The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[sackett]

There's a point in making gods

You make the best gods!

Aw shux. 'Tain't hard. You should try your own hand at it.

Peanut butter cookies, now....

 

[sackett]

'Nother goddanged 'piphany

Some of these big-haired preachers on the TV, they start out asking a little pleady question like, “Oh what would YOU do if Jesus come to YOUR house today?”

I’m right here to tell you, if Jesus come to your house today, you’d
brown your shorts quicker’n you could say “Hell, Mary.” Jesus he’d barge in wearing a motorsickle jacket and long hair, swinging a chain and stinken worse’n a wet bear, and if you no more’n looked sideways, you’d wake up in the middle of next Wednesday, all over plaster ‘n wire like a new chicken house.

Jesus didn’t wear no white shirt nor carry no briefcase.

 

[sackett]

Enough god-shaking and –baking for now

This seems like a good enough thread for asking a question I’ve long wanted to pose: Where is religion located?

And to answer it, of course: It’s located inside the heads of its believers – and nowhere else. When I say “inside the heads of its believers,” I mean that literally. A cult’s holy texts may be written down, and its rituals prescribed in handbooks, and its paraphernalia made, sold, and distributed, but those are lifeless things, just material objects that do nothing and believe nothing. Only individuals have religion.

That’s significant. We can’t share another person’s subjective experience (technology may someday make that possible, but it hasn’t yet), so that we don’t actually know what a particular religion feels like for any particular individual – and neither do his ostensible co-religionists. They may utter the same phrases and exhibit similar behaviors as they religionize, but still I think this can be said: there are as many individual religions as there are individual believers.

Another way to put it is that every worshipper constructs his own gods. Someone who’s studied the matter may correct me, but I suspect that theologians and psychologists have asserted that very thing for a long time.

Thor 2 and PS: You may think that when I come here a-testifyin’ that I’m just goading and playing the clown; you may think that you get the joke. But do you, or can you, really and truly know that?

I'm tired. Donn? Help out for a while, willya?

 

[MikeG]

.......Thor 2 and PS.......

You may be suffering under the illusion that Thor 2 is a theist.

 

[MikeG]

.....stinken worse’n a wet bear, and if you no more’n looked sideways, you’d wake up in the middle of next Wednesday, all over plaster ‘n wire like a new chicken house.

Jesus didn’t wear no white shirt nor carry no briefcase.

English translation required. Can anyone help?

 

[jimbob]

English translation required. Can anyone help?

Beat me to it.

 

[Pup]

English translation required. Can anyone help?

stinken worse’n a wet bear, and if you no more’n looked sideways, you’d wake up in the middle of next Wednesday, all over plaster ‘n wire like a new chicken house. Jesus didn’t wear no white shirt nor carry no briefcase.

Redneck to English translation: Jesus will have body odor, and if you looked at him in any way that could be mistaken for aggressive, he would physically attack you, so you'd regain consciousness several days later, wearing plaster casts and in traction or having other supporting wires. Jesus wasn't a Mormon missionary or IRS agent.

 

[Donn]

English translation required. Can anyone help?

Some of these over-coiffed preachers on the television — ahem — begin by asking a wee winsome question like, “My my, what would *you* do if Jesus where to visit your home today?"

I’m present to inform you that, if Jesus came to your house this day, you would
fill your trousers faster than you could say “Hell, Mary.” Which is, if I must admit, rather amusing in its referential wordplay.
Jesus would storm-in wearing a punk jacket and a pink mohican, swinging a chain; reeking far worse than a wet basset hound. If one where to glance upon him a tad more than once, even if only sidelong, one would awaken in the middle of Wednesday-next, boasting black and blue where the plaster casts did not reach.

Jesus, it must be said, is not of the metaphoric teetotalling Mormons. I so put it to you. With emphasis!

What.

(Scooped by Pup. Dangnabit!)

 

[sackett]

I'm chagrined at mistaking Thor for one of the saved. Sorry, sorry.

Where are logger & blue triangle?

Come to that, I still miss 1inChrist.

 

[jimbob]

Logger is taking an enforced vacation.

 

[MikeG]

Thanks for the translation. It's just as insane in English........

 

[Thor 2]

I'm chagrined at mistaking Thor for one of the saved. Sorry, sorry.

Where are logger & blue triangle?

Come to that, I still miss 1inChrist.

Apology accepted. I am saved though really...... saved from the clutches of religion when only 16 years old, with the help of Bertrand Russell.

Logger got suspended I believe. He was caught out saying all kinds of nasty stuff, some at me.

 

[Thor 2]

This seems like a good enough thread for asking a question I’ve long wanted to pose: Where is religion located?

And to answer it, of course: It’s located inside the heads of its believers – and nowhere else. When I say “inside the heads of its believers,” I mean that literally.

That's my line!

I think there is a separate god or gods for every believer in them. The believer may be given a template from some religious group or other but they mold the god, or gods, in their heads to take the shape they want.

 

[blue triangle]

Praying seems to help those who do the praying. I think they feel that are doing something to help. Many are genuine, but some sort of go through the motions.

Orlando (USA) and Cox (UK) are two recent examples of hearing platitudes for the sake of saying the "right thing".

When I hear genuine Christians pray around the table, they do not just say "Bless this food. Amen." They express hope for ventures that various people are going to undertake, and for the health of friends and family, and so on.

If there is a supernatural intelligence it may help keep bad influences at bay. It may help others not to make an impulsive dumb decision that has very negative consequences.

When it comes to "demons" and "bad spirits" it should help. Personally I do not think that demons cause ill health. Mostly that they cause wrong thinking and stress. Not that I think that demons are the reason for true mental illness.

You're doing pretty well Part Skeptic, given that you're heavily outnumbered as usual. I didn't think this thread would still be active, but it seems to have staying power.

Prayer does work, and very powerfully too at times, although it isn't a direct request/answer relationship. It's more like saving money in the bank but only being able to draw it out at the discretion of the bank manager, rather than your own whims. People who attempt to test the efficacy of prayer are making the mistaken assumption that it is a physical phenomenon that can be controlled by us (and hey, maybe one day to be harnessed for profit). So when Christians pray for a man who is dying and he dies anyway, skeptics are unimpressed. But it simply may have been his time to die. Maybe he feels that a some level - and so no amount of prayer would heal him, as his free will would be violated. Mature Christians understand that. The prayer may help him or his family in some other way though. And yes it helps the people praying too.

There's a lot of nonsense spoken about praying in tongues (babbling about babbling!), but it's actually one of the most powerful methods of prayer. I once heard people in an evangelical Church doing it and thought it was play acting. I was embarrassed for them. But it's really just a way of distracting the conscious mind, which is usually the biggest barrier to the healing power of prayer. There may be people who can speak a spiritual language in tongues, but for most Christians who do it, that's probably not the case. It still works very powerfully though.

As for demons, I think you have it about right. They can induce wrong thinking, which leads to mental and even physical illness. But for anyone who suspects they may be under that kind of influence, praying in tongues is a very effective answer.

 

[blue triangle]

I'm chagrined at mistaking Thor for one of the saved. Sorry, sorry.

Where are logger & blue triangle?

You call me and I come. Who says prayer doesn't work?

 

[blue triangle]

This seems like a good enough thread for asking a question I’ve long wanted to pose: Where is religion located?

And to answer it, of course: It’s located inside the heads of its believers – and nowhere else. When I say “inside the heads of its believers,” I mean that literally. A cult’s holy texts may be written down, and its rituals prescribed in handbooks, and its paraphernalia made, sold, and distributed, but those are lifeless things, just material objects that do nothing and believe nothing. Only individuals have religion.

That’s significant. We can’t share another person’s subjective experience (technology may someday make that possible, but it hasn’t yet), so that we don’t actually know what a particular religion feels like for any particular individual – and neither do his ostensible co-religionists. They may utter the same phrases and exhibit similar behaviors as they religionize, but still I think this can be said: there are as many individual religions as there are individual believers.

Another way to put it is that every worshipper constructs his own gods. Someone who’s studied the matter may correct me, but I suspect that theologians and psychologists have asserted that very thing for a long time.

You're partly correct here. God is real, but our image of Him comes from our culture. The Light shines through the stained-glass of our God-image and we see a God we can relate to. I'm protestant, but for a time I was interested in Catholicism, almost to the point of converting. Lo and behold I began to have Catholic dreams and visions. I ultimately rejected Catholicism and they went away. That doesn't disprove religion, or show that one religion is as good as another. It simply shows that God relates to us in ways we can understand and according to our beliefs and desires.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth items aren't even on the subject of anybody's "experiences"; they are matters of fact and logic.

Partly. I was in a hurry, and conflated flat denial and experience.

Fourth - Flat denial that Intelligent design MIGHT be valid.
Sixth - Flat denial. Science does debate the origins, and simulation is one theory.
Seventh - Flat denial. Historical record accepts Jesus as a remarkable man. One could debate whether his miracles are man's invention.
Eighth - Flat denial. One can have reasoned arguments for experience.

Only the first, second, third, and fifth are about anybody's "experiences" at all. And even on those, that wasn't denial of the experience but denial of a specific interpretation of the experience.
(snip)

First - Flat denial of experience. I know people who have seen ghosts. Some are not believable, but others are. I saw a ghost as a teenager, but am willing to accept the explanation that it was "waking dream".
Second - Flat denial of experience. I had two "visions". Both were confirmed within a matter of days.
Third - Flat denial of my experience. This was the strongest evidence yet. I had a strong premonition that was confirmed.
Fifth - Flat denial of my experience and others.

One can argue about the cause. That was not done. One can say that my mind was playing tricks on me. That was not done. What was done was to say "because my belief is that the supernatural does not exist, these experiences do not happen", rather than "given that such experiences happen, there is an explanation other than the supernatural". And then we can agree to differ.

When Pup says that my experiences are ordinary, it is clear he has no idea how unusual some experiences were. Denial in another form.

I have seen denial of some of my experiences that are purely natural, because people cannot imagine such things happen. It is beyond their own scope of experience.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

As for demons, I think you have it about right. They can induce wrong thinking, which leads to mental and even physical illness. But for anyone who suspects they may be under that kind of influence, praying in tongues is a very effective answer.

Thanks for the info about speaking in tongues. It seems logical.

I asked a moderate non-Church-going Christian what proof she had that God existed. She said that there was a white Christian who went into the black tribal areas to caste out demons and that he had a good success rate.

While an atheist could argue that the ritual was some kind of psychotherapy, the fact that the improvements are so remarkable and quick, makes one wonder.

My late wife and met a man who was very pleasant and friendly, but we both felt he was hiding something unpleasant inside. She said she saw a black shape on his shoulder and said he was possessed by a demon. Sure enough. Weird frightening behavior. His family were scared of him. He got cured, and the family unit was happy.

I am on this site to learn. Why do you post here?

 

[Thor 2]

You're partly correct here. God is real, but our image of Him comes from our culture. The Light shines through the stained-glass of our God-image and we see a God we can relate to. I'm protestant, but for a time I was interested in Catholicism, almost to the point of converting. Lo and behold I began to have Catholic dreams and visions. I ultimately rejected Catholicism and they went away. That doesn't disprove religion, or show that one religion is as good as another. It simply shows that God relates to us in ways we can understand and according to our beliefs and desires.

Nice turn of phrase blue triangle.

Interesting that that you toyed with the idea of becoming Catholic, rather unusual for a protestant I should think.

Now can you give us something solid about why you know this god of yours is real. I don't want to hear about visions and such, (I get enough of that from my born again nephew), I want something concrete - forensic would be good.

 

[abaddon]

Partly. I was in a hurry, and conflated flat denial and experience.

Fourth - Flat denial that Intelligent design MIGHT be valid.

Wrong. ID Has no evidence for and plenty of evidence against it. Evidence so overwhelming that ID was rejected by a court of law. When will theist admit that ID is simply an attempt to slide YEC under the door?

Sixth - Flat denial. Science does debate the origins, and simulation is one theory.

Wrong. It is not a theory, it is postulated and no more.

Seventh - Flat denial. Historical record accepts Jesus as a remarkable man. One could debate whether his miracles are man's invention.

Wrong. There is precisely no evidence whatsoever for HJ.

Eighth - Flat denial. One can have reasoned arguments for experience.

Wrong. Anecdotes do not equal evidence and for very good reasons. Those have been presented to you and you simply ignored them.

First - Flat denial of experience. I know people who have seen ghosts. Some are not believable, but others are. I saw a ghost as a teenager, but am willing to accept the explanation that it was "waking dream".

Anecdotes are still not evidence.

Second - Flat denial of experience. I had two "visions". Both were confirmed within a matter of days.

Obvious confirmation bias.

Third - Flat denial of my experience. This was the strongest evidence yet. I had a strong premonition that was confirmed.

How many premonitions did you have that were not confirmed at all? Confirmation bias again.

Fifth - Flat denial of my experience and others.

Nope. Just the correct observation that such anecdotes are evidentially useless.

One can argue about the cause. That was not done. One can say that my mind was playing tricks on me. That was not done. What was done was to say "because my belief is that the supernatural does not exist, these experiences do not happen", rather than "given that such experiences happen, there is an explanation other than the supernatural". And then we can agree to differ.

And there is a natural explanation. And you have been given it in a couple of threads. And you have ignored it. Why should anyone continue to do so?

When Pup says that my experiences are ordinary, it is clear he has no idea how unusual some experiences were. Denial in another form.

You have no idea what experiences anyone else here may have had. Once again you are simply pretending to knowledge you cannot possibly have.

Besides which, you are remarkably coy about describing these "experiences".

I suspect there is good reason for that.

I have seen denial of some of my experiences that are purely natural, because people cannot imagine such things happen. It is beyond their own scope of experience.

And again with the claim to knowledge beyond your ken. How can you know what experiences anyone here may have had?