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.

I think you are conflating current idea of atheism with people questioning the thinking of their time, which is not the same thing.

Or you are going back so far to when there was no real thinking and we really just ran on instinct. At that point one might as well say that any animal is an atheist, which is a senseless and useless concept.

Tabula Rasa is considered the 'default', if we are going to pretend that there is one way of thinking about human development. Nothingness is not the same as atheism or theism as both are things. They aren't both religions, but they are still ideas, which is not, again, the same as no idea at all. Pretending that people all start as atheists is an incredible oversimplification of a situation that is incredibly complex.

Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.

 LordofHats wrote:
Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.

Hey, I like oranges. You should have shared.

 feeder wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.

Hey, I like oranges. You should have shared.

pft. You and what lightning throwing deity?

 LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.

Hey, I like oranges. You should have shared.

pft. You and what lightning throwing deity?

I believe that's Thor. Oranges are scarce up north. Double lightning penalty!

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

nou wrote:
But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…

Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written and collected over a 1,500 year period by 40 different credited authors (likely more unaccredited) from all walks of life, e.g. shepherds, farmers, merchants, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers, judges, various government officials including a tax collector , generals, princes, and kings with the backdrop of many of the events being the most advanced and sophisticated cities and societies for their time, e.g. Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome and in such cities as Thebes, Nineveh, Jerusalem, Corinth, Damascus, Corinth, and Rome.

Doesn't seem consistent with the summary of a, "single book written by desert wandering nomads" does it?

For a post that seemed to start from a perspective that one should strive to seek diverse and different sources of information and authorship to avoid becoming bigoted this was a disappointing sentiment for you to close with. Consequently, you should probably take your own advice as you seem to be uninformed about the religious texts, their historical context, and their authorship. I to once had this attitude and flippantly disregarded religious texts, being influenced by select books and authors I was "forced" to read in my youth.

Of course you sound like an intelligent person who probably knew that already, so why write something so inaccurate?

In the meantime, thank you for the reading suggestion. I will have to look into getting a copy.

Well, this of course was a (minor) simplification on my part, but read my posts again and you will see where that simplification comes from: scientific method has produced vast amount of knowledge in the last 300 years alone, and when you compare those 66 books of a Christian Bible to even the single discipline of natural science, then it is, for all practical means and purposes, a single book (same as a collection of short stories is in comparison to a long series of thousand page novels). And, for your information, yes, I have read large parts of it (mostly Old Testament but some excerpts from New Testament as well) and have been raised as a Christian, but it is at least 20 yeas now since I have made my decision to first leave the Church, and after a brief wandering to pursuit the path of scientific knowledge, because teachings of faith had no actual answers for my questions. Science had, and has more with every passing year and with (almost) every finished book.

At this moment, religious texts are "merely" a historical sources for me and material for comparative religious studies, but I see no aplicable knowledge about the universe and (the current state of) humanity in them. They are a great insight into past and into some parts of human psychology and sociology developement, but not in terms of actual knowledge written in them, but on the meta analysis level.

And as for "nomads" - this is in fact where I am guilty of using a pejorative term, as a typical graduate of modern natural sciences has more knowledge than Newton or Gauss ever had in their entire lives. Greek philosophers were brilliant at their point in history, but we teach Pythagorean theorem or Archimedean principle to our children! Why does anyone assume, that a couple of thousands years old chronicles of long fallen kings have deeper insight in human nature and destination of our civilisation than modern science has is what puzzles me deeply… And to be clear - for me, this argument stands against any and all religious beliefs out there (including such abominations as Scientology and various modern New Age philosophies).

But - and this is what may sound strange - I do think, that religious beliefs and practices are necessary to humanity existence and I do not think, that there is any way we could make an exlusively atheist culture prevail… We, as a species, are just not "hardwired" for it. This is why I do not "preach" atheism in any way and have not identified my personal "standing" on the matter within this thread, as I am a strong advocate of choosing a personal, informed path in this regard. This is why I did proposed ks.Heller book and not any other of great titles I could have, but which are often written from explicitly atheist or deist perspectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

nou wrote:

Heck, I might just handed you the "motherload" proof that you will ever find or require, that you may be in fact (almost) right in your faith. But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
A big claim from a small man who is also a big God.

I am all up for your 'motherload' though. Post a synopsis if you would, please.

It is realy an impossible task to write a synopsis of a book, which is itself a "synopsis" of huge parts of history of philosophy, physics, mathemathics and theology. In the abolute shortest way: it is a book about how developing science has been shrinking the place in which we can fit a god in. But I must honestly say, that from reading all your posts in this thread and your last reply - you seem to have an awfull lot of catching up to do to really comprehend science (and science history, and science philosophy) touched by this book...

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There was a prior will to be healed by God, and when subsequent healing occurred it is not illogical to attribute the healing to God.

Only if you take that specific example in isolation.

When you consider the number of people who asked to be healed and weren't, it becomes a much less likely explanation.

A position need not be universally successful to be valid. It is also scriptural that healing is rare compared to the need for it.

Luke 4:27
"And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed--only Naaman the Syrian."

 insaniak wrote:


No, the point remains. The women had feet prior to their healing. You could insert any other thing that occurred to the women prior to being healed (they had breakfast, they dyed their hair, they owned cats, they saw a robin) and the result would be the same... you've taken one specific thing that happened prior to the women being healed and assumed, with no actual evidence to back up that assumption and while completely ignoring any contrary examples) that this particular thing is the most likely cause of the healing.

If the women claimed to have dyed their hair/owned cats/saw a robin to be healed and were they to claim to attribute it to that.
Instead they relied on divine ministry.

 insaniak wrote:

What is it exactly that makes 'I asked God to heal me' a more likely explanation than 'Having feet magically cures you of illness'?

Testimony - From those who claimed it has happened.

Common sense - Does having feet magically cure you of illness? No. Because there is no reason for it to do so. We know what feet are and what their purpose is, we understand that feet arent there to cure AIDS. Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results, it is clearly explained that is what faith is there to do.


You had feet the last time you got onto a bus does it mean that you should attribute your feet for managing to travel at 30mph?

 Orlanth wrote:
Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results,...

No, faith in God sometimes seemingly produces results. But that appearance of results doesn't actually hold up to any level of scrutiny... because there is nothing to actually tie the result to that faith.


If my daughter wakes up and asks me for it to snow today, and it just happens to snow today, would it be reasonable to assume that I was responsible for that snow? Or would it be more logical to instead assume that there was some other explanation for some rather peculiar weather hitting this part of the country than that I have supernatural powers?


My being responsible for it is an explanation for it... but it's not a reasonable explanation for it, because there is no evidence that the original request and the result were actually linked beyond some coincidental timing. Coincidental timing that becomes even shakier when you factor in the previous thousand requests for snow from my daughter, and the innumerable requests from around the world through my blog (AskInsaniakForImprobableThingsInTheHopeThatThisTimeHeWon'tIgnoreYou.com) that have also previously gone unfulfilled...

 Orlanth wrote:

You had feet the last time you got onto a bus does it mean that you should attribute your feet for managing to travel at 30mph?

No. Which is, you know, kind of my point...

 Ahtman wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
However, there have always been atheists

I don't buy that argument even a little. Atheism isn't an eternal concept but a fairly recent ideology, comparatively. That isn't to say it is right or wrong, just that it isn't an idea as old as humanity itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Active vs passive participation, probably.

Well I am sort of healthy and I have feet so the idea pans out.

According to Wikipedia's History of Atheism article, the earliest known historical atheist was in 500 BC. Even if he was the very first ever, rather than the first to be recorded by history, it is still old enough to say that atheism isn't s recent ideology. It has become much more prevalent in the past 500 years due to the success of science in explaining many phenomena that used to be ascribed to deities. IMO.

As for "everyone is born an atheist" in fact everyone is born as a tabula rasa with the purpose of growing and developing. Newborn babies can't even focus their eyes, let alone start to develop concepts of where the universe came from. Religion is learned from your parents and culture. That is why religions cluster. Almost no-one outside Japan is Shinto, but some are Zen Buddhist, because people can learn and change their religion later in life. Most people don't, because most people aren't actually very religious in the sense of questioning spirituality and looking at alternatives.

Well put, killkrazy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
it is still old enough to say that atheism isn't s recent ideology.

Thus the qualification of it being 'comparatively' new. It is not new if compared to the Iphone 6+, but it is a relatively new superstructure if compared to religion in general, and especially the current form of atheism. One can find outliers for lots of things, but that doesn't make them not outliers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As for "everyone is born an atheist" in fact everyone is born as a tabula rasa with the purpose of growing and developing.

That sounds awfully familiar.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
No one still believes in Zeus.

Not true since I do.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
it is still old enough to say that atheism isn't s recent ideology.

Thus the qualification of it being 'comparatively' new. It is not new if compared to the Iphone 6+, but it is a relatively new superstructure if compared to religion in general, and especially the current form of atheism. One can find outliers for lots of things, but that doesn't make them not outliers.

It's almost a delicious irony to be able to turn an argument used to defend god against a theist, can you prove that there weren't atheists before?

However, in reality it is highly likely that since human beings evolved in their current form, there have been atheists. Simply people who do not believe in any God's. They may have performed the rites and habits of the local spirituality in order to conform, but they probably thought it was a load of Hooie too.

There are more atheists now, or in fact there maybe the same amount, it's just that now people admit it more freely, and have platforms of discussion. That, and as our understanding of the universe grows, it pushes previous supernatural theories away. Globalisation has made us aware of the diversity and incompatibility of spirituality between nations, which leads many to question how can so many different ideas be right? Such questions provoke thought more regularly than in the past, where the source of all your knowledge may have been just the priest and no one else.

Why do you think religions were, and in some parts of the world still are, so keen to provide schooling? It's not about providing knowledge to the masses, but about controlling that knowledge to the masses. They needed to make sure that nothing contradicts the current faith. Unfortunately it only works in the short term, by which I mean over a period of hundreds of years.

I remember a meme or a picture that I saw...


'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'

Clearly, Thor is the true God.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I remember a meme or a picture that I saw...


'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'

Clearly, Thor is the true God.

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes not want to identify as "Atheist". There's this gross undercurrent of anti-theism running among so many that identity that way. Honestly atheist might be a fair description of my views, as I've honestly reached a point where I've excluded god and the supernatural in general anything probable enough to be worth seriously considering. However, that's just my view and I don't deny I could be wrong. I generally like the concept of religion and kind of wish I could be religious myself. When friends and family have invited me to their religious services or events, I've always enjoyed them and the people there. I've never felt like making a point of my non-belief to believers.]

Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients. Rolling their eyes at some perceived foolishness on the part of religious people, and openly mocking the symbols of people's faith. So many go out of their way to blame issues stemming from complex problems on the religious context in which some of the actors in those problems choose to frame it.

So, I generally stick to "Agnostic" or 'Non-religious" because I'll be damned if I want to be lumped in with the wolf shirted fedora-tippers that constantly post crap like that.

Ah, but Chongara, the Asatru faith very much believe that Thor is alive and well. That meme is certainly antagonistic, but there are fervent believers in the Norse gods and goddesses out there. You'd be hard pressed to find a deity without some worshipers.

And believe it or not, there's a meme made for this very situation.



For the Christians, the atheists, and those who believe in Thor.

 Chongara wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I remember a meme or a picture that I saw...


'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'

Clearly, Thor is the true God.

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes not want to identify as "Atheist". There's this gross undercurrent of anti-theism running among so many that identity that way. Honestly atheist might be a fair description of my views, as I've honestly reached a point where I've excluded god and the supernatural in general anything probable enough to be worth seriously considering. However, that's just my view and I don't deny I could be wrong. I generally like the concept of religion and kind of wish I could be religious myself. When friends and family have invited me to their religious services or events, I've always enjoyed them and the people there. I've never felt like making a point of my non-belief to believers.]

Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients. Rolling their eyes at some perceived foolishness on the part of religious people, and openly mocking the symbols of people's faith. So many go out of their way to blame issues stemming from complex problems on the religious context in which some of the actors in those problems choose to frame it.

So, I generally stick to "Agnostic" or 'Non-religious" because I'll be damned if I want to be lumped in with the wolf shirted fedora-tippers that constantly post crap like that.

This is the thing, you see atheists as that sort of horrible man-child because there are a very few who are obnoxious about it, but there has been a long and concerted campaign to make people think of that as the norm. Even among Gnostic Athiests it is rare, because others simply don't talk about their belief.

The problem now is that, just like with yourself, people feel embarrassed to be associated with the word becuause of this skewed picture people have of it. The next problem you have is that if non-believers actually talk about this and try to undo that skewed idea, well they're "those annoying Athiests who preach their non-beliefs", thus proving the point you would try to disprove... Really a no win situation. The truth is though that it's the technically correct term for anyone who doesn't follow a god, religion or spiritual belief, including "non-religious" and a fair few Agnostics (you can be an Agnostic Athiest as well, as I am). Personally I say don't shy away from using the correct term where appropriate, or worry about what prejudice others have for the term.

Doesn't bother me being called an atheist, it has no stigma in the UK.

However, in the military we're encouraged to put something on our ID discs, as many of our opponents don't like atheists, and will kill them first if captured. I go with CofE, it's practically atheism anyway.

Hatred of atheism is long standing in virtually all religions, it's the only thing they truly fear, apart from death.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I remember a meme or a picture that I saw...


'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'

Clearly, Thor is the true God.

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes not want to identify as "Atheist". There's this gross undercurrent of anti-theism running among so many that identity that way. Honestly atheist might be a fair description of my views, as I've honestly reached a point where I've excluded god and the supernatural in general anything probable enough to be worth seriously considering. However, that's just my view and I don't deny I could be wrong. I generally like the concept of religion and kind of wish I could be religious myself. When friends and family have invited me to their religious services or events, I've always enjoyed them and the people there. I've never felt like making a point of my non-belief to believers.]

Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients. Rolling their eyes at some perceived foolishness on the part of religious people, and openly mocking the symbols of people's faith. So many go out of their way to blame issues stemming from complex problems on the religious context in which some of the actors in those problems choose to frame it.

So, I generally stick to "Agnostic" or 'Non-religious" because I'll be damned if I want to be lumped in with the wolf shirted fedora-tippers that constantly post crap like that.

This is the thing, you see atheists as that sort of horrible man-child because there are a very few who are obnoxious about it, but there has been a long and concerted campaign to make people think of that as the norm. Even among Gnostic Athiests it is rare, because others simply don't talk about their belief.

The problem now is that, just like with yourself, people feel embarrassed to be associated with the word becuause of this skewed picture people have of it. The next problem you have is that if non-believers actually talk about this and try to undo that skewed idea, well they're "those annoying Athiests who preach their non-beliefs", thus proving the point you would try to disprove... Really a no win situation. The truth is though that it's the technically correct term for anyone who doesn't follow a god, religion or spiritual belief, including "non-religious" and a fair few Agnostics (you can be an Agnostic Athiest as well, as I am). Personally I say don't shy away from using the correct term where appropriate, or worry about what prejudice others have for the term.

That's true of all religions. The loud whackjobs (Like Robertson et al an ISIS) are seen as representing all of a religion to outsiders. It's a case of being loud and negative experiences/threats being easier to remember.

What about the Pope?

When I'm thinking of a Christian, he's not the first one that comes to mind. Rather what comes to mind are the people that are very vocal about being Christian and if you don't agree with them they don't act very Christ-like.

The Pope is a fairly prominent Christian but he probably doesn't bang on about making you agree with him.

Especially not the current one;



Dope Pope is best Pope (but no seriously, after having a guy who invited way to many comparisons to Palpatine for a couple years, Francis has been a huge PR improvement).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Pope is a fairly prominent Christian but he probably doesn't bang on about making you agree with him.

That depends on the pope in question. The one who's boss right now seems rather relaxed when it comes to some of the stuff he's supposed to be strict about. I think he even said something nice about accepting atheists once.

 feeder wrote:
In another (now closed) thread, this subject was raised. I find these three concepts very interesting. In interests of full disclosure, I strongly identify as agnostic.

Atheism and theism are, I believe, different sides of the same coin, with each belief system requiring a leap of faith in the face of a total lack of evidence to arrive at such a firm conviction.

Please share your thoughts, and keep Rule #1 in mind.

I think both are absolutely fine, in most experiences with both atheists and theists I don't have any problems. However, I have had run ins with crazies on both sides of that fence. I have been yelled at by an atheist for saying bless you when they sneezed, and I have been lectured by a baptist about how my own beliefs are wrong and therefore I should convert or go to hell. So just like most groups, it is the extremists that ruin it for everyone.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results,...

No, faith in God sometimes seemingly produces results. But that appearance of results doesn't actually hold up to any level of scrutiny... because there is nothing to actually tie the result to that faith.

You say that the results don't hold up to any level of scrutiny. That is a bold statement, there are many cases of healing miracles reported, including resurrections. Are you going to try and find excuse handwave each of them away. Good luck with that,

It isn't uncommon though. One sad example, there was a case of a man in the 50's who had cancer tumours throughout his torso who was healed at a ministry by IIRC Kathleen Kuhlman, Now this man had a long and established medical history and his personal doctor was a good friend of many years. When the man was healed he went to see his doctor, told him he had been healed by God. The doctor examined him and saw no sign of the cancer, which was too established to likely go into full remission and couldn't clear up that quickly anyway even if it did. The doctors conclusion was to claim that this was therefore a differet person, even though his patient was a personal friend of many years standing, and refused point blank to have anything to do with him.

Still this is not as odd as the group of eleven blind men who were healed by Jesus, of which only one of the eleven believed in him. If someone doesn't want to believe they wont, and any excuse not to is good enough.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

You had feet the last time you got onto a bus does it mean that you should attribute your feet for managing to travel at 30mph?

No. Which is, you know, kind of my point...

Your point appears to be belief in healing feet is the same as faith in a healing God. They are not the same. There is no historicity for feet worship, no doctrine, no revelation etc etc.
I used the bus analogy to show the faith in feet doesn't have a mundane equivalent,

 Orlanth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results,...

No, faith in God sometimes seemingly produces results. But that appearance of results doesn't actually hold up to any level of scrutiny... because there is nothing to actually tie the result to that faith.

You say that the results don't hold up to any level of scrutiny. That is a bold statement, there are many cases of healing miracles reported, including resurrections. Are you going to try and find excuse handwave each of them away. Good luck with that,

The way I interpret what Insaniak said is that a person's faith will tie things that appear to be miracles with being acts of God. Being an agnostic person myself: If I see a miracle (e.g. unexplained and/or seemingly impossible resurrections, mysterious disappearance of cancer, etc.), I can't argue that that's a miracle, but as an agnostic person I have no reason to attribute that to a God (or Gods) and nor do I have any reason to believe that it's proof (and/or evidence) of a God (or Gods).

What I'm saying is that: A Christian (for example) will likely see a miracle and attribute it to God, where as an Agnostic person such as myself will see it and might say "It's a miracle, but I can't explain it."


EDIT: Then you can consider the following:

In ages past, humanity has used Religion, Gods, and Faith to explain a number of things that we can now explain. Take, for example, the Sun: Our ancestors could not explain the Sun, so they attributed it to a Sun God who rode across the sky on a Golden Chariot. I personally don't see the attributing of miracles to a God or set of Gods any differently.

Yes, we have no explanation of miraculous disappearance of cancer, what people experience during NDE's, seemingly impossible resurrections, etc etc etc, but attributing them to a deity or set of deities only tells me that we (humanity) lack the knowledge and/or understanding to explain such things.

In the case of things like NDE's (and possibly a lot of other things), I'm not denying that there can be a strong spiritual element on a subjective basis which can lead to people changing Religions or taking up a Religion, but that's still not evidence or proof to me that a God or Gods exist. To me, all that says is that situation and/or experience can either not be explained, had such a profound effect on the individual that they take up a Religion, or both. Just because it can't be explained and/or brings someone into the embrace of a Religion doesn't mean that it is evidence/proof that a God or set of Gods exist.

 Orlanth wrote:

You say that the results don't hold up to any level of scrutiny. That is a bold statement, there are many cases of healing miracles reported, including resurrections. Are you going to try and find excuse handwave each of them away. Good luck with that,

There is no need to 'handwave' them away. The fact that something happened and nobody knew why doesn't mean 'God did it'. It just means that something happened for a reason that wasn't known at the time.

The reason I say that miracle healings don't hold up to scrutiny is because they don't. The fact that someone prayed to be healed and subsequently got better doesn't mean that the prayer healed them, any more than my choice to hop on one foot before checking the weather forecast will result in a sunny day. It just means that someone did something before something else happened.

Or, once again - Correlation is not causation.

If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.

Still this is not as odd as the group of eleven blind men who were healed by Jesus, of which only one of the eleven believed in him.

Which brings us to a related point - If prayer gets you results, but only when God feels like it, and not praying also gets you results when God feels like it, it seems that prayer isn't actually a required part of the equation. Either there's a God out there who's just healing people at whim regardless of whether or not they pray for it... or there's no God, and people are occasionally getting better for some unknown reason that has nothing to do with prayer...

Your point appears to be belief in healing feet is the same as faith in a healing God.

No, my point is that correlation is not causation.

There is no more evidence that belief in the Christian God is any more likely to result in spontaneous healing than having feet is likely to result in that same healing.

 feeder wrote:
In interests of full disclosure, I strongly identify as agnostic.

Atheism and theism are, I believe, different sides of the same coin, with each belief system requiring a leap of faith in the face of a total lack of evidence to arrive at such a firm conviction.

I strongly identify as an atheist. While I agree with you that there is (on some level) a "leap of faith", I disagree that all leaps of faith are equal. For example, if I put a chocolate bar in my fridge and close the door, I don't really know if it still exists. I just have to have faith that reality is consistent, and the chocolate is still there. There are entire branches of philosophy that dwell on this kind of issue. It's incredibly difficult to prove that things exist when you're not observing them in some way, and it's not really certain that anything exists even when we are observing it... "I think therefore I am" (hopefully).

Believing in the Christian god (for example), requires a huge leap of faith... you need to gloss over a whole bunch of stuff about dinosaurs, evolution, heliocentrism, historical inaccuracy, absence of corroborating sources, Christian interpolation, and a whole bunch of things about "god" that don't stand up to fairly casual scrutiny: Why did he only ever reveal himself to one obscure nomadic tribe 3000 years ago? Why did he leave that fruit in the garden of Eden to entrap us? Why did he give us foreskins and bacon if he doesn't want us to have them? What was the point of dying for our sins, when he could have just forgiven us? Why is god's country, Israel, named after the pagan god El? Why would god (an eternal spiritual being) resemble us (an evolved creature with food processing orifices)? etc... etc...

I believe that the Christian god (just like the Roman gods, and every other god myth), was made up by people to try and explain something they didn't understand. Philosophically speaking: I don't know 100% that the story is false, because you can't know anything 100%, just like I can't know 100% if something still exists inside my fridge when I close the door. However, in a practical sense: I'm confident enough to say that I know for a fact that the god described in the bible does not exist (because it is for all intents and purposes a fact). I know it with the same degree of certainty that I know things do not stop existing when I close my fridge door. It doesn't require much "faith", nor is it arrogance. It's just very obviously not consistent with reality, and not true.

I think it's possible that there might be a higher power in the universe, but if there is, it's probably nothing like the god "guessed at" by Earthly religions. I doubt it cares about us, if it even knows we exist... On the scale of the universe, we are just some brief bacteria on a speck of dust, on a speck of dust. The real arrogance is believing that we're important, and that a universe 90+ billion light-years across, was supposedly created "for us", even though we can't inhabit roughly 100% of it.

I guess I might be agnostic about such a being, but I don't see it (him) as any more plausible than a million other theories that can't be proven, so I don't tend to pay it any serious consideration: certainly not enough to categorise myself as an agnostic.

 insaniak wrote:
If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.

Exactly. The common theme of healing miracles is that's a list of isolated one-time events out of a vast number of people praying for miracles, not any consistent trend of prayer accomplishing the impossible. And that makes it much more likely that religious people are attaching "god must have done it" explanations to the rare cases where someone does better than expected than any real supernatural events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients.

Yes, and those beliefs and practices are entirely comparable. The only reason anyone objects to the comparison is that "everyone knows" that those old myths are false, and religious people don't want to hear any criticism of their beliefs. The fact that people are uncomfortable about how close their beliefs are to thinks they consider false and absurd does not mean that we have any obligation to stop making the comparison.