Does Prayer Work II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Incorrect. Some may do this and many do, but many also reach their conclusions based on a prori and/or a posteriori knowledge.

Such as?

Such knowledge leads me to believe athiests are incorrect in their conclusions or have failed to consider all the evidence or arguments available. Not knowing is one thing, but one cannot make useful arguments out of a ‘don’t know’ conclusion. It’s not rigid enough.

I agree, which is why I included atheists in my statement. I don’t think we know enough to definitively rule out the possibility of any god existing.

We also don’t know enough to conclude that any particular god exists.

Which is why agnosticism is the most honest and correct approach, based on what we currently know. That may change at some future point, but for now we simply don’t know and shouldn’t pretend like we do.[/quote]

As long as there is a good faith effort, I do not think any conclusions is less honest than the next to the person drawing the conclusion. Since we cannot qualify what a good faith effort is, we’ll more or less have to take peoples’ word for it.
However, despite the effort, in good faith or otherwise, there is only one correct answer to the question and the correct answer is definitely not, “I don’t know”.

I think there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I have argued these things to death with you already, and I don’t want to repeat the same arguments and counter arguments again. The journey is ultimately, yours alone, as mine is mine alone.

182

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…for me, and i imagine for other atheists aswell, the odds that god exist are so small that it becomes irrelevant. It’s not like the belief in god is a matter of life and death, is it?
[/quote]

Why are the odds so infinitesimal that you feel confident in ruling out the god hypothesis entirely? We have no evidence of aliens yet, but most atheists admit that aliens could exist. Might we not consider aliens to be gods, depending on how much further along the technology continuum they are?

183

[quote]pat wrote:
As long as there is a good faith effort, I do not think any conclusions is less honest than the next to the person drawing the conclusion. Since we cannot qualify what a good faith effort is, we’ll more or less have to take peoples’ word for it.
However, despite the effort, in good faith or otherwise, there is only one correct answer to the question and the correct answer is definitely not, “I don’t know”.

I think there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I have argued these things to death with you already, and I don’t want to repeat the same arguments and counter arguments again. The journey is ultimately, yours alone, as mine is mine alone.[/quote]

People can be sincere in their search, but they can also be sincerely wrong. You only need to look at the millions of people that deeply believe in their particular brand of religion in contrast to other brands of religion, to understand that sincerity is not a gauge of truth.

It’s not about taking people’s word for it, it’s about basing your conclusions on actual evidence. When people draw conclusions based on insubstantial evidence, they are more likely to see things as they want them to be, rather than as they really are.

Believing that your god has spoken to you is NOT reliable evidence. If you disagree with this, answer my question:

How is it possible for millions of people to believe their god has spoken to them, when the “facts” from their god directly contradict the “facts” of someone else’s god? Obviously, believing that your god has spoken to you is NOT a reliable source for truth.

184

[quote]forlife wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…for me, and i imagine for other atheists aswell, the odds that god exist are so small that it becomes irrelevant. It’s not like the belief in god is a matter of life and death, is it?

Why are the odds so infinitesimal that you feel confident in ruling out the god hypothesis entirely? We have no evidence of aliens yet, but most atheists admit that aliens could exist. Might we not consider aliens to be gods, depending on how much further along the technology continuum they are?[/quote]

…irrelevance does not mean non-existant. Now, the god of Abraham might very well have been an E.T. To me He appears to be a megalomaniac who thrives on human suffering. If the god of Abraham proves to be an E.T. it means he isn’t actually God, the Creator of All…

…to be G-d, the Creator of All, this prime force isn’t human, nor does it possess human aspects. I doubt this prime force is even consciouss. I don’t deny the possibility that this prime force exists, but believing in this force does not change me, or my outlook on life…

…i don’t believe in an afterlife, not in heaven or hell. I don’t believe in eternal souls or in the devil. What use is this God to me? None, that is why God is irrelevant…

185

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
As long as there is a good faith effort, I do not think any conclusions is less honest than the next to the person drawing the conclusion. Since we cannot qualify what a good faith effort is, we’ll more or less have to take peoples’ word for it.
However, despite the effort, in good faith or otherwise, there is only one correct answer to the question and the correct answer is definitely not, “I don’t know”.

I think there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I have argued these things to death with you already, and I don’t want to repeat the same arguments and counter arguments again. The journey is ultimately, yours alone, as mine is mine alone.

People can be sincere in their search, but they can also be sincerely wrong. You only need to look at the millions of people that deeply believe in their particular brand of religion in contrast to other brands of religion, to understand that sincerity is not a gauge of truth.

It’s not about taking people’s word for it, it’s about basing your conclusions on actual evidence. When people draw conclusions based on insubstantial evidence, they are more likely to see things as they want them to be, rather than as they really are.

Believing that your god has spoken to you is NOT reliable evidence. If you disagree with this, answer my question:

How is it possible for millions of people to believe their god has spoken to them, when the “facts” from their god directly contradict the “facts” of someone else’s god? Obviously, believing that your god has spoken to you is NOT a reliable source for truth.[/quote]

I disagree with your notions that all religions or even most religions contrast one another. There maybe disagreements on methodology and traditions but the basic tenants for most all religions are the same. They those tenants are to love God and love your neighbor, deal with people truthfully, respect others do no intentional harm to others, etc.
What you do see is radicalism, extremism or manipulation for the purpose of being self servant infect and pollute these faiths, but that does not change itâ??s basic tenants. It just misuses peoples trust in religion to justify evil behaviour.

186

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…irrelevance does not mean non-existant. Now, the god of Abraham might very well have been an E.T. To me He appears to be a megalomaniac who thrives on human suffering. If the god of Abraham proves to be an E.T. it means he isn’t actually God, the Creator of All…

…to be G-d, the Creator of All, this prime force isn’t human, nor does it possess human aspects. I doubt this prime force is even consciouss. I don’t deny the possibility that this prime force exists, but believing in this force does not change me, or my outlook on life…

…i don’t believe in an afterlife, not in heaven or hell. I don’t believe in eternal souls or in the devil. What use is this God to me? None, that is why God is irrelevant…
[/quote]

The traditional definition of atheist is not believing in the existence of gods, rather than not believing in the relevance of gods.

Besides, if E.T. came back to pay us a visit, he would quickly become relevant again :wink:

187

[quote]pat wrote:
I disagree with your notions that all religions or even most religions contrast one another.
[/quote]

I’m talking about the beliefs, rather than the values, that religions promote as literal facts.

For example:

As a Mormon, I believed that god told me Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and that the Book of Mormon was literally translated from gold plates written by the ancient inhabitants of the American continent. I had many powerful spiritual experiences confirming these specific beliefs.

How do you explain that?

Do you understand how people of other religions can have these identical spiritual experiences, and in turn take these experiences as evidence for their specific beliefs?

188

[quote]forlife wrote:The traditional definition of atheist is not believing in the existence of gods, rather than not believing in the relevance of gods.

Besides, if E.T. came back to pay us a visit, he would quickly become relevant again ;)[/quote]

…you misunderstood. I don’t believe God exists in part because the chance that the god of Abraham might exist is very, very small. So small infact that he has become irrelevant…

189

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you misunderstood. I don’t believe God exists in part because the chance that the god of Abraham might exist is very, very small. So small infact that he has become irrelevant…[/quote]

Just because the jewish god is unlikely to be real doesn’t mean the existence of any deity is impossible, does it? I don’t see why people feel justified in saying they KNOW there is no god, as if it’s possible to prove a negative. I can definitely see saying that there’s no evidence for a god at this time.

190

Not that I get a lot of my theological views from cartoons, but there was a Futurama where Bender meets God. At the end, God says something like I’ve done my job when people think I have done nothing at all.

If you believe God, Jesus, etc., is some type of genie waiting to grant your every wish. You are sorely mistaken and setting yourself up to be disappointed. God transcends human wants and desires. Some may call achieving a god-like state as self-actualization. In short, you have to separate what you want and your spirtuality.

There is no God proof (even many scholars have derived somethings very close). But you have to wondere where and what started the universe? Have we always just been? Also, there seem to be underlying truths that every person knows regardless of culture, religion, etc. Only through culture, religion, etc. are we taught to go against these underlying truths and become judgmental. For example, the truth that all people deserve love and respect. Watch two year-olds play and you realize that they treat everyone relatively the same. Similarly, there are certain fears/reactions to stimuli that are almost innate regardless of culture or geographic region. It seems highly coincidental that some many seemingly different groups of people would have such similar values and fears.

In short, I don’t think you have to believe in God to reach sincere spirituality. What you have to believe in is the search for truth. You live your life searching for the truth and what is right, all the other stuff takes care of itself.

As for whether the God of Abraham is the true God, the answer is probably yes and no, assuming you believe in some higher being. Just as the Book of Genesis doesn’t talk about dinosaurs because the readers wouldn’t understand because dinosaurs were so foreign to them, God may adopt a form/ideology that mirrors a societies values while still supporting the underlying truth. You can separate religions from “right and wrong” based on these truths not on the traditions. I propose that if people would have known about dinosaurs at the time the Genesis was written, the book would have started as God made giant lizards that ruled the earth, then . . . .

191

Why would the original authors have to know about dinosaurs if their god was real and could have revealed it to them? Does it not seem a little suspicious that the holy books men have created over the millenia reflect what people believe about the natural world, and the social mores for living in that world, at that particular time? As societies evolve, their gods evolve accordingly. Pretty good evidence that we create our own gods.

The existence of a universe doesn’t require a supernatural explanation. Why is it so hard for people to admit that just maybe matter and energy have always existed, rather than magically being created out of nothing, in direct contradiction to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

192

What I was speaking to is the fact that Genesis isn’t a science book. It speaks to the underlying truth that God created the world and just because it doesn’t include dinosaurs or ice ages doesn’t make it untrue in regards to this truth.

Believing that it has always been just doesn’t do it for me. Maybe because I’m a temporal being and see a beginning and an end to everything.

193

[quote]forlife wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you misunderstood. I don’t believe God exists in part because the chance that the god of Abraham might exist is very, very small. So small infact that he has become irrelevant…

Just because the jewish god is unlikely to be real doesn’t mean the existence of any deity is impossible, does it? I don’t see why people feel justified in saying they KNOW there is no god, as if it’s possible to prove a negative. I can definitely see saying that there’s no evidence for a god at this time.[/quote]

…well, let me just go ahead here and say it: The god of Abraham does not exist. This god is a antropomorphic collage of bronze age myth, fear, tribal prejudice, ignorance and mysoginy all rolled into one. Does not mean that there couldn’t be a creating force, just that the goatherder’s god is a fantasy…

194

[quote]McG78 wrote:
What I was speaking to is the fact that Genesis isn’t a science book. It speaks to the underlying truth that God created the world and just because it doesn’t include dinosaurs or ice ages doesn’t make it untrue in regards to this truth.

Believing that it has always been just doesn’t do it for me. Maybe because I’m a temporal being and see a beginning and an end to everything.[/quote]

If you believe the bible to be literally true, then Genesis is a science book. Beliefs about the origin of the universe are in the realm of science.

If you see a beginning and an end to everything, who created your god? Why is it possible that your god has always existed, while it isn’t similarly possible that matter and energy have always existed?

195

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…well, let me just go ahead here and say it: The god of Abraham does not exist. This god is a antropomorphic collage of bronze age myth, fear, tribal prejudice, ignorance and mysoginy all rolled into one. Does not mean that there couldn’t be a creating force, just that the goatherder’s god is a fantasy…
[/quote]

That view doesn’t automatically make you an atheist, though. An atheist believes all gods are false, and that it is impossible for there to be a god, period.

You’re only a selective atheist, which happens to be true of every believer as well. They are atheists when it comes to the entire pantheon of gods, excluding their own special god.

196

[quote]ephrem wrote:
forlife wrote:

…well, let me just go ahead here and say it: The god of Abraham does not exist. This god is a antropomorphic collage of bronze age myth, fear, tribal prejudice, ignorance and mysoginy all rolled into one. Does not mean that there couldn’t be a creating force, just that the goatherder’s god is a fantasy…
[/quote]

You’ve gone from an uncertainty concerning the existence–or non-existence–of a creating force, to making a claim about it’s nature. Or, what it’s nature isn’t.

197

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Incorrect. Some may do this and many do, but many also reach their conclusions based on a prori and/or a posteriori knowledge. Such knowledge leads me to believe athiests are incorrect in their conclusions or have failed to consider all the evidence or arguments available.
Not knowing is one thing, but one cannot make useful arguments out of a ‘don’t know’ conclusion. It’s not rigid enough.

…there’s another option pat: not everybody needs a rigid structure to build a life on, or to base morality on, or to keep them on the straight and narrow. I’ve been searching, discussing, reading, meditating, thinking, writing, contemplating and realising since '95. My search has been sincere, and i’ve seen and experienced odd things, painful triggers, my dark side…

…i’ve also had experiences that can be seen as enlightening, mystical or God-given, but none of those experiences gave rise to the need to believe, as if those beliefs could add something that wasn’t there before. Instead, i prefer/enjoy the emptiness of not-knowing. It’s different strokes, that’s all…

[/quote]

You are entitled to believe as you wish. That is your prerogative as well as anyone elses. My only contention is simply that it does not answer the question. If you don’t want to seek the answer that’s up to you, there is no mandate that you have to. Having such a belief does not answer the question of whether or not God exists…And there is only one right answer. He either does or does not.

198

[quote]forlife wrote:
McG78 wrote:
What I was speaking to is the fact that Genesis isn’t a science book. It speaks to the underlying truth that God created the world and just because it doesn’t include dinosaurs or ice ages doesn’t make it untrue in regards to this truth.

Believing that it has always been just doesn’t do it for me. Maybe because I’m a temporal being and see a beginning and an end to everything.

If you believe the bible to be literally true, then Genesis is a science book. Beliefs about the origin of the universe are in the realm of science.

If you see a beginning and an end to everything, who created your god? Why is it possible that your god has always existed, while it isn’t similarly possible that matter and energy have always existed?[/quote]

My point was that the bible is not a literal account of the beginning of the universe, or any moment in time for that matter. I can show you countless contradictions in the bible that show this to be the case (e.g., exactly how many fish and how many loaves were used to feed how many people?). The point is that the bible reveals truths about religion and God. For instance, the story of Noah’s Ark. It may be true, but it doesn’t have to be. The story shows that God has the power to destroy the world, but in God’s love we are not all foresaken. Regardless of if there actually was a flood this can be true.

I’m saying I’m a temporal being so I look for a beginning and an end. The “creation” of the universe and God could very well exist outside of time.

In the end, it could very well be true that there is no God. But I see no problem in trying to help others, not abusing my relationships, and being a creater of peace. If I’m wrong about God, I’m still happy because I did what I felt was right. If I’m right about God, bonus for me. This is one of my biggest problems with mainstream religion, escpecially mainstream Protestant religions, they all fail to realize that the reward of being religious is in the process not in the ultimate result. Whether what you have done, said, believe, etc. gets you into heaven is not the point of being religious. What is important is striving for what is right.

199

[quote]pat wrote:
You are entitled to believe as you wish. That is your prerogative as well as anyone elses. My only contention is simply that it does not answer the question. If you don’t want to seek the answer that’s up to you, there is no mandate that you have to. Having such a belief does not answer the question of whether or not God exists…And there is only one right answer. He either does or does not.
[/quote]

That’s a bit of a false comparison though. It’s really more a question of whether any of the thousands of gods people believe in exist, or not.

200

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
You are entitled to believe as you wish. That is your prerogative as well as anyone elses. My only contention is simply that it does not answer the question. If you don’t want to seek the answer that’s up to you, there is no mandate that you have to. Having such a belief does not answer the question of whether or not God exists…And there is only one right answer. He either does or does not.

That’s a bit of a false comparison though. It’s really more a question of whether any of the thousands of gods people believe in exist, or not.[/quote]

No, incorrect. The question is does God exist, period.