The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[Pixel42]

I once attended a school assembly at a Catholic secondary school (it's a long story) and listened flabbergasted as the headmaster told stories like the one above about people turning up at just the right moment who were actually angels. He assured his charges that they each had a guardian angel, and if they ever needed help and a stranger appeared and offered that help, that person would almost certainly be that guardian angel. This was just a few weeks after the Soham murders. A more totally irresponsible thing to tell a few hundred trusting 11 to 15 year olds could scarcely be imagined.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Never mind all those rape victims that cry out for help and get none. God is ~*~*~ M Y S T E R I O U S ~*~*~

 

[logger]

And then threatened them with eternal pain and anguish should they make a wrong choice. Wow, the free will is really strong!

What does this really mean? You're pissed about having to make the choice to believe in him so you won't be punished and yet you've made the choice to not believe.

Even the threat punishment has not forced you to believe, so what really is the bitch?

Are you now upset because he has forced you to think he doesn't exist?
He has robbed you of a superstition? (As slow puts it)

I wish he would.

\

Would what, force you?

 

[Pup]

Christians are some pf the most successful people in the world, they're driven to excel, any clue why?.

Because they want to make a lot of money so they can give it all to the poor?

 

[Desert Fox]

That is the playbook answer for libs like you. Christians are some pf the most successful people in the world, they're driven to excel, any clue why?

Yes, there are some people who are Christian who are extremely successful but there are plenty more in wretched poverty who are also Christian.

Why does that matter?

 

[Navigator]

I haven't been following this thread but my opinion is that theists (regardless of which organised religion they support) find some solace in prayer and also experience from time to time the prayer-request being answered through circumstances.

This leads me to the assumption that if there is a god which responds to prayer then it is outside the influence of organised religion because it prefers to acknowledge something which is outside the direct influence of said religions.

Which is to say, even that organised religions are generally in opposition (or competition) with one another, it doesn't seem to matter to that which responds to the prayer...one does not have to make a request in the name of any particular god in order for that prayer to be responded to, even that this is what organised religious doctrines often teach.

Then there are those who do not believe in any particular god idea who still 'put it out to the universe' and find that they get a response to such requests also.

The argument is that such 'responses' are simply coincidence, which is just as likely an explanation as any but for obvious reasons it doesn't really matter to those making the prayer/requests as long as this method works for them, giving them the added impression that something bigger and more able than they are is 'watching over them' and assisting them with their choices in life.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Yes, there are some people who are Christian who are extremely successful but there are plenty more in wretched poverty who are also Christian.

Why does that matter?

Something something god helps those who help themselves, Which just means they fudging helped themselves on their own accord.

It seems like god just keeps getting more and more weak and feeble as time goes by.

 

[Desert Fox]

Something something god helps those who help themselves, Which just means they fudging helped themselves on their own accord.

It seems like god just keeps getting more and more weak and feeble as time goes by.

There are passages in Ecclesiastes which argue that good and evil happens to the just and unjust alike (Ecclesiastes 9 for example).

I actually like Ecclesiastes very much.

 

[Darat]

There are passages in Ecclesiastes which argue that good and evil happens to the just and unjust alike (Ecclesiastes 9 for example).

I actually like Ecclesiastes very much.

And you might also be another pious sod that god has instructed satan to torment on a bet!

 

[Desert Fox]

And you might also be another pious sod that god has instructed satan to torment on a bet!

Ecclesiastes just seems to be some guy's seeing that God does not seem to treat the faithful or unfaithful differently.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No. not just you, just you and the other gullible fools that bought that t-shirt.

Now I, as an atheist gave you a working example of how I assisted a fellow human for no reward whatsoever, simply out of pure altruism. I understand why you are doing your level best to avoid that. It conflicts with your weird belief in the tooth fairy.

No matter, if you wish, I will contact said bloke and have him post in broken engrish if you so demand. I am pretty sure he would do so.

The bottom line is that you cannot explain why I, as an atheist, would voluntarily do those things at my own expense for no reason.

Personally, I know my own motivations. But in your plain caricature of atheism, you somehow cannot figure altruism. I am wondering why that is?

Lets get something straight. Being an atheist does not equate to being immoral. (I was an atheist for a while, and my morals did not fall during that time - but that is a poll of one). The debate about the relativity of morals and how they are acquired is a landmine. I need to to tread very carefully.

I have said that is my experience that Christian communities have better morals than communities who are broadly secular, and I used the example of New Zealand.

I also used the example of Christian individuals whose trustworthiness (a "basic" moral attribute in any society) was very high.

When talking about a specific attribute of groups of any sort, it is a fact that there are spreads from one end of the spectrum to the other. The Bell Curve.

One can find individuals and even small groups across the range. But when taken as a whole, there is a peak that sits somewhere on the measure of the attribute.

Polls and studies to find a rating may not adequately address how moral a nation is perceived to be. Hidden corruption, and immoral unjust behavior that is well disguised, is hard to measure.

My explanation for this peak on the Bell Curve for Christians is that such groups and individuals are taught (both by their parents and by the religious community) that there are moral standards that are not negotiable. Not subject to personal interpretation. Not subject to whether an individual benefits or is to their detriment.

Can these be taught in school? Partly.
Can these be taught at home? Partly.
Can these be taught by the example of the community? Partly
Can these be taught at the religious institution? Partly.
Can these be taught by exposure to media? Partly.

Can these these teachings reinforce each other. Yes. Or cancel each out? Yes, especially if the message is confusing and ambiguous.

Who decides on an overall strategy for a set of morals? If anyone can have their say, and argument ensues, then children get mixed messages, make wrong choices, do not have a grounding in how to make moral choices and anarchy will result.

A key factor is intelligence. An intelligent person knows that there are standards of behavior that are "good". Both for them and for society. Generally they analyze their own behavior and do not engage in self-deception.

Of course, some intelligent people are just very good at rationalizing their bad behavior because their bad behavior is getting them material rewards.

Let me end here for the moment.

 

[MikeG]

......I have said that is my experience that Christian communities have better morals than communities who are broadly secular, and I used the example of New Zealand.

And the figures showed that you were completely wrong.

......I also used the example of Christian individuals whose trustworthiness (a "basic" moral attribute in any society) was very high.

Anecdote. Worth nothing. You know that gaols have a disproportionately high population of christians, don't you? The levels of trustworthiness in gaols is unlikely to be high, wouldn't you say?

 

[PartSkeptic]

I was about to argue that there are exceptions to most "rules" or broad statements, and then I realized that my previous post had explained it.

I know of one family whose mother was of average intelligence, was not religious, and was manipulative to the point of outright deception. She had two children by two different fathers. The first child had an intelligent father, the second child had a below average father in intelligence.

Both raised the same way by the mother in the absence of the fathers. The first child was very moral (no religion), and the second child very immoral. Chalk and cheese. The first son is intelligent and doing well in his own business. The second son seems to cheat his way through life.

Would the second son have benefited from being exposed to Christian religion and its strict set of morals? And threat of divine judgment?

 

[MikeG]

I was about to argue that there are exceptions to most "rules" or broad statements, and then I realized that my previous post had explained it.

I know of one family whose mother was of average intelligence, was not religious, and was manipulative to the point of outright deception. She had two children by two different fathers. The first child had an intelligent father, the second child had a below average father in intelligence.

Both raised the same way by the mother in the absence of the fathers. The first child was very moral (no religion), and the second child very immoral. Chalk and cheese. The first son is intelligent and doing well in his own business. The second son seems to cheat his way through life.

Would the second son have benefited from being exposed to Christian religion and its strict set of morals? And threat of divine judgment?

For goodness sake, have you not understood that anecdote is useless? For every example you give, there are thousands of counter-examples. It is a pointless approach, and will get short shrift here.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I once attended a school assembly at a Catholic secondary school (it's a long story) and listened flabbergasted as the headmaster told stories like the one above about people turning up at just the right moment who were actually angels. He assured his charges that they each had a guardian angel, and if they ever needed help and a stranger appeared and offered that help, that person would almost certainly be that guardian angel. This was just a few weeks after the Soham murders. A more totally irresponsible thing to tell a few hundred trusting 11 to 15 year olds could scarcely be imagined.

Agreed.

Being Christian does not equate to common sense or intelligence. It is a shame that some (note some) clerics give Christianity a bad name. (Not only Christian clerics but clerics of ALL religions - and non-religions).

 

[PartSkeptic]

For goodness sake, have you not understood that anecdote is useless? For every example you give, there are thousands of counter-examples. It is a pointless approach, and will get short shrift here.

And you think that morality is a science that can be divorced and removed from anecdote? Science says that E = mc squared. It then give examples (anecdotes).

Take this anecdote/example and explain the reasons why this happened from a scientific point of view using whatever theories you care to show the proof thereof.

I gave an example of a theory I hold. Tell me why my theory is wrong or needs modification?

Pixel42 gave an anecdote and I agreed with her. It is part of societal debate.

I say that there are bad clerics, and hence religion is from from perfect. Does the good outweigh the bad? I think so. And how can religion improve itself (other than disappear - in the opinion of some)?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Something something god helps those who help themselves, Which just means they fudging helped themselves on their own accord.

I know a very Christian family that decided to their faith was strong enough that God would help them. So they gave up their jobs and sold everything except some clothes, and waited. People took them for a short while before asking them to move on. They became desperate.

The older daughter started modelling and painting some clay figurines. They became a huge hit, and the family started a family business, becoming very successful.

The point of this anecdote? (please MikeG - I know it is an anecdote).
God does not help those who do not help themselves. (At least some of the time anyway)

 

[Lothian]

Lets get something straight. Being an atheist does not equate to being immoral. (I was an atheist for a while, and my morals did not fall during that time - but that is a poll of one). The debate about the relativity of morals and how they are acquired is a landmine. I need to to tread very carefully.

I have said that is my experience that Christian communities have better morals than communities who are broadly secular, and I used the example of New Zealand.

I also used the example of Christian individuals whose trustworthiness (a "basic" moral attribute in any society) was very high.

When talking about a specific attribute of groups of any sort, it is a fact that there are spreads from one end of the spectrum to the other. The Bell Curve.

One can find individuals and even small groups across the range. But when taken as a whole, there is a peak that sits somewhere on the measure of the attribute.

Polls and studies to find a rating may not adequately address how moral a nation is perceived to be. Hidden corruption, and immoral unjust behavior that is well disguised, is hard to measure.

My explanation for this peak on the Bell Curve for Christians is that such groups and individuals are taught (both by their parents and by the religious community) that there are moral standards that are not negotiable. Not subject to personal interpretation. Not subject to whether an individual benefits or is to their detriment.

Can these be taught in school? Partly.
Can these be taught at home? Partly.
Can these be taught by the example of the community? Partly
Can these be taught at the religious institution? Partly.
Can these be taught by exposure to media? Partly.

Can these these teachings reinforce each other. Yes. Or cancel each out? Yes, especially if the message is confusing and ambiguous.

Who decides on an overall strategy for a set of morals? If anyone can have their say, and argument ensues, then children get mixed messages, make wrong choices, do not have a grounding in how to make moral choices and anarchy will result.

A key factor is intelligence. An intelligent person knows that there are standards of behavior that are "good". Both for them and for society. Generally they analyze their own behavior and do not engage in self-deception.

Of course, some intelligent people are just very good at rationalizing their bad behavior because their bad behavior is getting them material rewards.

Let me end here for the moment.

This is flawed for a number of reasons.

The bell curve does not make sense in this context where you are talking about morality. What are the scales? Presumably no morality and total morality are at each end. The peak of the bell curve would be in the middle. You claim Christians are at the peak which would be roughly half moral half immoral. That opposes your view that they are more moral. If a group was more moral it would appear in R/H side of the bell curve not the peak.

Of course there is no such chart because it is silly and hugely subjective.

You as a Christian are deciding what morality is, what good morality is and you then judge others morality against your warped view. With the same data an atheist, Hindu, paedophile and serial killer would all map people in different places.

I will end with your suggestion that Christians are more intelligent than non Christians. I think most studies show that relationship between religious belief and intelligence is inversely proportional. See below for one example (The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.)

 

[MikeG]

And you think that morality is a science that can be divorced and removed from anecdote?

List the morals you want testing, and get population-wide statistics to back up your claims. It's simple.

Science says that E = mc squared. It then give examples (anecdotes).

No it doesn't. You're making **** up. Science invites others to test what it thinks it has found.

Take this anecdote/example and explain the reasons why this happened from a scientific point of view using whatever theories you care to show the proof thereof.

This is getting dull. People are people. They are complex and varied. Stuff happens within a range, which is why anecdote is useless, and only population-wide statistics give any meaningful results in testing the sort of claims you are making.

I gave an example of a theory I hold. Tell me why my theory is wrong or needs modification?

Because it wasn't a theory. Because your story had no evidence to support it.

I say that there are bad clerics, and hence religion is from from perfect. Does the good outweigh the bad? I think so.

So what?

And how can religion improve itself (other than disappear - in the opinion of some)?

Disappear.

 

[MikeG]

I know a very Christian family that decided to their faith was strong enough that God would help them. So they gave up their jobs and sold everything except some clothes, and waited. People took them for a short while before asking them to move on. They became desperate.

The older daughter started modelling and painting some clay figurines. They became a huge hit, and the family started a family business, becoming very successful.

The point of this anecdote? (please MikeG - I know it is an anecdote).
God does not help those who do not help themselves. (At least some of the time anyway)

Would that story have been different in any detail at all if they hadn't been religious (other than in their silly misconception that god would help them)?

No.