The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

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.
Which part of the story of this family forcing their their daughter to become a porn model do you not find uplifting? It reminds me of the story of Lot who offered up his daughters when two rapists were looking for victims. Lot who later had sex with his daughters. Come on you know Lot. You must know him the bible calls him a righteous man.

#Christianmorality
 
Last edited:
Aside from the use of anecdotes as data and the failure to acknowledge how confirmation bias affects anecdote selection, there's also a problem with the mechanism used to explain it: that Christian morals are set in stone and can't ever be changed. It's simply not anywhere near the truth. Christianity has for centuries simply swayed with the wind, getting pushed from one morality to another when the culture shifted, and then claimed to have been leading the way.
 
.........that Christian morals are set in stone and can't ever be changed. It's simply not anywhere near the truth. Christianity has for centuries simply swayed with the wind, getting pushed from one morality to another when the culture shifted, and then claimed to have been leading the way.

Indeed, but they don't just sway with the wind through time, they vary with geography. Go to Africa and you'll find that christian morals means something quite different from what the same phrase means in, say New York. Then go to Papua New Guinea and you'll find them very different again. Never mind the differences within the USA.
 
On the contrary, most atheists will self-identify as agnostic atheists, and will point out that though no-one can prove the existence or non-existence of a god, such a being is logically inconsistent in its standard presentation, its hypothesised presence is inconsistent with the observed universe, and even if it did exist would be such an evil being that its "worship" would be a moral outrage.


I think that most atheists on this site are atheists with little or no agnosticism. The way you state your agnosticism, I do not see much of a concession to doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.


I guess I would be an agnostic theist, but I my "belief" is a choice. And even then I am conflicted about it. (Although it may be hard to discern that from many of my posts because of my reasoning).
 
The first highlighted statement explains the utter nonsense of the second. You do realise that the USA isn't the whole world, don't you? You should know that there are many times more christians outside the USA than there are in the USA. South America, Central America and Africa have enromous populations of christians.

The first thing that came to my mind was "there's a lot of very (very) successful people in China, and I'm pretty sure most of them aren't Christian".
 
The difference is that I didn't try to generalise from that anecdote to entire populations. The only conclusion I drew was that this particular headmaster was extremely irresponsible.


Right. Anecdote to general statement of principle. You did not do that.

What I did was general principle and gave an example (anecdote).
 
Right. Anecdote to general statement of principle. You did not do that.

What I did was general principle and gave an example (anecdote).

Yes, but your general principle was wrong, patently, and instead of supporting it with evidence, you selected a self-serving anecdote to illustrate it.
 
Right. Anecdote to general statement of principle. You did not do that.

What I did was general principle and gave an example (anecdote).
But you did not establish that general principle, you just asserted it. You first need to give the objective evidence to support your assertion; then by all means give examples.

Compare the statement "Men are taller than women, for example I met a man who was taller than me yesterday" with "Men are shorter than women, for example I met a man who was shorter than me yesterday". Both example anecdotes could easily be true. Without the statistical data that shows the first assertion to be correct, the first statement has no more merit than the second.
 
Indeed, but they don't just sway with the wind through time, they vary with geography. Go to Africa and you'll find that christian morals means something quite different from what the same phrase means in, say New York. Then go to Papua New Guinea and you'll find them very different again. Never mind the differences within the USA.


Really?

Which of these (foreign) cultures have you lived in that you speak with such authority? Or you just make it up as you go?

I live in South Africa. I see the effect of Christian teaching on the people who were formerly animists. They live by the doctrines of not lying, not stealing, not drinking, not smoking and brotherly love.

http://www.joburg.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=370&Itemid=51
THERE are several dozen church circles on the western section of Melville Koppies (Hills), and every Sunday you can take a walk to them, and sway along to the hypnotic, repetitive clapping and singing, and afterwards get an explanation to understand this outdoor church service.

The church groups on the Koppie belong to a broader movement known as the African Independent or Initiated Churches (AICs), which have their origins in Pentecostalism, a worldwide charismatic Christian movement with roots in early 20th century America.


There are many gatherings on Sundays where men and women in flowing white robes gather on open ground to worship. Under the Eye of God. They may retain some of their beliefs in the spirits of their ancestors but this is not contradicted by Christianity which believes in life after death, and souls, and contact with the living after death (Jesus met a couple of disciples).
 
I live in South Africa. I see the effect of Christian teaching on the people who were formerly animists. They live by the doctrines of not lying, not stealing, not drinking, not smoking and brotherly love.
Can you point me to where the Christian Doctrine of not drinking and not smoking come from and where it is taught because the Catholic church has no problem with Alcohol.

Not lying and not stealing were promoted as good behaviour well before Jesus. They are not "Christian" doctrines rather Human ones.

Can you explain how Christians demonstrated brotherly love to each other in Ireland in the 1970's or is it one of those optional doctrines?
 
But you did not establish that general principle, you just asserted it. You first need to give the objective evidence to support your assertion; then by all means give examples.

Compare the statement "Men are taller than women, for example I met a man who was taller than me yesterday" with "Men are shorter than women, for example I met a man who was shorter than me yesterday". Both example anecdotes could easily be true. Without the statistical data that shows the first assertion to be correct, the first statement has no more merit than the second.


Yes. And what if you said "I have lived a lot and traveled a lot and apart from some exceptions the men were taller than the women".

If an explorer lived among an isolated tribe and came back with his version of how they functioned, what "credible evidence" would you require? It would be story after story saying "This is what I have seen and heard while living with them, speaking with them, and observing them."

I have lived among a variety of communities because I have moved around a lot, and been married into the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, the "we pretend to be Christian faith", the secular community, and the Spiritual-Animist society. I have lived and worked with Muslims. Hindus were a part of African society as general traders in Africa. My immediate family are various faiths. I have seen first-hand how these communities function in good times, and when things go wrong.

As far as statistics, I say "who takes statistics that are credible on these matters?" You know the phrase: "Lies. Damn lies. And statistics."

Example: "We surveyed a lot of people to find out if they lie. Many would not talk to us. We first established a test of the remainder to find out who were liars and who were not before they could take the survey. And then modified the results to account for the liars." Credible?
 
Yes. And what if you said "I have lived a lot and traveled a lot and apart from some exceptions the men were taller than the women".

Still an anecdote.

If an explorer lived among an isolated tribe and came back with his version of how they functioned, what "credible evidence" would you require? It would be story after story saying "This is what I have seen and heard while living with them, speaking with them, and observing them."

Anthropological work is always controversial, because the very presence of the foreigner in their midst alters the locals behaviour, and because of the in-built biases in any observer. This is why science is done by trained people who can at least acknowledge the existence of observer bias, rather than by lay-people who need such things explained to them over and over again, and still don't seem to get it.

I have lived among a variety of communities because I have moved around a lot, and been married into the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, the "we pretend to be Christian faith", the secular community, and the Spiritual-Animist society. I have lived and worked with Muslims. Hindus were a part of African society as general traders in Africa. My immediate family are various faiths. I have seen first-hand how these communities function in good times, and when things go wrong.

And there you went ahead and made my point for me. Please see above, starting with "this is why science is done by trained people......"

As far as statistics, I say "who takes statistics that are credible on these matters?" You know the phrase: "Lies. Damn lies. And statistics."

Example: "We surveyed a lot of people to find out if they lie. Many would not talk to us. We first established a test of the remainder to find out who were liars and who were not before they could take the survey. And then modified the results to account for the liars." Credible?

Credible if the method is published alongside the work so that others can critique it. Credible if done by a statistician. Credible if published in a quality scientific journal. Credible if the sample size is large enough, and suitable criteria were used for establishing statistical significance. And so on......
 
Yes. And what if you said "I have lived a lot and traveled a lot and apart from some exceptions the men were taller than the women".
If you visited enough places and sampled enough populations you would eventually have enough data to reach a reasonably reliable conclusion. But you would still have to be careful that you had collected sufficiently large and representative samples from enough populations, and of course that you had allowed for and eliminated confirmation bias. These are not simple tasks, and few people without the right education and training can do them reliably. Even then you would have to be prepared to be proven wrong by people who have collected even larger data sets from even more diverse populations.
 
The first highlighted statement explains the utter nonsense of the second. You do realise that the USA isn't the whole world, don't you? You should know that there are many times more christians outside the USA than there are in the USA. South America, Central America and Africa have enromous populations of christians.

Now, would you like to try again, and try to focus on facts this time. Are christians any more successful people (your words) than non-christians?

One might further ask why material success is a valid criterion, given that the eponymous HJ is not said to be said to have said a single word about homosexuality, or bisexuality, or transgender issues; but is, in fact said to be said to have preached at length about the dangers of material success, and the problems of being rich, and the difficulty of serving two masters (one of which being material success).

One might further ask why there are hungry children in any city where a materially successful xian lives, works, or has their being; or where materially successful xian congregations have used their success to erect a multi-gazillion megachurch...
 
Indeed, but they don't just sway with the wind through time, they vary with geography. Go to Africa and you'll find that christian morals means something quite different from what the same phrase means in, say New York. Then go to Papua New Guinea and you'll find them very different again. Never mind the differences within the USA.

...it is almost as if the 'god' they claim is the source of their "morality" does not exist, and they are simply making stuff up in its name.

:jaw-dropp
 
Quite a few posts have gone to AAH for various breaches of the rules, but chiefly for breaches of rule 0 and rule 12. There has been excessive personalisation, which as you all should know, is frowned upon. Unless you want to kindle the wrath of MOD further, might I suggest* that you concentrate on addressing each other's arguments in a civil, polite and depersonalised way rather than attacking and calling out the arguers.

*insist.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
I think that most atheists on this site are atheists with little or no agnosticism. The way you state your agnosticism, I do not see much of a concession to doubt.

Instead of basing your arguments upon what you "think" may be true, why not do research and find out?

How would you label a poster who has stated, repeatedly, that they simply do not believe in a 'god', in your 'god', nor yet in any 'gods'; for the simple reason that no actual evidence for the existence of such has never been presented them, in a long lifetime of searching?

What evidence would you offer that poster in order to change their mind?

I guess I would be an agnostic theist, but I my "belief" is a choice. And even then I am conflicted about it. (Although it may be hard to discern that from many of my posts because of my reasoning).
 
...
What evidence would you offer that poster in order to change their mind?

That one time I didn't get lost? Angels.
I've never killed anyone? Biblical Morality.
I found a Lawyer? Prayer.
I've been to lots of places in North America? I'm successful because I'm a proper Christian.
 
Last edited:
I especially love the "financial success = morality" part. Jesus said the opposite. But Christians don't care what Jesus said.
 

Back
Top Bottom