Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

Unless of course the goal is talking to yourself, prayer doesn't work.

We review the following article at the beginning of show 15 featuring Amanda Bloom. You can download that show for free right here.

Quote:

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Published: March 31, 2006

By BENEDICT CAREY

Story from New York Times and all over web. Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.

Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.

The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.

At least 10 studies of the effects of prayer have been carried out in the last six years, with mixed results. The new study was intended to overcome flaws in the earlier investigations. The report was scheduled to appear in The American Heart Journal next week, but the journal's publisher released it online yesterday.

In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer. But the results, they said, raised questions about how and whether patients should be told that prayers were being offered for them.

"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.

Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000.

Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a co-author of the report, said the study said nothing about the power of personal prayer or about prayers for family members and friends.

Working in a large medical center like Mayo, Mr. Marek said, "You hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don't doubt them."

In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.

The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.

The researchers asked the members of three congregations St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City ? to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.

The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for ? 59 percent ? suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.

"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.

The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group 18 percent suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers. In their report, the researchers suggested that this finding might also be a result of chance.

One reason the study was so widely anticipated was that it was led by Dr. Benson, who in his work has emphasized the soothing power of personal prayer and meditation.

At least one earlier study found lower complication rates in patients who received intercessory prayers; others found no difference. A 1997 study at the University of New Mexico, involving 40 alcoholics in rehabilitation, found that the men and women who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse.

The new study was rigorously designed to avoid problems like the ones that came up in the earlier studies. But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying.

Bob Barth, the spiritual director of Silent Unity, the Missouri prayer ministry, said the findings would not affect the ministry's mission.

"A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," Mr. Barth said, "but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."

Here's a youtube video from our friends at godisimaginary.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

Here's a thought from honorary Squad member, the Infidel Guy:
What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already?
1.) Humans can't change God's mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)

Stop talking to your ceiling, prayer doesn't work.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


HeliosOfTheSun
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

My cousin sent me a stupid-ass Christian chainmail saying she will pray for me. Course she's a devout Catholic and knows Im athesist, so she sent it. I sent the prayer video to her, lol.


JB_Montag
JB_Montag's picture
Posts: 68
Joined: 2006-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

Maybe they used the wrong congregations and thereby the wrong deity :smt023

I would love the irony just to see better results from Rastafari prayer Laughing out loud

The paper read yesterday, the earth exploded, nobody noticed the passing of this hapless planet.


spentley
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

I have proof.

Last year, my friend thought prayer would work.

We had this outdoor rock fest thing, and it started to sprinkle. Sure enough, he figured JC or God could help us out. So he went and prayed for awhile.

2 hours later. It fuckin poured.

God is the omnimax creator by definition of major religions. If there is evidence that the religion is incorrect about the nature of reality, then there is evidence that the God the religion defines does not exist.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
the video's illogical. it

the video's illogical.

it presupposes atheism; then does a bait-and-switch with Christianity, and attempts to invoke God to do something (all the while comparing God's capability to a horseshoe, nonetheless); at the point, the entire things becomes an obvious aberration.

i liked the subtle, brainwashing mantra, though; the zealous repitition of, "if you're a normal, intelligent person..." after every irrational contention he made.

it's almost as if the only way he could assure himself that his illogicality was "rational" was to acridly, yet indirectly, insult the people who were the subjects of his presentation.

i'm a bit letdown that you guys would promote this YouTube video. so much for the "rational" part in rationalresponders.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
lol, Yup, so much for us

lol, Yup, so much for us being rational. Before you know it we'll be talking to our ceilings before we go to bed. Evil

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sapient, come on, level with

sapient, come on, level with me; the entire "scientific experiment" was done by satirical atheists.

it's interesting how the video was based only on two verses; both of which speak nothing about actual prayer, what is, what it isn't, etc etc.

it's bait-and-switch; and it's the only way the video could have been made. if any of the other verses that explain prayer were cited, the video would become non sequitur.

"But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does."
-James 1:6-7

the video presupposed from the start that prayer wouldn't work.

if a "scientific conclusion" is defined as a conclusion made which is the logical outcome of a test (paraphrasing here), then that entire video just became scientifically disproved by that one verse I just quoted.

"prayer" can't be measured using the scientific method.
any "normal, intelligent person" can see that. Eye-wink

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The lucky horse shoe idea

The lucky horse shoe idea sounds pretty solid as a comparison to prayer. Although I doubt they did all the studies they seem to talk about. I do know there were a few studies done.

I do see the point of complaining about him saying "a normal rational person" all the time. However you do realize we are talking about people talking to themselves so good stuff will happen right?

I suggest someone pick up some of his arguments, re-tool them, and make a new video. That or talk to the guy who made it.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
it's not a sound comparison

it's not a sound comparison at all.

the video is out to "prove" that prayer doesn't work, and so, in order for the video to be objectively true, it must be unbias from the beginning.

but that's not what's happened here; what's happened is that the creator of the video has ruled out that prayer doesn't work a priori, and then elaborated his opinion using ridiculous comparisons that don't in corroborate his said contention.

I created a (cynical) comparison to show the illogicality of a contention that disregards all information that relates to the subject [the movie based it's entire "proof" just two verses from the NT], and is based solely on an a priori opinion:

"There is no such thing as the 1996 Ford Mustang. Anyone who believes that the 1996 Ford Mustang exists is in self-delusion, since I can prove that the 1996 Ford Mustang does not exist. Here is my first proof that the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist: here, look in this parking lot full of Hondas, Nissans, Chevrolets, Mazdas, and Saturns. See? Notice how there are no 1996 Ford Mustangs? It's because the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist. Anyone who believes so is in self-delusion. Here's my second proof that the 1996 Ford Mustang does not exist: here 's a list of every car that I've ever owned: 1998 Toyota Camry, 1993 Toyota Tacoma, 2001 Ford F150, and a 1988 Volkswagen. See? Notice how there are no 1996 Ford Mustangs? It's because the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist. Anyone who believes so is in self-delusion. Here's my third proof that the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist: here's a list of cars that I like: 1966 Ford Mustang, 1978 El Camino, and 1973 Firebird Trans AM. See? Notice how there are no 1996 Ford Mustangs? It's because the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist. Anyone who believes so is in self-delusion."

if atheism is true, then that video is simple logic.

but the video wasn't created to address the cogency of theism or atheism, so for it to presuppositionally assume that atheism is true contaminates it's entire purpose.

i should make a YouTube video rebuttal. Smiling

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You do realize no one can be

You do realize no one can be completely unbiased right?

So what do you think of prayer?

I think it is just an elaborate placebo mixed with whatever keeps astrology going and a bit of thinking.


GuentherBacon
Rational VIP!
GuentherBacon's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:it's not a

adamryan wrote:
it's not a sound comparison at all.

the video is out to "prove" that prayer doesn't work, and so, in order for the video to be objectively true, it must be unbias from the beginning.

but that's not what's happened here; what's happened is that the creator of the video has ruled out that prayer doesn't work a priori, and then elaborated his opinion using ridiculous comparisons that don't in corroborate his said contention.

I created a (cynical) comparison to show the illogicality of a contention that disregards all information that relates to the subject [the movie based it's entire "proof" just two verses from the NT], and is based solely on an a priori opinion:

"There is no such thing as the 1996 Ford Mustang. Anyone who believes that the 1996 Ford Mustang exists is in self-delusion, since I can prove that the 1996 Ford Mustang does not exist. Here is my first proof that the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist: here, look in this parking lot full of Hondas, Nissans, Chevrolets, Mazdas, and Saturns. See? Notice how there are no 1996 Ford Mustangs? It's because the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist. Anyone who believes so is in self-delusion. Here's my second proof that the 1996 Ford Mustang does not exist: here 's a list of every car that I've ever owned: 1998 Toyota Camry, 1993 Toyota Tacoma, 2001 Ford F150, and a 1988 Volkswagen. See? Notice how there are no 1996 Ford Mustangs? It's because the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist. Anyone who believes so is in self-delusion. Here's my third proof that the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist: here's a list of cars that I like: 1966 Ford Mustang, 1978 El Camino, and 1973 Firebird Trans AM. See? Notice how there are no 1996 Ford Mustangs? It's because the 1996 Ford Mustang doesn't exist. Anyone who believes so is in self-delusion."

if atheism is true, then that video is simple logic.

but the video wasn't created to address the cogency of theism or atheism, so for it to presuppositionally assume that atheism is true contaminates it's entire purpose.

i should make a YouTube video rebuttal. Smiling

-adamryan

Good luck making a YouTube rebuttal that will be in and of itself biased and contradictory to your own criteria.

This film was actually unbiased. It showed very clearly, citing specific examples and drawing correlations from such, that the power of prayer does not wok.

Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
The Book Of Satan IV:3, The Satanic Bible


AZSuperman01
AZSuperman01's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2006-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:it's not a sound

Quote:
it's not a sound comparison at all.

the video is out to "prove" that prayer doesn't work, and so, in order for the video to be objectively true, it must be unbias from the beginning.

but that's not what's happened here; what's happened is that the creator of the video has ruled out that prayer doesn't work a priori, and then elaborated his opinion using ridiculous comparisons that don't in corroborate his said contention.

Actually the video was quite fair... The verses cited are said to be the "truth" as given by a "perfect" God. Christians frequently cite those verses as proof that God answers prayers. In fact, in my experience Christians will cite those verses PRIOR to giving real life examples.

Quote:
I created a (cynical) comparison to show the illogicality of a contention that disregards all information that relates to the subject [the movie based it's entire "proof" just two verses from the NT], and is based solely on an a priori opinion:

Your comparison is nonsense. The video was comparing effects of two different forms of stimulous on various objects. You were trying to disprove the existence of a physical object... the two are so completely dissimilar that I'm actually frightened you considered it a valid analogy.

Quote:
if atheism is true, then that video is simple logic.

but the video wasn't created to address the cogency of theism or atheism, so for it to presuppositionally assume that atheism is true contaminates it's entire purpose.


Actually, the existence of God was not discussed in the video at all. The video discussed the effectiveness of prayer. It's completely possible (given the examples from the video) that God exists, but he simply ignores prayers. The "lucky horseshoe" definately exists, yet it refuses to answer prayers regardless of how much you believe it to be effective... it's possible God is just as real, but just as powerless.

In fact, there are many Deists who believe in a God who created the universe, then left it to it's own divices... in other words, a God who exists but doesn't answer prayers. This deist viewpoint is in complete agreement with the video.

Obviously it's also VERY possible that there is no God to answer prayers, but the topic of whether God exists but doesn't answer prayers, or whether there just isn't a God to answer prayers isn't addressed at all.

There is no atheist a priori.

Quote:
i should make a YouTube video rebuttal.

I would love to see your rebuttal...
"Praying doesn't affect the roll of dice because...."
"Praying to heal cancer won't work because...."
"Praying to cure amputees won't work because...."
"BUT GOD ANSWERS PRAYERS!!!"

Now THAT would be a great video!

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
what part of what i wrote

what part of what i wrote was hard to understand?


Frenchy
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
While prayer in no way

While prayer in no way provides wants or needs, it does help certain people focus on what they want, and why they want it. Maybe also a little self confidence?

Mheh, whatever works for you.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:what part of

adamryan wrote:
what part of what i wrote was hard to understand?

LMAO. What part of what was written to you was hard to understand?

Have you ever prayed for something and not received/experienced it?
Did you attribute that to god's will?

How many times does that need to happen in order for you to give up on prayer?

Does one time of it happening because of another indirect occurrence mean that your particular prayer worked?

Insane people do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: Insane

darth_josh wrote:

Insane people do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

Also following that, it seems that some of us are insane for even trying to ask you to examine anything from an unbiased perspective.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
http://nccam.nih.gov/news/new

http://nccam.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2005_winter/prayer.htm

Well, prayer does accomplish one thing!

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
“If you abide in Me, and

“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.”

-John 15:7

A lot of times prayers go unanswered because we don't talk to God, we talk to ourselves. We don't really think prayer will work, but we still do it anyway because we're raised that way, think it helps us calm down mentally, to see if God will maybe help us out "in this one time only", etc etc; even though we don't expect Him to.

We wind up being like that king in Hamlet, who prayed to try to ease the guilt he felt over his sin (murder), but it wasn't effective at all, and "it didn't even reach the ceiling."

“And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.”
-1 John 3:22

How many of the people who have unanswered prayers, actually keep God's commandments and "do those things that are pleasing in His sight.” ?

Of course, it doesn't mean that just because you keep God's commandments, He'll give you whatever you want, obviously (James 4:3), but it certainly is a necessity and does strengthen our faith in God when our prayers are answered.

unanswered prayer doesn't mean prayer doesn't work.

darth_josh wrote:

Insane people do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

I agree. Like voting for Bush twice. =]

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunately a lot of the

Unfortunately a lot of the people who voted for GWB actually like what he's doing. Sad


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I prayed for 10 million

I prayed for 10 million dollars 30 years ago and I'm not even close.

It just simply doesnt work because there is nothing to pray to!

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


AZSuperman01
AZSuperman01's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2006-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:... prayers go

Quote:
... prayers go unanswered because we don't talk to God, we talk to ourselves.

I think you pretty much said it all right there.

Quote:
but we still do it anyway because we're raised that way, think it helps us calm down mentally, to see if God will maybe help us out "in this one time only", etc etc; even though we don't expect Him to.

Even when you "expect him to," God frequently disappoints.

Quote:
How many of the people who have unanswered prayers, actually keep God's commandments and "do those things that are pleasing in His sight.” ?

This could be the problem... NO ONE is "good enough" for God to bother answering their prayers. (Romans 3:23) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Actually, this could be made into a plausible argument... although it wouldn't prove that prayers are answered, it would only explain why God ignores prayer.

Quote:
unanswered prayer doesn't mean prayer doesn't work.

Sorry... but this is just crap. If a prayer isn't answered, then IT DIDN'T WORK! If it worked, it would've been answered!

By your logic, the fact the lucky horseshoe didn't affect the outcome of an event doesn't mean it's not lucky... and a failed experiment is just as much proof as a successful one.

How can you survive in the real world thinking this way? If you truely believed this way, you'd have to be the most gullible person in the world...

Come on... Get serious. If something doesn't obtain the desired result, then it failed... especially when the ENTIRE POINT of performing said action was to obtain a specific result.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See


AZSuperman01
AZSuperman01's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2006-09-20
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote:I prayed for 10

AiiA wrote:
I prayed for 10 million dollars 30 years ago and I'm not even close.

It just simply doesnt work because there is nothing to pray to!


But that's okay... because according to adamryan the fact that you didn't get what you prayed for shouldn't be considered evidence that your prayer didn't work.
Puzzled

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AZSuperman01 wrote:Quote:...

AZSuperman01 wrote:
Quote:
... prayers go unanswered because we don't talk to God, we talk to ourselves.

I think you pretty much said it all right there.

it's a good thing that you didn't completely take what I said out of context, and ignore the rest of what I said. Eye-wink

Quote:
but we still do it anyway because we're raised that way, think it helps us calm down mentally, to see if God will maybe help us out "in this one time only", etc etc; even though we don't expect Him to.
Quote:

Even when you "expect him to," God frequently disappoints.

I don't really see why you'd bother regurgitating this statement; i sort of explained it already.

Quote:
How many of the people who have unanswered prayers, actually keep God's commandments and "do those things that are pleasing in His sight.” ?

This could be the problem... NO ONE is "good enough" for God to bother answering their prayers. (Romans 3:23) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Christ Jesus, our Lord."
-Romans 6:23

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."
-Hebrews 4:14-16

with Christ, our prayers are heard and our sins absolved. you're wrong; God does "bother" with our prayers.

Quote:

Actually, this could be made into a plausible argument... although it wouldn't prove that prayers are answered, it would only explain why God ignores prayer.

God doesn't ignore prayer. Just because there are people who would like to think that, and make youtube videos about it, and attempt to "rationalize" them away doesn't make it fact.

All that's needed to prove that prayer works is one example of when it has; personally, I believe that there's been more than one of those.

Quote:
unanswered prayer doesn't mean prayer doesn't work.
Quote:

Sorry... but this is just crap. If a prayer isn't answered, then IT DIDN'T WORK! If it worked, it would've been answered!

By your logic, the fact the lucky horseshoe didn't affect the outcome of an event doesn't mean it's not lucky... and a failed experiment is just as much proof as a successful one.

prayer isn't a Hey-God!-do-this-for-me-NOW! button.
and it seems like you're not really arguing from logic, but emotion and personal experience.

if i were to say "prayer works, and I know from personal experience", then immediately there'd be someone who'd retort, "it's a coincidence", or "you're lying, or over-exaggerating", etc etc.

let's avoid personal experiences and stick to logic.

what you just said holds no ground on a purely logical standpoint, since I've already stated that there are plenty of reasons why prayer seems to go unanswered.

Quote:

How can you survive in the real world thinking this way? If you truely believed this way, you'd have to be the most gullible person in the world... Come on... Get serious. If something doesn't obtain the desired result, then it failed... especially when the ENTIRE POINT of performing said action was to obtain a specific result.

again, God isn't at the mercy of our own wills.

prayer isn't an easy way to obtain monetary gain, authoritative status, etc etc; alot of times our prayers, when we truly look at what we're asking for, are for said things.

and even then, just because "prayers" that didn't come to fruition seem to outweigh the ones that do, doesn't make prayer pointless and dead.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote:I prayed for 10

AiiA wrote:
I prayed for 10 million dollars 30 years ago and I'm not even close.

It just simply doesnt work because there is nothing to pray to!

"I'm not rich; therefore, God doesn't exist."

that is the most glorious non sequitur ever to be uttered by mankind.

thanks for that.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:AiiA wrote:I

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:
I prayed for 10 million dollars 30 years ago and I'm not even close.

It just simply doesnt work because there is nothing to pray to!

"I'm not rich; therefore, God doesn't exist."


I did not say I was not rich, you seem to be making things up. Why are you trying to change the meaning of what I said?

Quote:
that is the most glorious non sequitur ever to be uttered by mankind.

thanks for that.


"glorious"? I've never heard of a non sequitur being glorious. Can you explain how a non sequitur can be glorious.

"uttered"? I wrote the words. I didn't utter them.
"mankind"? Oh so I am a spokesman for the entire human race? How kind of you to think so.
Do you think you are the spokesman for your gawd? You must be special indeed.
Can you provide any evidence that there is anything to pray to? It is quite pointless to pray if there is nothing to pray to.
Ones time will be better applied to doing something productive.
No prayer was ever 'answered'.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


AZSuperman01
AZSuperman01's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2006-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't really see why

Quote:
I don't really see why you'd bother regurgitating this statement; i sort of explained it already.

And I agreed with your explanation. In fact, the same argument could be made for any placebo. They are used strictly to help us calm down mentally... just like prayer, placebos carry only as much value as you place on them. They are powerless themselves.

Quote:
with Christ, our prayers are heard and our sins absolved. you're wrong; God does "bother" with our prayers.

This thread has nothing to do with sin, it's about prayer. There are thousands of Christians who pray to Jesus yet he doesn't answer most prayers... In fact, he has about the same success ratio as a lucky horseshoe.

Quote:
God doesn't ignore prayer. Just because there are people who would like to think that, and make youtube videos about it, and attempt to "rationalize" them away doesn't make it fact.

All that's needed to prove that prayer works is one example of when it has; personally, I believe that there's been more than one of those.


If a doctor wanted you to try an experimental drug, and he could only provide you with one example where the drug had ever been successful, would you dare take the drug yourself? What if he told you MILLIONS of people took this drug, many of them died from the illness it was designed to treat... but ONE person survived? What if he told you they couldn't conclusively determine whether or not the drug had anything to do with the recovery?

When your logic is applied to the real world, the absurdity becomes plain to see. One example is never enough to prove anything.

Quote:
prayer isn't a Hey-God!-do-this-for-me-NOW! button.
and it seems like you're not really arguing from logic, but emotion and personal experience.

I'm simply demonstrating your logic. You've stated repeatedly that just because something doesn't do what it is intended to do doesn't mean it doesn't do what it's intended to do...
Puzzled
That's faulty logic.

Pointing out that something has "failed" when it doesn't acheive the intended results is a fact, not an emotional statement.

Quote:
if i were to say "prayer works, and I know from personal experience", then immediately there'd be someone who'd retort, "it's a coincidence", or "you're lying, or over-exaggerating", etc etc.

let's avoid personal experiences and stick to logic.


I agree. That's why I have simply demonstrated the errors in your logic instead of using personal experience.
Quote:
what you just said holds no ground on a purely logical standpoint, since I've already stated that there are plenty of reasons why prayer seems to go unanswered.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the reasons prayers go unanswered, you should try to determine why prayers are answered ONLY as often as no prayer at all.

Praying to Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or my kitchen chair has an equal chance of resulting in a positive result... Of course, not praying at all also shares the same statistical chance of success.

Instead of rationalizing why God refuses to answer some people, perhaps you should attempt to explain why God chooses to work as well as would be expected if he didn't exist.

Quote:
gain, God isn't at the mercy of our own wills.

prayer isn't an easy way to obtain monetary gain, authoritative status, etc etc; alot of times our prayers, when we truly look at what we're asking for, are for said things.


Perhaps you should have told that to God before he started making promises he wouldn't keep.

Matt 22:12 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Quote:
and even then, just because "prayers" that didn't come to fruition seem to outweigh the ones that do, doesn't make prayer pointless and dead.

No, prayer will never be "dead." People will never stop selling lucky rabbits feet and four leafed clovers either... There will always be someone who forwards a chain letter for good luck, and there will always be people who refuse to wear black on Friday the 13th.

People will always be superstitious.

Prayer will never be "dead," but it always has been, and always will be pointless.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AZSuperman01 wrote:AiiA

AZSuperman01 wrote:
AiiA wrote:
I prayed for 10 million dollars 30 years ago and I'm not even close.

It just simply doesnt work because there is nothing to pray to!


But that's okay... because according to adamryan the fact that you didn't get what you prayed for shouldn't be considered evidence that your prayer didn't work.
Puzzled

try responding with something that reflects all of what I said, and stop taking what is said out of context, like a catholic priest justifying mariology. Evil

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:the video's

adamryan wrote:

the video's illogical.

it presupposes atheism; then does a bait-and-switch with Christianity, and attempts to invoke God to do something (all the while comparing God's capability to a horseshoe, nonetheless); at the point, the entire things becomes an obvious aberration.

i liked the subtle, brainwashing mantra, though; the zealous repitition of, "if you're a normal, intelligent person..." after every irrational contention he made.

it's almost as if the only way he could assure himself that his illogicality was "rational" was to acridly, yet indirectly, insult the people who were the subjects of his presentation.

i'm a bit letdown that you guys would promote this YouTube video. so much for the "rational" part in rationalresponders.

-adamryan

So you make a global assessment on all of us, based on your disagreement with one video we've posted?

That's irrational in itself. An overgeneralization.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: I did not say I

AiiA wrote:

I did not say I was not rich, you seem to be making things up. Why are you trying to change the meaning of what I said?

I apologize for assuming that you weren't rich. I didn't know that you were the Donald Trump of theologians. Again, my apologies.

AiiA wrote:

I've never heard of a non sequitur being glorious. Can you explain how a non sequitur can be glorious.

I was being satirically facetious.

AiiA wrote:

"uttered"? I wrote the words. I didn't utter them.

It's a colloquialism.

If I quote something someone wrote (suppose I'm quoting a man named John), and I write, "John said...", is it wrong for me to write that, since the quote was from something that was written rather than verbalized?

No.

I'm implying that the said idea/message had been articulated by a certain person; I'm not specifying which manner they chose to carry out that process.

"said", "uttered"; i can use them with the same concept.

It's deplorable that that wouldn't be obvious to you...

AiiA wrote:

"mankind"? Oh so I am a spokesman for the entire human race? How kind of you to think so.

You're a human, aren't you? If you answered "yes", that categorizes you into the "mankind" section.
When you speak, that adds to the proverbial list-of-things-that-mankind-has-uttered.
I'm not saying that whatever you utter reflects the general consensus, or anything like that, obviously.

AiiA wrote:

Do you think you are the spokesman for your gawd? You must be special indeed.

I think I can be, and am sometimes.

Other times, I'm just explaing what colloquialisms are to people who don't understand basic American-English vernacular.

AiiA wrote:

Can you provide any evidence that there is anything to pray to?

Proving general theism isn't something that can just easily be done in a couple-sentence-long response in a thread.
If it could, there would be no atheism.

here's a few articles that, in my opinion, make a strong case for theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html

AiiA wrote:

It is quite pointless to pray if there is nothing to pray to.

Couldn't have said it better. We agree on something.

AiiA wrote:

Ones time will be better applied to doing something productive.

If there is no God, then yes, you're right, we could be doing things that are much more productive; like teaching others colloquialisms.

AiiA wrote:

No prayer was ever 'answered'.

Just as I cannot "prove" that something happened because it was the result of an answered prayer (though sometimes that seems to be the best explanation in some instances), neither can you "prove" that no prayer has ever been answered.

Your point is inconsequential and fruitlessly moot.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:AiiA wrote:I

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:
I prayed for 10 million dollars 30 years ago and I'm not even close.

It just simply doesnt work because there is nothing to pray to!

"I'm not rich; therefore, God doesn't exist."

that is the most glorious non sequitur ever to be uttered by mankind.

Well, your strawman version of his argument is a non sequitur.

But his actual argument isn't.

"god" will grant requests made in prayers
I prayed for X
I did not receive X
conclusion: Ergo, the belief that there is a god who grants requests has been falsified.

Now this argument can be attacked, but if you want to attack someone's argument, at least get it right first.

I've read two posts from you, both have commited a basic logical fallacy....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:AZSuperman01

adamryan wrote:
AZSuperman01 wrote:
Quote:
... prayers go unanswered because we don't talk to God, we talk to ourselves.

I think you pretty much said it all right there.

it's a good thing that you didn't completely take what I said out of context, and ignore the rest of what I said. Eye-wink

Because he'd be infringing on your copyrighted behaviors so far on this board....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AZSuperman01 wrote: This

AZSuperman01 wrote:

This thread has nothing to do with sin, it's about prayer.

You quoted Romans 3:23 with the idea that since we're sinners, God "doesn't bother" with our prayers. Romans 3:23 says that we're sinners. That's why I mentioned sin.
I know this thread isn't about sin. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

There are thousands of Christians who pray to Jesus yet he doesn't answer most prayers...

And you know this how? Personal experience? Bible study?
Im interested...

I know of prayers that have been answered.
You know of prayers that seem to have been dismissed.

To say that "most" prayers go unanswered is a pretty ignorant statement to make since no one but God knows the ratio of true heart-felt prayers, to the "do-this-for-me-NOW!" "prayers".

we've already gone over how "do-this-for-me-now-because-I-want-it" prayers aren't true prayers, and aren't the ones that God is intending to answer when He makes statements like,

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
-Matthew 22:12

those "prayers" don't work since they are selfish, materialistic things of the world; things which don't necessarily matter, when compared to other, more important things (1 John 2:15-17, 1 John 3:17-18, Colossians 3:2)

AZSuperman01 wrote:

If a doctor wanted you to try an experimental drug, and he could only provide you with one example where the drug had ever been successful, would you dare take the drug yourself? What if he told you MILLIONS of people took this drug, many of them died from the illness it was designed to treat... but ONE person survived? What if he told you they couldn't conclusively determine whether or not the drug had anything to do with the recovery?

When your logic is applied to the real world, the absurdity becomes plain to see. One example is never enough to prove anything.

I see your point, but I don't think that it corresponds to prayer.
Again, I don't think that the problem is with God hearing/caring about our prayers; I think the problem is that most people who aren't able to pray because something is preventing them from being able to fully commit (whether it be skepticism, materialism, or just being used to meaningless oblations, etc etc).

AZSuperman01 wrote:

I'm simply demonstrating your logic. You've stated repeatedly that just because something doesn't do what it is intended to do doesn't mean it doesn't do what it's intended to do...
Puzzled
That's faulty logic.

No. You're misquoting me, now. I said that just because "something" isn't immediate/happens the way you want/when you want/ happens as often as you'd like, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

That's why I have simply demonstrated the errors in your logic instead of using personal experience.

Of course you did. Eye-wink

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Perhaps instead of focusing on the reasons prayers go unanswered, you should try to determine why prayers are answered ONLY as often as no prayer at all.

Again, since you don't know how often a true prayer (one that God "hears" and counts as genuine; one that "fits His rubric") is made, you really have no position to say that.

Of course, you can argue saying that you've prayed for something before, it "didn't work out", and now you're an atheist because of how upset you were that it turn out in your favor; but that would land you right back in the emotional, "personal experience" group, in this polemic.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Praying to Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or my kitchen chair has an equal chance of resulting in a positive result... Of course, not praying at all also shares the same statistical chance of success.

With that opinion, AZSuperman01, I agree: none of your prayers will ever work because the only one listed in there that actually can hear what you're asking for, and has the ability to carry it out, will more than likely be busy ignoring you.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Instead of rationalizing why God refuses to answer some people, perhaps you should attempt to explain why God chooses to work as well as would be expected if he didn't exist.

Again, I would go back to my original statement concerning the genuineness of the majority of prayers people make.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Perhaps you should have told that to God before he started making promises he wouldn't keep.
Matt 22:12 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

See above, and then read it, and then reread it, and then reread it again.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

No, prayer will never be "dead."

I think it sort of already is, now that I think about it...

AZSuperman01 wrote:

People will never stop selling lucky rabbits feet and four leafed clovers either... There will always be someone who forwards a chain letter for good luck, and there will always be people who refuse to wear black on Friday the 13th.

Agreed.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

People will always be superstitious.

More than likely.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Prayer will never be "dead," but it always has been, and always will be pointless.

James 1:6-7.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:AiiA wrote: I

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

I did not say I was not rich, you seem to be making things up. Why are you trying to change the meaning of what I said?

I apologize for assuming that you weren't rich. I didn't know that you were the Donald Trump of theologians. Again, my apologies.

Right, because he said that too. Sheesh.

Anyway Adam, how bout hitting up the large study done on prayer.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:And you know

adamryan wrote:

And you know this how? Personal experience? Bible study?
Im interested...


Do you really think that it's all that difficult to infer that most prayers go unanswered?

Quote:

I know of prayers that have been answered.
You know of prayers that seem to have been dismissed.

To say that "most" prayers go unanswered is a pretty ignorant statement to make since no one but God knows the ratio of true heart-felt prayers, to the "do-this-for-me-NOW!" "prayers".


Your own statement is ridiculous... because it implies a need for certain knowledge when certain knowledge is not requied....

Do you really honestly think that most people's prayers have been answered? Are you really willing to hold to that claim just to hold to your beliefs?

Oh, one more howler from you:

Quote:
Again, since you don't know how often a true prayer (one that God "hears" and counts as genuine; one that "fits His rubric") is made, you really have no position to say that.

This is a "No true Scotsman fallacy." Whenever a prayer fails, you can write it off as "not at true prayer'

And again, we don't need certain knowledge to make inferences about human behavior.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote: AiiA

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

I did not say I was not rich, you seem to be making things up. Why are you trying to change the meaning of what I said?

I apologize for assuming that you weren't rich. I didn't know that you were the Donald Trump of theologians. Again, my apologies.

I did not say I was rich nor did I say I was not rich. It looks like you are reading things into what is being communicated that is not there. It is an interesting characteristic of theists in general. Theists seem to gloss over and generalize everything with god-tinted glasses.

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

I've never heard of a non sequitur being glorious. Can you explain how a non sequitur can be glorious.

I was being satirically facetious.

AiiA wrote:

"uttered"? I wrote the words. I didn't utter them.

It's a colloquialism.


I was being satirically facetious.

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

Do you think you are the spokesman for your gawd? You must be special indeed.

I think I can be, and am sometimes.
How do you know you can? And how do you know you were?

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

Can you provide any evidence that there is anything to pray to?

Proving general theism isn't something that can just easily be done in a couple-sentence-long response in a thread.
If it could, there would be no atheism.

Is that a yes or no?
adamryan wrote:
here's a few articles that, in my opinion, make a strong case for theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html

What evidence for a god do you see at this web site?

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

It is quite pointless to pray if there is nothing to pray to.

Couldn't have said it better. We agree on something.
AiiA wrote:

Ones time will be better applied to doing something productive.

If there is no God, then yes, you're right, we could be doing things that are much more productive; like teaching others colloquialisms.
People should be taught reason.

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

No prayer was ever 'answered'.

Just as I cannot "prove" that something happened because it was the result of an answered prayer (though sometimes that seems to be the best explanation in some instances), neither can you "prove" that no prayer has ever been answered.

Your point is inconsequential and fruitlessly moot.


My point is there is no god. There is no god to pray to and there is no god to answer prayers.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:adamryan

Sapient wrote:
adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

I did not say I was not rich, you seem to be making things up. Why are you trying to change the meaning of what I said?

I apologize for assuming that you weren't rich. I didn't know that you were the Donald Trump of theologians. Again, my apologies.

Right, because he said that too. Sheesh.

Anyway Adam, how bout hitting up the large study done on prayer.

Interesting article. It obviously doesn't prove that prayer doesn't work, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The point it made about how often people tend to fare worse when told they were being prayed for, I thought was especially interesting.

It reminded me of Mark 5:1-17, where a man who's demon-possesed reacts violently when he sees Jesus. The spirits ragingly plea with Christ, begging Him to send them into a nearby herd of swine, rather than destroy them; the parallel being that sometimes people would rather not have God be involved because they feel guilty (I know I've felt this way before, and I'm sure I'm not the only one). Guilty of, "Why should God help me? What do I really do that deserves me getting help?"

That alone could probably complicate the disease/symptoms.

Now, that doesn't go without saying that this scenario is the more than likely not the case for every person; all it shows is that there is more than one way to view it.

Another way to view it would be to embrace death; to view it (if it isn't to blasphemous to say) from God's eyes: people are praying, asking to make so-and-so feel better, to take their pain away, etc etc; the decision to end their life as a means of alleviating said pain is entirely a possibility.

In any case, I liked the article, and I'd like it if you could maybe send more articles you might know of that relate to this subject.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Do you

todangst wrote:

Do you really think that it's all that difficult to infer that most prayers go unanswered?

No, I don't. Just like I don't think it's that difficult to infer that most people's "prayers" don't "reach the ceiling".

todangst wrote:

Your own statement is ridiculous... because it implies a need for certain knowledge when certain knowledge is not requied....

I don't understand what you mean here. Please clarify. What certain knowledge?

todangst wrote:

Do you really honestly think that most people's prayers have been answered? Are you really willing to hold to that claim just to hold to your beliefs?

No, I don't think most people's prayers have been answered. I thought I already made that clear. I've already said that most "prayers" get unanswered because they aren't prayers at all; just "talking to themselves".

From the verses I've already cited, it's pretty apparent that there are some guidelines to prayer.

Obviously the prayer of Paul, back when he was alive, is more likely to be answered then, say perhaps, someone like Hitler.

If prayer isn't working, then, chances are, there's something wrong, not with prayer, but with ourselves, and that needs correction.

Luckily God's given us that correcting tool (2 Timothy 3:16)

todangst wrote:

This is a "No true Scotsman fallacy." Whenever a prayer fails, you can write it off as "not at true prayer'.

No, it's not. I didn't say that every prayer that doesn't seem to be answered isn't a "true" prayer. I just suggested that it was, and is, an entirely good possible explanation. Think about it: how many "religious people" do you know? How many of them are hypocritical? They're a zealot on Sunday, a politician the other six days of the week.

my point, exactly.

Pseduo-prayers don't work. That's my entire point. The fact that they're, more than likely, being shot out to God, en masse, strongly backs up my point.

todangst wrote:

And again, we don't need certain knowledge to make inferences about human behavior.

You lost me on this one. I wait for your elucidation.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: So you make

todangst wrote:

So you make a global assessment on all of us, based on your disagreement with one video we've posted?

That's irrational in itself. An overgeneralization.

Read my comment again.
I wasn't addressing atheists as a whole, but specifically the people at rationalresponders.com (particularly, Sapient, since he's the one who created this thread and was the one who brought the video into discussion).

if you're a major part of rationalresponders.com (in the sense of beyond a member of the site, like I, a Christian, am.), then yes, you're right, my comment does regard and include you, but if you're not, then you're absolved of being attached to those remarks.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Well, your

todangst wrote:

Well, your strawman version of his argument is a non sequitur.

But his actual argument isn't.

"god" will grant requests made in prayers
I prayed for X
I did not receive X
conclusion: Ergo, the belief that there is a god who grants requests has been falsified.

that example is inconsistent with what's been stated, so your conclusion is flawed.

the example would be more like:

God will grant requests made in prayers by people who are abiding in Him, and following what He wants.
I prayed for X
I did not receive X

and how is my "strawman argument" non sequitur?

I'll add my own conclusion, just for fun:

conclusion: Ergo, there must be something wrong with me and my "abiding in Him, and following what He wants", since I'm not getting X.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:adamryan

todangst wrote:
adamryan wrote:

quote]
it's a good thing that you didn't completely take what I said out of context, and ignore the rest of what I said. Eye-wink

Because he'd be infringing on your copyrighted behaviors so far on this board....

an example being...?

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: I did not say I

AiiA wrote:

I did not say I was rich nor did I say I was not rich.

I guess I mistook what you meant when you implied that you did: http://i9.tinypic.com/2eqb60p.jpg

AiiA wrote:

It looks like you are reading things into what is being communicated that is not there. It is an interesting characteristic of theists in general. Theists seem to gloss over and generalize everything with god-tinted glasses.

Well we certainly can "read between the lines"; namely, reading the inconsistencies in a video that tries to denounce prayer as being superstition.

Atheists "seem to gloss over and generalize everything with illogically-tinted glasses." Smiling

AiiA wrote:

I was being satirically facetious.

Of course you were. Eye-wink

AiiA wrote:

How do you know you can? And how do you know you were?

When I'm explaining simple colloquialisms to people who are engaging in "reverse theology", I sort get this weird feeling inside that if they aren't understanding the colloquialism, they probably aren't understanding the theology either.

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

Proving general theism isn't something that can just easily be done in a couple-sentence-long response in a thread.
If it could, there would be no atheism.

Is that a yes or no?

Which word confused you?

I inferred that I wasn't going to give an exposition on theism; that's why I cited that link for you. Theism is a big subject to cover.

AiiA wrote:

What evidence for a god do you see at this web site?

Did you happen to read any of the articles?
If you did, why would you ask that?

If you didn't, then here are a few excerpts from one of the essays [*cited sequentially, as written by Craig's essay. different parts of essay noted by letter indication.):

a) "The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable."{8} But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos."

b) "Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

and

c) "In his best-selling popularization of his theory, Hawking even reveals an explicitly theological orientation. He concedes that on the Standard Model one could legitimately identify the Big Bang singularity as the instant at which God created the universe. Indeed, he thinks that a number of attempts to avoid the Big Bang were probably motivated by the feeling that a beginning of time "smacks of divine intervention." He sees his own model as preferable to the Standard Model because there would be no edge of space-time at which one "would have to appeal to God or some new law."

those were all taken from Craig's essay, titled, "The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe", which can be found here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

I believe that Craig's essay makes a strong point: that Big Bang cosmology supports belief in supernatural creation.

and that's how I see "evidence for a god" at this site.

AiiA wrote:

People should be taught reason.

Another thing we agree on! Peace

AiiA wrote:

My point is there is no god. There is no god to pray to and there is no god to answer prayers.

I've shown that your point is wrong/misinformed.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:todangst

adamryan wrote:
todangst wrote:

So you make a global assessment on all of us, based on your disagreement with one video we've posted?

That's irrational in itself. An overgeneralization.

Read my comment again.
I wasn't addressing atheists as a whole, but specifically the people at rationalresponders.com (particularly, Sapient, since he's the one who created this thread and was the one who brought the video into discussion).

You should've called me out specifically. And to be honest, you should have left the ridiculous argument out of the fray in the first place. The notion that because of one video the "Rational Responders" are incapable of responding rationally, is ridiculous, and served only to boost your esteem.

Quote:
if you're a major part of rationalresponders.com (in the sense of beyond a member of the site, like I, a Christian, am.), then yes, you're right, my comment does regard and include you, but if you're not, then you're absolved of being attached to those remarks.

He's a major part of the site beyond "board member."

See list: http://www.rationalresponders.com/our_team

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote: a) "The

adamryan wrote:

a) "The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable."{8} But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos."

So what?

adamryan wrote:

b) "Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

Where’s the evidence for a god? Just because there are still unanswered questions does not justify the invention of a god.

adamryan wrote:

c) "In his best-selling popularization of his theory, Hawking even reveals an explicitly theological orientation. He concedes that on the Standard Model one could legitimately identify the Big Bang singularity as the instant at which God created the universe. Indeed, he thinks that a number of attempts to avoid the Big Bang were probably motivated by the feeling that a beginning of time "smacks of divine intervention." He sees his own model as preferable to the Standard Model because there would be no edge of space-time at which one "would have to appeal to God or some new law."


I do not believe Hawking ever claimed a god created the universe. If hawking did, where is Hawkings’ evidence for this claim? It would be just as much an invention of ideas as claiming the universe sprang from a compost pile.

adamryan wrote:

I believe that Craig's essay makes a strong point: that Big Bang cosmology supports belief in supernatural creation.

and that's how I see "evidence for a god" at this site.

Craig has no evidence. All he did was point out some mysterious questions about the universe and then he makes the naked assertion that a god did it. This god was invented in his mind to explain the unexplained. That is not evidence. It is pure unjustified groundless conjecture.

adamryan wrote:

AiiA wrote:

My point is there is no god. There is no god to pray to and there is no god to answer prayers.

I've shown that your point is wrong/misinformed.

The evidence is is that there is no evidence of a god.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


AZSuperman01
AZSuperman01's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2006-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And you know this how?

Quote:
And you know this how? Personal experience? Bible study?
Im interested...

I know of prayers that have been answered.
You know of prayers that seem to have been dismissed.


Interesting... Are you claiming you are unaware of any prayers that have gone unanswered? Are you claiming the majority of the prayers you have had personal experience with have been successful?

Quote:
To say that "most" prayers go unanswered is a pretty ignorant statement to make since no one but God knows the ratio of true heart-felt prayers, to the "do-this-for-me-NOW!" "prayers".

we've already gone over how "do-this-for-me-now-because-I-want-it" prayers aren't true prayers, and aren't the ones that God is intending to answer when He makes statements like,


That's right... only "true prayers" are answered... all else are ignored by God... Only "true Christians" know how to offer "true prayers." And how can a person determine if his/her prayer is a "true prayer?" Simple... if God answers it, then it was a "true prayer," if he didn't, then you must've done something wrong.
Quote:
With that opinion, AZSuperman01, I agree: none of your prayers will ever work because the only one listed in there that actually can hear what you're asking for, and has the ability to carry it out, will more than likely be busy ignoring you.

Or perhaps the Allah, Zeus, and my kitchen chair WILL answer prayers, if it's a "true" prayer. Perhaps the fact that the funishings in my kitchen haven't performed any miracles is because I haven't been praying correctly... not because they don't possess any supernatural abilities.

You've given yourself a clever little safe pocket to sit yourself in. ONLY your god answers prayers... and he ONLY answers "true prayers." Any unanswered prayer was either offered to the wrong God, or wasn't a "true prayer." The fact the prayers to other gods have a success rate equal to that of your god is a fact you apparantly ignore.

Quote:
Again, I would go back to my original statement concerning the genuineness of the majority of prayers people make.

Gotcha... refer back to the "no true scottsman" fallacy... any unanswered prayer isn't a "true prayer." Evidence for this is because obvious... it wasn't answered, therefore the problem MUST be with the person offering the prayer...

Get real. You know as well as I do that hundreds, if not thousands, of heartfelt and selfless prayers are offered by true believers everyday. Yet most are ignored.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: You should've

Sapient wrote:

You should've called me out specifically.

I did. Note when I said, "I wasn't addressing atheists as a whole, but specifically the people at rationalresponders.com (particularly, Sapient, since he's the one who created this thread and was the one who brought the video into discussion.)

Sapient wrote:

He's a major part of the site beyond "board member."
See list: http://www.rationalresponders.com/our_team

Thanks for the info.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote: a) "The

adamryan wrote:

a) "The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable."{8} But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos."

AiiA wrote:

So what?

Did you read the essay? As I said, I was only going to quote a few things from it, and assume that you'd read the essay yourself. If you want an elaboration, read the essay. That's on your part to uphold, not mine.

And by the way, I quoted this because what the Friedman-Lemaitre model proposes, I found as a strong foothold for a supernatural creation (a theme which Dr. Craig elaborates on in the essay); that being that the progression in the field of big-bang cosmology has not only changed the common thought in the scientific community, but that it has literally shut the door on the possibility of philosophies contending that the universe is a "a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly.", being true. The progression of science has annihilated a philosophy; and it's interesting how, in no way, was my "philosophy" negatively affected by this historical, scientific landmark.

That's "what".

adamryan wrote:

b) "Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
AiiA wrote:


Where’s the evidence for a god? Just because there are still unanswered questions does not justify the invention of a god.

You didn't read the essay at all, did you? Eye-wink

adamryan wrote:

c) "In his best-selling popularization of his theory, Hawking even reveals an explicitly theological orientation. He concedes that on the Standard Model one could legitimately identify the Big Bang singularity as the instant at which God created the universe. Indeed, he thinks that a number of attempts to avoid the Big Bang were probably motivated by the feeling that a beginning of time "smacks of divine intervention." He sees his own model as preferable to the Standard Model because there would be no edge of space-time at which one "would have to appeal to God or some new law."

AiiA wrote:

I do not believe Hawking ever claimed a god created the universe. If hawking did, where is Hawkings’ evidence for this claim? It would be just as much an invention of ideas as claiming the universe sprang from a compost pile.

So now you're the authority, and Hawking is the naive peon.
Just read the essay, kid.
Stop destroying your strawmen and basking in your empty victories.

adamryan wrote:

I believe that Craig's essay makes a strong point: that Big Bang cosmology supports belief in supernatural creation.
and that's how I see "evidence for a god" at this site.

AiiA wrote:

Craig has no evidence. All he did was point out some mysterious questions about the universe and then he makes the naked assertion that a god did it. This god was invented in his mind to explain the unexplained. That is not evidence. It is pure unjustified groundless conjecture.

The point of the essay (which, it's now clear you didn't read any of) wasn't to prove, without a doubt that God exists; I already warned you about that.
The point of the essay was to provide evidence that, when compared to the most recent scientific findings of our centrury, the supernatural claims of the origin of the universe, found in the Bible, remain "unharmed", and completely rational; that it's claims of our universe having a supernatural origin stands unaffected by the most rigorous scientific breakthroughs of our time.

Read the essay.

AiiA wrote:

The evidence is is that there is no evidence of a god.

Galatians 4:11

just read the essay.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AZSuperman01

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Interesting... Are you claiming you are unaware of any prayers that have gone unanswered? Are you claiming the majority of the prayers you have had personal experience with have been successful?

Of course not. I know of plenty of prayers that clearly haven't "turned out".
Does that mean that prayer doesn't work? Well if the deal is:

"If you want something, pray for it, and you'll get it. There's no rules to this.", then yes, I'd agree, prayer doesn't work; but, fortunately, that's not how prayer works. I already went over this.

There are fundamental "rules" and precepts for prayer.
If there weren't, God would be contradicting Himself when it's said of Him that He's "full of justice" and grace, yet he's answering some prayer that requests someone to be murdered, etc etc. I don't see how that's not tragically obvious to you.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

That's right... only "true prayers" are answered... all else are ignored by God... Only "true Christians" know how to offer "true prayers." And how can a person determine if his/her prayer is a "true prayer?" Simple... if God answers it, then it was a "true prayer," if he didn't, then you must've done something wrong.

More or less.
A bit cynical, but I can tell you've got the point.
I can also tell that you don't like how that works. Evil

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Or perhaps the Allah, Zeus, and my kitchen chair WILL answer prayers, if it's a "true" prayer. Perhaps the fact that the funishings in my kitchen haven't performed any miracles is because I haven't been praying correctly... not because they don't possess any supernatural abilities.

Once your allah, zeus, and/or kitchen chair creates a universe that is undeniably desgined by them, let me know. Eye-wink

AZSuperman01 wrote:

You've given yourself a clever little safe pocket to sit yourself in. ONLY your god answers prayers... and he ONLY answers "true prayers." Any unanswered prayer was either offered to the wrong God, or wasn't a "true prayer." The fact the prayers to other gods have a success rate equal to that of your god is a fact you apparantly ignore.

That clever little safe pocket is the truth. I've already pointed that out Scripturally. If you don't like that, then change it. Become a different person.
Don't be an acrid, arrogant atheist zealot, and denounce prayer.
That's only going to reaffirm your errored explanation.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Gotcha... refer back to the "no true scottsman" fallacy... any unanswered prayer isn't a "true prayer." Evidence for this is because obvious... it wasn't answered, therefore the problem MUST be with the person offering the prayer...

Again, it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Here's a quick example:

God says He'll answer prayers that have "X"
You pray and your prayer is void of "X".
Your prayer doesn't work.

therefore, prayer doesn't work? no, of course.
you're in the wrong, not God, or prayer.
in order for prayer to work, you need "X".

and "X", in this example, would be abiding by the content of verses I previously cited.

AZSuperman01 wrote:

Get real. You know as well as I do that hundreds, if not thousands, of heartfelt and selfless prayers are offered by true believers everyday. Yet most are ignored.

Oh yes, you're right. I agree. God should reward all of those hypocrites.
"Get real"; most people who claim they're "Christian" don't know the first thing about what the actual "Christian" faith is. That makes deceiving statistics, like how, if i remember correctly, 75% of men in prison are "Christian". Do you honestly think that each person who says they're "christian", is an actual follower of Christ?

I didn't think so either.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:adamryan

adamryan wrote:
adamryan wrote:

...
...
...
...
...

-adamryan

Where do you see evidence for a god?
Show me.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Where do you see

AiiA wrote:

Where do you see evidence for a god?
Show me.

- the existence of the seven day week
- the "intelligent design" found in nature
- the verity of Christianity

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote:AiiA

adamryan wrote:
AiiA wrote:

Where do you see evidence for a god?
Show me.

- the existence of the seven day week

Praise Allah!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote: - the

adamryan wrote:

- the existence of the seven day week
- the "intelligent design" found in nature
- the verity of Christianity

Well, I guess we can't accuse Christians of being inconsistent: all these are consistently circular reasons, after all.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.