Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!

Here are the results of the STEP project run by the Templeton Foundation;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

https://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf


TLDR; Prayers didn't help at all. A slightly negative effect was seen in people who knew they were prayed for.

 jasper76 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!

Here are the results of the STEP project run by the Templeton Foundation;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

https://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf


TLDR; Prayers didn't help at all. A slightly negative effect was seen in people who knew they were prayed for.

Ah, well...I was just wondering if preyer would act like meditation and have a calming effect that helped the body heal, and that other people's prayer might act in a way like Get Well cards or flowers, raising the person's spirits and what not, and having a positive effect. I wasn't ever talking about anything supernatural (the term itself is an oxymoron if I've ever seen one).

Yeah, it seemed to have a (slight) effect in the opposite direction.
One could hypothesize that the knowledge of "things being in the hands of a greater power" made people "fight" less for themselves.

I agree with you on the concept of "supernatural".
Words like "supernatural", "magic" or "miracle" are vague and worthless terms.

Article wrote:Interesting article on the subject:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/you-cant-educate-people-into-believing-in-evolution/382983/?single_page=true

Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.'"

@Asherian Command

One of the reasons why you won't get serious people to answer your "why" question in the way that you like, is because of the baggage that term implies.

The "Why" questions implicitly sneaks in things like "intent" and "purpose".
Those are things that most people engaging in an existential discussion will not grant without justification.

Not all questions are coherent, sensible or justified.
I could ask; "what does the smell blue taste like?".

So in essence, i am asking you to shown why "Why" is even a coherent and/or sensible question to ask in this regard.


...

It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Pendix wrote:

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.

Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.

If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.

I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)

So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?

Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.

I agree with you.

In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing.
If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction.
If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.

There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".

That's not necessarily the case, seeing as there are some pretty well established agnostic theologians.

That's where the "almost" part comes in.

Also there is nothing inherent in agnostic theism that prevents the holder from adopting a top-down approach to the issue. It is almost implied that a top-down approach is necessary if one is the hold the belief that a god exists (theism) while proposing that the basis of said belief in unknown or unknowable (agnosticism).

How does one come to hold that belief without starting with the assumption that a god must exist (top-down approach)?

 Asherian Command wrote:

I agree with you.

In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing.
If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction.
If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.

There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.

but that is assuming that we haven't found anything to suggest that. Currently we have no idea. We have no idea how to quantify it. What the hell would we even look for?

First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".

Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?

If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.

I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.

He is not laughing at someone having a different opinion. He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.

I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)

So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?

Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.

Your ideas of the bible are extremely strange.

He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
.

We infact have no idea where or what heaven even looks like. Nor do we know that we will even go to heaven.

The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in.

Why is that a problem? Why are religions somehow exempt from criticism?

The major mono-theistic religions are extremely insulting to any modern human.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Criticism is constructive, Not insulting.

I could say the same about Atheism.

But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.

Please, do tell how a lack of beliefs in god(s) is insulting to modern humans.

He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.

He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.

Go an. Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.
He mentions a mountain and gods (plural) living there ....and you think he is talking specifically about Christianity? Greek and Roman mythology (what all religions eventually become, it seems) didn't enter your mind once?
Are you kidding me!?!

He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.

No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.

And he didn't! He mocked the way it was being presented (the logic) and the way it was being justified (the goal-post moving)

You do realize that the beliefs, the people holding them and the justifications used to hold said belief are three different things, right?
We can talk about those as separate things

First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".

Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?

I was answering the whole thing.

That is of course no help at all, and I am simply amazed that you cannot see this.

its Called Faith.

"Faith" is the excuse people trot out when you have no evidence and no good reasons to believe a proposition
If those people had evidence, they wouldn't need to resurt to faith.

All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.

Except of course that God absolutely changes. He changes his nature (mono to trinity), he changes his mind (commandments and guidelines) and he changes the way we have to worship (sacrifice, deeds and works).
No, science does not change. The conclusions drawn by science does. And those conclusions change in the light of new observations or new evidence, not on a hunch, feeling or desire..

Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists.

Why not?

So stop looking for the answer. The answer is I don't know. Sometimes we have to accept that we as humans will never unlock all the mysteries of the universe and the only acceptable answer is I do not know. Science can't answer it because we have no idea what to look for, even if we did, where would we start looking for God? Are we even sure God wants to be found, or are we not sure god is the universe and we are its body. We have no idea. Maybe we are all connected like many believe we are.

Thank 'insert-deity-of-choice-here*, that most people don't think in the way you just described. We would still be living in caves while being afraid of thunder.

"I don't know (yet, but I am looking into it)" is the correct answer.
"We can never know (so we should completely stop looking for an answer)" is a horrible attitude.

Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses.

I assume you meant "all-knowing" there, not "unknowing".

No, we don't use relatives. You should really look into how science uses terms like "proof" and "proven". Science do not deal in absolutes, as that would discourage looking further.

Again, are you kidding me?!? Humans have more than 5 senses. Examples included balance, temperature and proprioception (the sense that allows you to know where your arm or leg is without looking).
You looked up animal senses (and linked to it), but couldn't be bothered to do the same for human senses?

Sometimes we just have to believe in it.

No, we really don't.

Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.

No, it isn't.
We have no faith in the instruments.
That is why we check and re-check them. That is why we constantly calibrate them.
We have no faith in ourselves.
That is why we go through peer-review and let others check our work.

You have no idea how science works, do you?

Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?

No, it isn't. That is what the enlightenment is all about, and we don't need bronze-age mythology or a jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully to do it.
It would actually be rather easier without.

Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)

Here are two statements,

A. I believe that god(s) do not exist.
B. I believe that at least one god exists

Which one do you think that atheists agree with? Warning. this is a trick question.
Before you answer I'd like you to think of the difference between "I do not believe god(s) exists" and "I believe that god(s) do not exist".

Have an exalt for teaching logic.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ah I see we have the monthly antireligions thread. I can't beleive I missed out!

Apparently I am one of the few doing all the defending of religion I am usually the opposition in this.

I want to salute you for that.
You are engaging in the discussion, and I appreciate that very much.

We might not agree, but I appreciate your efforts.

I recently read the argument against geocentricism from the Answers in Genesis website.
It was amazing to see the intellectual disconnect happening in "slow motion", so to speak.
The arguments presented for geocentricism was almost point-for-point identical to the arguments put forth in defence of gods.
The author was completely coherent and rational using logic and reason to demonstrate how the evidence for geocentricism was flawed and how the arguments were unconvincing.


For those of you that don't know, Answers in Genesis it is a "hardline" Christian website of the YEC, literal 6-day creation biblical in-errancy variety headed by Ken Ham.

The person writing the article is actually really smart and well-versed in the scientific method, its value and how to evaluate evidence dispassionately. It apparently just doesn't occur to him to apply those very same tools to his religious belief.

I'll go get a link.
Here we go,

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/geocentrism-and-creation/