The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[PartSkeptic]

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.

For me, I think you have summed it up quite well.

But what you do not acknowledge is that prayer is only one reason to believe in the existence of God.

I concede that my prayers may be coincidental and that God may not exist. And that all the other reasons for my choice to believe (with a slight reservation) in God, may also be flawed. In fact, MUST be flawed if God does not exist.

Conversely, if God does exist, the reasons put forward by atheists to explain various phenomena ARE sometimes flawed. Unless God reveals himself rather than provide "clues" or revelations to selected individuals (the prophets), then we will not know for sure.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I especially love the "financial success = morality" part. Jesus said the opposite. But Christians don't care what Jesus said.

No. The fake preachers looking to scam people claim that wealth is what Christ advocated. Nigeria and South Africa have a few.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No. The fake preachers looking to scam people claim that wealth is what Christ advocated. Nigeria and South Africa have a few.

You must not be aware that the prosperity gospel is alive and well in the USA.

 

[PartSkeptic]

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

The posters on this site are anonymous. The site would have to do a survey asking what degree of atheism do the posters subscribers to.

I base my statement on my experience that only a handful of posters have ever conceded they do not know.

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?

Label? Hmmm. They have their reasons, and I am okay with that. I am not on this forum to convert anyone, but to clarify my own belief system. I am logical and if there are inconsistencies in my belief system I need to re-examine them. Sometimes it is a matter of phrasing.

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

They have to want to change their minds for their own reasons. I can only offer my experiences, and some experiences of others. Some people think science has all the answers. If they firmly believe this, then it is like trying to convert a believer to a non-believer. Basically impossible.

There may come a time things change.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You must not be aware that the prosperity gospel is alive and well in the USA.

I am aware of it but have not followed up on it lately.

 

[MikeG]

......Some people think science has all the answers........

That's a straw man, or it's delusional. I have never ever heard of anyone who thinks that science currently has all the answers, and I doubt I've ever heard anyone claim that science will one day know everything there is to know. Which is a very long way from saying that there are things that science can never find out about or explain, or that stuff happens outside the known laws of science, which is the normal next step every time this piece of nonsense raises its ugly head.

 

[Shalamar]

I especially love the "financial success = morality" part. Jesus said the opposite. But Christians don't care what Jesus said.

Heck, My wife and I have traveled. We're successful. We have wonderful lives, enriching hobbies, give to charities (Time and money). I'm sure that makes us evil because we're also atheists.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
......Some people think science has all the answers........

That's a straw man, or it's delusional. I have never ever heard of anyone who thinks that science currently has all the answers, and I doubt I've ever heard anyone claim that science will one day know everything there is to know. Which is a very long way from saying that there are things that science can never find out about or explain, or that stuff happens outside the known laws of science, which is the normal next step every time this piece of nonsense raises its ugly head.

It might even be more accurate to say that science has all the right questions; it's religion that thinks it has all the answers that matter.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Science does not have all the answers, but science knows how to ask the right questions.



{eta} see what happens when you don't scroll down before posting? Bad skeptic! Bad!

I'll go read Bigfoot posts for five minutes as punishment.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Heck, My wife and I have traveled. We're successful. We have wonderful lives, enriching hobbies, give to charities (Time and money). I'm sure that makes us evil because we're also atheists.

No. It depends how ethical you were in climbing the ladder of success.

The charity thing depends on the specifics.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Science does not have all the answers, but science knows how to ask the right questions.

I posted:

Some people think science has all the answers.

Poor phrasing on my part. Has the answers that are needed regarding the existence of the universe, or has theories that exclude the need to God.

It was phrased the way some people think it. No room for speculation.

 

[PartSkeptic]

This is flawed for a number of reasons.

The bell curve does not make sense in this context (snip)

Sorry, I missed this and will respond.

I did not say Christians are more intelligent, and did not infer it either. The opposite actually. In the absence of moral upbringing (secular or religious) an intelligent person will have a disposition toward morality.

 

[abaddon]

For me, I think you have summed it up quite well.

But what you do not acknowledge is that prayer is only one reason to believe in the existence of God.

I concede that my prayers may be coincidental and that God may not exist. And that all the other reasons for my choice to believe (with a slight reservation) in God, may also be flawed. In fact, MUST be flawed if God does not exist.

Conversely, if God does exist, the reasons put forward by atheists to explain various phenomena ARE sometimes flawed. Unless God reveals himself rather than provide "clues" or revelations to selected individuals (the prophets), then we will not know for sure.

Stealth deployment of Pascal's wager noted.

 

[MikeG]

.......in the absence of moral upbringing (secular or religious) an intelligent person will have a disposition toward morality.

Are you just speculating, or do you have some evidence?

 

[abaddon]

The posters on this site are anonymous.

Wrong. Personally, I have posted my identity right here along with my professional credentials and the means to independently verify them. I am not alone in doing so.

The site would have to do a survey asking what degree of atheism do the posters subscribers to.

Atheism does not have "degrees" of anything.

I base my statement on my experience that only a handful of posters have ever conceded they do not know.

Nobody knows. Not even you.

Label? Hmmm. They have their reasons, and I am okay with that. I am not on this forum to convert anyone, but to clarify my own belief system. I am logical and if there are inconsistencies in my belief system I need to re-examine them. Sometimes it is a matter of phrasing.

Were that true, you would acknowledge that you are pursuing a magic man, but you won't for reasons I cannot fathom and you cannot express.

They have to want to change their minds for their own reasons. I can only offer my experiences, and some experiences of others. Some people think science has all the answers. If they firmly believe this, then it is like trying to convert a believer to a non-believer. Basically impossible.

Science does not claim to have all the answers. Science does have SOME answers and those answers it does have actually work in the real world. What answers does faith have which work in the real world? None.

There may come a time things change.

Yup. I look forward to the day when humankind as a whole puts this superstitious nonsense behind.

 

[Navigator]

Atheism does not have "degrees" of anything.

if by the term 'degrees of' it is meant that there are different types, (which seems to be what the poster is implying) then yes - there do seem to be different types.

 

[PartSkeptic]

if by the term 'degrees of' it is meant that there are different types, (which seems to be what the poster is implying) then yes - there do seem to be different types.

“Different degrees”. The scale runs from theist to atheist with agnostic in the center.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-types-of-atheism.html

…Atheism is a big umbrella. There are about as many ways to disbelieve as there are ways to believe — different degrees, different emphases, and different expressions. It covers anyone who doesn’t believe in a supernatural god or gods. But under that umbrella are many shades and grades of disbelief and many people with different ways of approaching and expressing it.

Atheists become atheists for many different reasons, and it rarely has anything to do with unanswered prayers or major life calamities. In fact, such a major trauma drives people into belief at least as often as it drives them out of it.

…Even some religious opinions (like Deism and pantheism) exist that are so far removed from any traditional conception of God that many people include them under the atheist umbrella. And a single nonbeliever can, and often does, claim several of these labels at once. They emphasize different things, but most aren’t mutually exclusive.

Own experience versus science. I guess so.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...six-types-of-atheists-christian-outreach.html

...We found that atheists, with some exceptions, tend to see themselves as more logical than Christians and others who aren't atheists. Unlike religious individuals they cannot use their own experience with the divine as evidence, so they argue that reason and science support their positions. I suspect that even agnostics tend to argue for a rational basis to their skepticism. Atheists have more certainty in their belief of the nonexistence of a deity, and most attest they had no doubts that the supernatural is a myth.

...Atheists share a sense that they are mistreated, a perception I suspect comes up to some degree among nonbelievers in all six categories (with the possible exception of the Non-Theists). Atheists have good reason to feel this way. Surveys indicate that they are trusted less than most other social groups, and my earlier research indicates they experience more relative hostility than any religious group.

Why the lack of trust?

 

[Pup]

Why the lack of trust?

You tell us. It's theists who don't trust atheists, as far as I know, not atheists distrusting each other.

I do agree that there are different kinds of atheists, the biggest division being those who say they lack belief in gods and those who say they believe there are no gods.

 

[MikeG]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...-outreach.html

...We found that atheists, with some exceptions, tend to see themselves as more logical than Christians and others who aren't atheists. Unlike religious individuals they cannot use their own experience with the divine as evidence, so they argue that reason and science support their positions. I suspect that even agnostics tend to argue for a rational basis to their skepticism. Atheists have more certainty in their belief of the nonexistence of a deity, and most attest they had no doubts that the supernatural is a myth.

...Atheists share a sense that they are mistreated, a perception I suspect comes up to some degree among nonbelievers in all six categories (with the possible exception of the Non-Theists). Atheists have good reason to feel this way. Surveys indicate that they are trusted less than most other social groups, and my earlier research indicates they experience more relative hostility than any religious group.

Why go to a christian site for a definition of atheism? It's wrong, and it's self-serving. "Belief in the non-existence of a deity" is just wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no belief involved: there is dis-belief, but no belief. As I've said dozens of times on this forum, give me the incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a deity, and I'll change my world-view and move on. I don't "believe in the absence of god/s": I simply don't have any reason to believe in their existence.

If you want a definition of atheism, wouldn't you seek it on an atheist website? Why go to a christian website, PartSkeptic? And do you now accept that what it said was misleading?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You tell us. It's theists who don't trust atheists, as far as I know, not atheists distrusting each other.

And I think it's very much a nation-by-nation thing, because in Britain atheists are not generally mistrusted or mistreated, nor have I ever had any sense of being so.

Dave