people believe in something, that doesn't make it exist more.
More people than ever believe in space aliens and bigfoot. That doesn't make them exist more, exist less, or exist at all. They simply aren't proven to.
Remember, the majority can be wrong, and often are.
Now you are being argumentative just to hear your mouth rattle. Social Darwinism is not the same as Social Evolution. (which I was arguing) "Might, or superior number, makes right" completely and intentionally misstates what I said. If you were the rational person you say you are, you would investigate an observed phenomena. Only someone anti-scientific in practice would see such a major phenomena and dismiss it as superstition. I have major doubts about your reasoning abilities.
"Now you are being argumentative just to hear your mouth rattle."
Or more likely, you simply still don't have real evidence for a claim of a god's existence, and are getting frustrated with your own lack of standing. I'm not trying to argue for argument's sake, but I wonder how important truth is to you.
"Social Darwinism is not the same as Social Evolution. (which I was arguing)"
Social Darwinism is the misuse of evolutionary concepts in Social Evolution, and that is exactly what you were doing. You tried to claim that the spread of Abrahamic religions was evidence for God's existence, and implied that this made them "superior" to other religions in some way (without providing parameters on which to base that superiority). That can be summed up perfectly well as, "might makes right," so don't try and wiggle out of that one.
I gave you an analogous example why that evidence was not valid for what you were claiming [aliens].
Here's another one. The spread in the popularity of vampire themed books does not make vampires real, even if the readers of those books were to fervently claim them to be.
"Might, or superior number, makes right" completely and intentionally misstates what I said."
How so? You said that evolution was filling niches with Abrahamic religion, and that the numbers were growing. That is the "might" part. You tried to draw an (unsubstantiated) correlation between that growth and the existence of God. In the minds of the religious, that's the "right" part.
All of that is beside the point, as I've said, and you have yet to concede, the majority of a population can be wrong about something, and an increasing number of people believing in something does not make that something more likely to exist.
"If you were the rational person you say you are, you would investigate an observed phenomena."
The phenomenon is indeed interesting, but doesn't support the claim you think it does. The causal connection you assume is unfounded.
"Only someone anti-scientific in practice would see such a major phenomena and dismiss it as superstition."
Pointing out that the phenomenon doesn't support your claim for the existence of God doesn't mean I am refuting the phenomenon itself. It just means your interpretation of it is incorrect.
"I have major doubts about your reasoning abilities."
Should I be worried that someone who doesn't understand the use of the term 'logic' has doubts about my reasoning abilities? Should I be concerned that someone who would put rationality and reality behind his own desperate need for an imaginary friend, doesn't like hearing the truth? Most probably not.
You are reaching here. I continue to say that you statements don't apply. You are arguing against another Christian. You have yet to address the points I brought up. You have yet to defend your belief in the powers of observation. You have just acted like it was the only way acceptable way to live.
I told you twice that I was not asserting that numbers automatically made me right. The fact that you insist on missing the point makes me think I might be wasting my time.
It's beginning to irritate me that I point out logic and you reject it. I point out verifiable evidence and you reject it out of hand. I point to widely accepted scientific theory and you reject it. What was it you said you would find acceptable? Or were you just lying?
"You are reaching here. I continue to say that you statements don't apply."
I find it amusing how you append the statement, "You are reaching here," to at once attempt to show yourself, in some way, on solid ground and again to disparage my reasonable scepticism. But instead, it serves to reveal your frustration at your lack of persuasiveness.
You haven't once said that my statements don't apply. And even so, how is it that verifiable fact wouldn't apply? On the contrary it is belief, in this instance your belief, that is not congruent with the real world. And whether you understand and accept that, or not, that's the way the world works.
"You are arguing against another Christian."
What do you even mean by that. You could be trying to say that I'm not arguing with you, but with someone else. You could be trying to say that I am a Christian. Or you could be trying to say there is yet another person on your end with whom I'm arguing. Which one is it? Clarify your meaning!
"You have yet to address the points I brought up."
Who has there head in the sand? I addressed them quite succinctly, by showing that your "points" were baseless on the grounds that the evidence did not support your claims, or have any causal connection to them. So, don't try and pretend that they are somehow not dealt with.
"You have yet to defend your belief in the powers of observation. You have just acted like it was the only way acceptable way to live."
Perhaps you're just not capable of understanding what I've said. I do not have a "belief" in the "powers of observation." I never said anything of the sort. To base decision and action on independently verifiable evidence is not "belief". And "powers of observation" just doesn't make any sense. Observation is subjective until it is verified. Do you understand the scientific method? It appears that you think everyone is trapped inside a belief system, as you are.
"I told you twice that I was not asserting that numbers automatically made me right."
Good, then you were incorrect by doing so, or at least inaccurate by implying it. If you didn't mean what you said, go ahead and clarify what you were trying to say.
"The fact that you insist on missing the point makes me think I might be wasting my time."
Or perhaps, you just aren't making your point.
If you are frustrated that you have no evidence to back your claims, then by all means, run away. You won't be the first one to fail at the attempt.
"Social Darwinism is the misuse of evolutionary concepts in Social Evolution," You state that as a fact. It is an opinion."
Look at the consensus. Look at history. It is not opinion. It is fact.
'Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat.' by Mike Hawkins
http://tinyurl.com/ycvhlle
http://tinyurl.com/yb3q8aq
..Just a few examples.
And on top of that, you haven't set forth parameters by which you determined Abrahamic religion as somehow "better" than any other mythology. That's where you fail at fact vs. opinion.
"It's beginning to irritate me that I point out logic and you reject it."
You pointed out one social phenomenon, incorrectly applied a bastardized version of evolutionary theory to it, and then made a claim for it without showing causal connection. I simply pointed that out. If that's what you call logic, you seriously need to re-evaluate your critical thinking skills.
"I point out verifiable evidence and you reject it out of hand."
"Out of hand" implies I didn't consider or look at it. I did. The facts you gave just didn't point to the conclusion you made. I don't reject the facts. I just point out how your conclusion that it is evidence for your claim is incorrect.
"I point to widely accepted scientific theory and you reject it. What was it you said you would find acceptable? Or were you just lying?"
If you're referring to Social Evolution, just because you bring up facts in a particular field of science doesn't mean they support your assertion. You haven't shown them to do so by any means. Show the connection. How does the spread of Abrahamic religion amount to evidence of your God? I've given you analogous examples showing how the correlation you claim is faulty, but you still don't get it. They were simple enough.. or is it head in the sand time again?
You mean "praying", dont you? Oo
50% of the time anything will work. :)
.. or rather, 50% of the time the outcome will appear favorable. Establishing a causal correlation, however, is another thing altogether! :) :)