Notices
Results 1 to 76 of 76

Thread: Praying doesnt help!

  1. #1 Praying doesnt help! 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Do you seriously think praying helps?

    Check this out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qt7puJR4IA&NR=1


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    That depends. Prayer, as a somewhat inferior alternative to meditation, can have a "placebo effect" on your health. Though, with meditation, the "placebo" doesn't go away even if you realize you're just consciously willing better health (this is a big bonus). Even though prayer can, in some instances, help, it's an inferior option to meditation.


    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Typical atheist ploy: find some extreme misapplication of a religious practice and attempt to apply it to all religion.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Typical atheist ploy: find some extreme misapplication of a religious practice and attempt to apply it to all religion.
    So.... You don't pray? Or you have seen miracles happen as a result of prayer?

    Or do you, like many theists, credit every good thing that happens to you to your prayer?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    did you quote yourself in your signature?

    I think what he's really saying is that he attributes all modern discoveries and developments in science to God.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Okay, am I the only one who gets annoyed by people posting links to videos rather than text? I hate having to sit through some video to get information; I would much, much rather just have some text that I can quickly skim over and decide if it's worth my time or not. There are very few things that are easier to understand if they're presented in video form.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I, too, tend to avoid videos for this same reason.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    although i must admit that this is out of proportion for the everyday. it does prove that prayer alone does not overcome all obstacles, and of course the news report itself(however inaccurate a source it is) stated that the form of diabetes the girl had was treatable, this tells us that even if prayer couldn't save someone from something as tangible as this science could have.

    unfortunately i am a person with one of the afforementioned "faith genes" and i'm a tad predisposed to believe that prayer and faith can help in more ways than one, darius' reffered placebo effect is one of them, prayer makes your Feel Good, there's no question about that.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i like this one :

    "There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see"

    so the corpse was in mint condition ? but still rather lifeless
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    unless you know how to pray properly, what its purpose is for, and can accept the fact you may not get the answer or an answer at all then you would be wasting yor time.

    also, saying prayer doesn't work ignores the reality of what is involved in praying. it is not a get out of jail free card. there is a lot more to it than that.

    atheists would have no idea because they do not believe in God thus their criticism is moot and worthless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    atheist or not, if you let your child die because you deny it easily available treatment, then that makes you a killer
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    This "praying doesn't work" nonsense is based off of our natural desire to do something and expect a result.

    We may pray to a God to ask for guidance and wisdom but that doesn't mean he's going to float down from heaven in a bubble and give us our answer giftwrapped.

    But that is what many would like.

    I believe that praying is meant to be selfless and indirect. You may pray for a sickly friend and they may die. You may think, "God didn't save her". Perhaps he did.

    I just mean, keep your mind open.

    For the record, I am not religious. I am just being Devil's Advocate.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Skyik apparently understands the purpose of prayer a lot more than most of the rest of the commentators on this thread.

    Prayer is not suppose to be humans trying to get God to do something for them that He wasn't already going to do. Nor is it about changing God's mind on some matter.

    Prayer is more about bringing oneself into agreement with God. So prayer does not change God in the least, but does change the person.

    I am not aware of any instance in the Bible where it appears God did something for anyone that the person could not just as easily have done himself.

    I am aware of a missionary in Africa who once was out away from his base many miles who fell off and tumbled down a steep slope. Upon coming to rest, he looked down and saw that his ankle appeared to be badly broken. He prayed and suggested to God that if He did not heal him, he would surely die before anyone found him. When he looked again, the ankle did not look nearly so bad. He then proceeded to pull himself up the steep slope with hands and one good leg, managed to operate his Land Rover back to his base and upon examination, it was determined that his ankle was not broken despite his earlier observation. Later, upon returning and living in Canada, he fell off a ladder and broke the same ankle and asked God to heal it again. He ended up with a broken ankle in a cast from a far less serious fall.

    Whether the ankle was actually broken in the first instance, I suppose, could be questioned. Perhaps it looked worse than it actually was. If it was broken, however, it would suggest that God helped him when he actually needed it, but not when he could help himself.

    I have a son who is diabetic and I would no more think of telling him to quit insulin and go to prayer than I would throw away my corrective lenses.

    We have had two incidents at a church in my home state where children were allowed to die from easily treatable conditions. Religious beliefs or not, I personally think the parents should be charged with negligent homicide. I don't think society should allow this any more than it should excuse suicide bombers as exercising a religious belief.

    However, I hardly think the improper use of prayer is a good indicator of the power or prayer any more than the improper use of a motor vehicle is a good indicator of its usefulness.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I am reminded of my thread, "the dark side of magic", in which I said that the thread could easily have been called, "the dark side of prayer". Dayton, archy and Skiyk are all pointing out the differences between the light side and the dark side. Absum would object to it but I often use the word "magic" for the dark side of both of these and so I would say that if you turn to prayer for something that you can control and think of it as a power which you are directing and by which you can make promises to people or offer it as a service for money then we are talking about magic not prayer (or in other words the dark side rather than the light). Prayer which does not partake of this magical or dark aspect is not a substitute for action or science or medicine. Prayer is an appeal to God who cannot be manipulated or controlled, but whatever you call it I think even Absum would agree with Dayton's comment that its primary objective is not to change what is outside of you but what is within you.

    You see an important part of the role of prayer is a recognition and acceptance of the fact that we cannot control events and that the ability to do so would probably not be a good thing anyway. So the religious will remind themselves that prayer is on the top of the list of things that they need to do in a crisis while those with a rational faith will also make it clear that it is no substitute for doing those things (like modern medicine and safety precautions) that we do know will certainly improve chances for a better result.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    I am not aware of any instance in the Bible where it appears God did something for anyone that the person could not just as easily have done himself.
    I might suggest you read the bible in that case...there are numerous examples. How would Eve have come about. How would Moses have fed his people during the Exodus, how would have quenched their thirst? How would the battle of Jericho have been won? Making an Army Blind and than curing them? There are probably more than a hundred examples.

    And of course prayer doesn't help except for the immediate family with a sick person who might result in a real placebo effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Lynx-Fox noted:
    daytonturner wrote:


    I am not aware of any instance in the Bible where it appears God did something for anyone that the person could not just as easily have done himself.
    I might suggest you read the bible in that case...there are numerous examples. How would Eve have come about. How would Moses have fed his people during the Exodus, how would have quenched their thirst? How would the battle of Jericho have been won? Making an Army Blind and than curing them? There are probably more than a hundred examples.
    You are correct, either my statement has a "not" in it where it should not or you have misread it. I'm not sure which. The statement is syntactical mumbo jumbo.

    What I meant to say is that I am not aware of any instance in the Bible where it appears God did something for someone that the person could have done for himself. That is to say, the Bible seems to indicate that God has mostly done that which was impossible for the benefactor to have done himself. And those are the kinds of situations you describe. Adam could not have made Eve; Moses could not have on his own efforts fed and watered the Israelites. Joshua would never have come up with that Jericho battle plan on his own, etc.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    prayer doesn't help, says; an atheist
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    No. Praying doesn't help, says a dead 11 year old girl.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    My faith, which is dictated by this rock that contains the spirit of the creator, says you're all wrong and possessed by the devil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skiyk
    This "praying doesn't work" nonsense is based off of our natural desire to do something and expect a result.
    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing".

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Prayer is more about bringing oneself into agreement with God. So prayer does not change God in the least, but does change the person.
    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing"

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Absum would object to it but I often use the word "magic" for the dark side of both of these and so I would say that if you turn to prayer for something that you can control and think of it as a power which you are directing and by which you can make promises to people or offer it as a service for money then we are talking about magic not prayer (or in other words the dark side rather than the light).
    Even the sentence is a paragraph!

    You see an important part of the role of prayer is a recognition and acceptance of the fact that we cannot control events and that the ability to do so would probably not be a good thing anyway.
    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing".
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    God's servant, did I actually say that?

    'Do what the hell you want, understanding fully the potential consequences.'

    drowsy turtle
    I'm not saying I didn't; I just don't remember it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    No. Praying doesn't help, says a dead 11 year old girl.
    Recall the famous biblical quote, "Your ways are not mine"?

    Death to us may seem like the end of everything, for Christians, it is the passage into heaven.

    Perhaps God merely took her home.

    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing".
    Prove prayer does not work. Science is based on proof, religion is based on faith. A Christian can have faith in their religion and believe in the functions of prayer. Scientists require proof, which cannot be presented in this case.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    What is prayer meant to accomplish?

    For example if my daughter is dying and I pray "Dear Whoever this applies, please don't let my daughters mind, body or soul die"

    Is the purpose, the CAUSE of this action to prevent her from dying, or to express one's feelings at that moment in time?

    I bet prayer has more to do with the latter option. People don't pray to barter with God, they pray to express how they feel and give up their individual to embrace union with God. The medium is the message.

    Prayer is meant as a sacrifice of self, not an asking of favors. You are giving up your own will for the will of God.

    one of Yamamoto Tsunotomo's stories says it quite well.
    A man dies, his friend and a monk are present. The monk is saying a prayer for the dead and the dead man's friend says "Your faith is useless, your prayers will not bring this man back to life" because this is an attack on the honor of Zen the monk must either kill this man or kill himself, so he grabs his tanto and knelt beside the corpse, holding the knife to his own gut the dead man rose up and lived for another month. The ignorant friend of the dead man did not see the tanto and assumed the Monk preyed for the man's life, but this was not the case, it was the monks willingness to die for the Buddhist Law, not his desire for anything, but if anything it was his lack of personal desire.

    The story may be just that, a story, but the meaning is very real. Prayer has nothing to do with what what you want or what you accomplish, it is about your willingness to sacrifice yourself to God's will.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    God's servant, did I actually say that?

    'Do what the hell you want, understanding fully the potential consequences.'

    drowsy turtle
    I'm not saying I didn't; I just don't remember it.
    yes, It was couple of months ago. I liked it so added it as my sig.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    No. Praying doesn't help, says a dead 11 year old girl.
    POOR Noob, how about this, you stick with your empirical sh%& and i stick with my beliefs. You never going to convince me am worng, neither am I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    My faith, which is dictated by this rock that contains the spirit of the creator, says you're all wrong and possessed by the devil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skiyk
    This "praying doesn't work" nonsense is based off of our natural desire to do something and expect a result.
    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing".

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Prayer is more about bringing oneself into agreement with God. So prayer does not change God in the least, but does change the person.
    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing"

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Absum would object to it but I often use the word "magic" for the dark side of both of these and so I would say that if you turn to prayer for something that you can control and think of it as a power which you are directing and by which you can make promises to people or offer it as a service for money then we are talking about magic not prayer (or in other words the dark side rather than the light).
    Even the sentence is a paragraph!

    You see an important part of the role of prayer is a recognition and acceptance of the fact that we cannot control events and that the ability to do so would probably not be a good thing anyway.
    You know what I read? "Prayer does nothing".
    god is invisible , therefore, god does not exist =FOOL.

    moderator: posts combined. A little more thought and a little less venom please. I know its hard to see the line here in this place, but keep in mind that my interest is in trying to keep these interchanges to something that will be interesing to observers. Does that make sense?
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Skiyk
    Prove prayer does not work. Science is based on proof, religion is based on faith. A Christian can have faith in their religion and believe in the functions of prayer. Scientists require proof, which cannot be presented in this case.
    This is a very common fallacy. You cannot prove something does not exist. It's on you, who claims prayer does work, to prove it does. If you cannot, then are you not delusional?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Praying doesnt help! 
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer
    Promptly highlighted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Sak - Betty fischer is the women in charge of Jesus Camp. It was a camp that was used to brainwash children. She stated that comment because she thinks Christians should be above every other individual in the country... heh.. I highly disagree with her.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    'Do what the hell you want, understanding fully the potential consequences.'

    That sounds faithful to me
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Darius wrote:

    Skiyk wrote:
    Prove prayer does not work. Science is based on proof, religion is based on faith. A Christian can have faith in their religion and believe in the functions of prayer. Scientists require proof, which cannot be presented in this case.

    This is a very common fallacy. You cannot prove something does not exist. It's on you, who claims prayer does work, to prove it does. If you cannot, then are you not delusional?
    By that token, one would look at Edison's 1,000 tries to make a light bulb, 999 of which did not produce one and only one that did, and conclude that the light bulb does not work.

    When one asks anything of anyone, there is always the potential that the answer will be. "No." If that is the answer to a prayer, did the prayer go unanswered?

    I am as disturbed by someone saying their prayers were answered when the sun came as I am when someone says prayer does not work because they prayed for the sun not to come up.

    I know people who attribute any pleasant occurrence to God and any unpleasant occurrence to the Devil. Meanwhile, it seems to me that many of these things are merely the natural result of cause and effect. But, at the same time, there are also events and results which defy explanation. The idea that they may involve the direct supernatural intervention of God is no less a satisfactory answer than saying we just can't explain it -- but we will.

    The fact that prayer does not always produce the results we want does not prove that prayer doesn't work any more than the fact that every attempt to produce cold fusion seems unsuccessful proves cold fusion does not work.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    By that token, one would look at Edison's 1,000 tries to make a light bulb, 999 of which did not produce one and only one that did, and conclude that the light bulb does not work.
    Ahahahahaha. That's not it at all. How the hell did you get that from "You have to prove your claims"? Rather, it's more like Edison claiming the light bulb works, and when asked to demonstrate it does not. Until Edison does demonstrate a working model, he cannot claim that it works.

    The fact that prayer does not always produce the results we want does not prove that prayer doesn't work any more than the fact that every attempt to produce cold fusion seems unsuccessful proves cold fusion does not work.
    You have not provided one proved example of it working. Therefore, until you do, there's no evidence it does. Burden of proof is on you, as you claimed it does.

    As for cold fusion, nobody claims it works yet. If they did they'd have to prove it.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Darius said:

    As for cold fusion, nobody claims it works yet. If they did they'd have to prove it.
    OK, so would it be your position that we should believe cold fusion does not work and, therefore, abandon all attempts to produce it. Are we not proceeding to try to produce cold fusion based on our faith and belief that it does work?

    In fact, I believe, they are now finding merit in the cold fusion experiments of some 20 years ago that were allegedly debunked to the embarrassment of the scientists who produced what they said was a successful experiment but no one was able to duplicate. Recent thinking is that they may have actually been at least partially successful. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510589,00.html

    It is our faith and belief that cold fusion is possible that keeps us moving to produce it. It is similar faith and belief that motivates people to pray and even if the prayer is "unsuccessful" (however you determine that), it does not mean the next one will be equally unsuccessful. Nor does today's successful experiment or prayer insure the success of the next one.

    What is sometimes frustrating to those of faith is that those who deny the power of faith work on the very same principles but use only a different measure of success and failure to foolishly claim that faith had nothing to do with it.

    You have faith, not proof, that life spontaneously generated. We have faith, not proof, that God directed the generation of life. So why is your faith more valid than ours? You cannot prove your claim any more than we. Even if science were to generate life, it only proves that life can be generated by some intelligent manufacturer.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    OK, so would it be your position that we should believe cold fusion does not work and, therefore, abandon all attempts to produce it. Are we not proceeding to try to produce cold fusion based on our faith and belief that it does work?
    Now I'm going to get snide. Are you this stupid on purpose? No, I said cold fusion has not yet been demonstrated to work, but there is sound theory behind it, so it's plausible. Your problem is equating prayer, which is in no way sound or supported by ANY theory other than the placebo effect, to physical concepts that HAVE a proved foundation.

    And, once again, IF someone claimed to have made a cold fusion generator that works, they'd have to prove it. Just as if you claimed you made prayer work, you'd have to prove it.

    It's not about faith. It's about probability and basis. Prayer has no solid basis. Cold fusion does.

    You have faith, not proof, that life spontaneously generated.
    Joys abound how the purposeful ignorance of man can blind them to facts of science! May the blinds you wear be cast off by intelligence one day for fear you walk off yet another cliff of stupidity!

    moderator: You will not talk about the other posters even in question form. You will not pretend to knowledge about other poster's character or problems. You will talk about post content only. You will abide by this restriction or your posts will be sent to the trash.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    okay... The basic proponents of life, amino acids, simple proteins, etc. have successfully, spontaneously, been created in the lab. There is proof life spontaneously generated, not just faith.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    okay... The basic proponents of life, amino acids, simple proteins, etc. have successfully, spontaneously, been created in the lab. There is proof life spontaneously generated, not just faith.
    Consider the following; what if the scientific and religious beliefs for the creation of life are both correct?

    What if a religious deity, such as God, created life as some of you believe. However, this "God" created evolution, he created the way that man evolved from ape to human. What if all that we name scientific and anti-religious is actually converged into one. Maybe God created the Big Bang and the formation of our planet.

    Remember the quote from the bible, "And the lord said, 'let there be light'"

    Perhaps that was the Big Bang.

    And God specifies days in the creation of the world but they might not be days by our standards, it could be millions upon millions of years in which the world as we know it formed.

    Just consider it.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    What if a religious deity, such as God, created life as some of you believe. However
    That god would be a product of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    Not necessarily, this is a theory regarding the combination of religious and scientific beliefs. We can bake a cake, that doesn't mean that we're the product of that cake. God may have created all that we regard as scientific and anti-religious but that doesn't mean he is made from it as well.

    You need to stretch your mind to consider this. I'd also like to repeat, I am not religious myself.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Darius said:
    Your problem is equating prayer, which is in no way sound or supported by ANY theory other than the placebo effect, to physical concepts that HAVE a proved foundation.
    Actually, no; that's not the way it is. That is the problem one evokes when one insists on judging something that is not scientific by scientific terms and then realize it is wrong when the comparison is taken to its ultimate end.

    It is we who are saying that you cannot compare the two and judge success or failure by the same standard. People of faith never claim that faith is a scientific experiment.

    You cannot judge prayer on the same terms as you do science unless you are willing to fully develop the comparison. Success in prayer is not the same as success in science. Success in science is generally considered to be when you get the result you have predicted. The gathering of information to derive that predicted result is neither success nor failure. The success or value of prayer is not necessarily found in whether one gets what one prays for. In fact, only a small portion of prayer even deals with requests or supplications.

    People who do not have religious faith do not believe they have faith because they do not recognize it.

    Most people, when they come to a stop sign and check the traffic to find an opening with the right amount of time, do not know they are going through the process of vectoring. They do it without knowing what they are doing or even understand that is what they are doing. But they still go through a process of vectoring several bits of variable information.

    I think, in the same way, people who claim that they rely only on "proven science," fail to recognize the things they do based not on proof, but on faith. Therefore, they discount the things other people do which they admit are fully based on faith. Prayer is an act of faith, not a scientific experiment. You cannot judge it by the same criteria and determine whether it has been successful.

    How many times do you conduct a stress test on a chair you have never sat in nor seen anyone else sit in before you sit down. You sit down based on your belief and faith that the chair is structurally sound, not on any act of scientific verification.

    And if the chair breaks, was it because it was scientifically unsound or because your faith in it failed? And will you then test every chair you wish to sit in for the rest of your life, or will you continue to sit in them based on your faith and belief that chairs almost always make good places to sit?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Actually, no; that's not the way it is. That is the problem one evokes when one insists on judging something that is not scientific by scientific terms and then realize it is wrong when the comparison is taken to its ultimate end.
    So, basically, you can't prove prayer does anything. Glad to see you admit it.

    I think, in the same way, people who claim that they rely only on "proven science," fail to recognize the things they do based not on proof, but on faith. Therefore, they discount the things other people do which they admit are fully based on faith. Prayer is an act of faith, not a scientific experiment. You cannot judge it by the same criteria and determine whether it has been successful.
    I can just as easily use your same argument: Prayer is in no way related to vectoring. You just claimed that prayer is not related to science, so it cannot be tested empirically (thus no physical proof can be given for its existence), yet you compare it to an empirical method of judging? I think you're confused.

    Science is NOT faith. Faith is, once again, UNFOUNDED. Science is firmly founded in axioms that have proved correct time and time again. Faith is NOT on the same level as science IN ANY FORM.

    How do you judge prayer? If you judge it in a subjective way, then you can't prove it does anything.

    How many times do you conduct a stress test on a chair you have never sat in nor seen anyone else sit in before you sit down. You sit down based on your belief and faith that the chair is structurally sound, not on any act of scientific verification.
    You sit down based on VISUAL PROOF that it's stable which has evolved for accuracy. It's not faith, it's LOGIC. I would not sit down on a chair of toothpicks without testing its strength! Again, this in NO WAY proves prayer does ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AT ALL, only that you grasp at straws to validate your baseless beleif.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    Again, this in NO WAY proves prayer does ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AT ALL, only that you grasp at straws to validate your baseless beleif.
    Just asking, how many times has science been proven incorrect? How many mistakes have we made?

    We once prescribed a pregnancy medicine that caused birth defects in children. We didn't foresee the effect of cigarettes. Yet, we still like to poke at religion.

    Science is based on faith as well, for scientists and those that accept it. We had faith in those that told us cigarettes were fine, then many users were diagnosed with cancer. We had faith that the pregnancy pills made women feel better, until they gave birth.

    However, religious people are still considered the fools who believe in the unfounded.

    I find it humorous in a way.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Skiyk
    Again, this in NO WAY proves prayer does ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AT ALL, only that you grasp at straws to validate your baseless beleif.
    Just asking, how many times has science been proven incorrect? How many mistakes have we made?

    We once prescribed a pregnancy medicine that caused birth defects in children. We didn't foresee the effect of cigarettes. Yet, we still like to poke at religion.

    Science is based on faith as well, for scientists and those that accept it. We had faith in those that told us cigarettes were fine, then many users were diagnosed with cancer. We had faith that the pregnancy pills made women feel better, until they gave birth.

    However, religious people are still considered the fools who believe in the unfounded.

    I find it humorous in a way.
    The irony is if those mistaken ideas were really faith, we'd all still believe that way. Science is self correcting because its based on objective evidence and reason...the opposite of faith, which by definition is immune to reasoning based on evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Darius said:

    I can just as easily use your same argument: Prayer is in no way related to vectoring. You just claimed that prayer is not related to science, so it cannot be tested empirically (thus no physical proof can be given for its existence), yet you compare it to an empirical method of judging? I think you're confused.
    Well, either you are totally missing the point (probably on purpose) or you are sticking your head in the sand.

    There was no comparison between vectoring and prayer. The statement was about acting from faith (an element of prayer) and vectoring emphasizing that people do these things (and many other things) without understanding what they are doing.

    The comparison was between people being able to vector without actually understanding that is what they are doing and people acting based on faith without really understanding that is what they are doing.

    If you can't see that was the comparison, the things you wrote about me a few posts ago are probably far more appropriately attributed to you. Like we use to say, "I'm rubber, your glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you." I can act like a little kid, too.

    Darius also said:

    You sit down based on VISUAL PROOF that it's stable which has evolved for accuracy. It's not faith, it's LOGIC. I would not sit down on a chair of toothpicks without testing its strength! Again, this in NO WAY proves prayer does ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AT ALL, only that you grasp at straws to validate your baseless beleif.
    Either you live in a vacuum or you have not been around long enough to experience or witness much of life. I have seen people sit down in a chair that looked sound (one time a chair that he had used many times before) only to have it break under them. Do they have faulty logic because the chair broke? Is it because he had no reason to believe the chair would hold. Anytime we sit down in a chair, we do so not expecting it to break. If it looks rickety, we check it out. Otherwise we go ahead and sit in it without any suspicion that it may not hold us. This is an act of faith. We do this with no "real proof" the chair will hold us.

    You continue to admit there is no comparison and then make your comparisons so as to fit your own jaded view of the role of faith and your own embarrassing unwillingness to admit that you, too, often resort to faith based on nothing other than previous experiences and observations. Perhaps if you had experienced and observed "successful" prayers, you would try it yourself.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    You continue to admit there is no comparison and then make your comparisons so as to fit your own jaded view of the role of faith and your own embarrassing unwillingness to admit that you, too, often resort to faith based on nothing other than previous experiences and observations. Perhaps if you had experienced and observed "successful" prayers, you would try it yourself.
    You're confusing faith and expectation. Most scientist have an expectation that the giants who's shoulders they stand on did their work properly and if repeated the hypothesis they developed could be confirmed. This is what allows us to continue to develop new hypothesis without having to repeat every experiment or analysis every observation of the past several centuries. The only faith a scientist holds is that the universe can be comprehended by combining observation with reason.
    --
    It's much like the common misunderstanding the quote under your signature.

    If you look at the context its clear that he's not talking about religion in the popular use of the term:
    "Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

    He has a religion of sorts, which is faith that the universe is consistent enough to puzzle out how it works--it's largely why he mistakenly rejected quantum physics--thinking it too random.

    He's definitely not talking about personal god, or traditional religions and resounding rejects both many times with quotes like: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Lynx-Fox said:
    It's much like you misunderstanding of the quote under your signature.
    Uhhhhhmmm. Where did you read what I think that quote means? Methinks thou makest unfounded assumptions. Is this some sort typical attribute of atheistic scientism? Or do you just normally get most of your exercise by jumping to conclusions?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    You're confusing faith and expectation. Most scientist have an expectation that the giants who's shoulders they stand on did their work properly and if repeated the hypothesis they developed could be confirmed. This is what allows us to continue to develop new hypothesis without having to repeat every experiment or analysis every observation of the past several centuries. The only faith a scientist holds is that the universe can be comprehended by combining observation with reason.
    --
    So you have no problems with theists who have an expectation that their predecessors have done their work properly, etc etc?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    So you have no problems with theists who have an expectation that their predecessors have done their work properly, etc etc?
    Can they repeat them as scientist often do as they learn science? Can they check them against other types of observation? Can they measure them against anything that would qualify as credible? And perhaps most important, when a new hypothesis comes along, new observations, or a combination of both do they reevaluate? Most theist dig in their heals and would rather than proclaim faith rather than assume the particular interpretation was either largely or completely wrong. Saint Augustine's opinion was in the face of such knowledge the interpretation had to change and warned that to do otherwise would invite deserving ridicule as fools--this is where most creationist stand today. Of course they get in the worst pickle when the language of the scripture is in plain and unambiguous language that's more contrary to the evidence than an error of interpretation could be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The irony is if those mistaken ideas were really faith, we'd all still believe that way. Science is self correcting because its based on objective evidence and reason...the opposite of faith, which by definition is immune to reasoning based on evidence.
    Incorrect. You are talking about "blind faith". Skiyk's comment that about faith is 100% correct. Your observation just means that science is a very good example of the proper and rational use of faith and your example shows what is wrong with blind faith. So you would indeed be quite right to say that if medicine were run like many religions are then we would keep on using that medicine insisting that it is good and that any problems were the the fault of the people taking them. LOL Hell that might be a way of breeding a human race that was immune to the effects of that particular drug, at enormous cost to the quality of human lives and at the cost of a substantial reduction of the world population.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, either you are totally missing the point (probably on purpose) or you are sticking your head in the sand.

    There was no comparison between vectoring and prayer. The statement was about acting from faith (an element of prayer) and vectoring emphasizing that people do these things (and many other things) without understanding what they are doing.
    FACT: It's not an act of faith, it's an act of calculation. I already said this.

    I have seen people sit down in a chair that looked sound (one time a chair that he had used many times before) only to have it break under them. Do they have faulty logic because the chair broke? Is it because he had no reason to believe the chair would hold. Anytime we sit down in a chair, we do so not expecting it to break. If it looks rickety, we check it out. Otherwise we go ahead and sit in it without any suspicion that it may not hold us. This is an act of faith. We do this with no "real proof" the chair will hold us.
    Anecdotes don't prove anything at all. I've never seen a sound looking chair break. Ever. You could just as easily be making that up. Even if I assume you're not, I can just as easily assume the person judging the stability of the chair is incompetent, among a dozen other factors. Faith is never involved, and the conclusions are definite and noticable. The chair breaking? That's an empirical result. Prayer? Nothing. Oops?

    Even if we assume the person is above average in observation, sitting down on what appears to be a solid chair is also not an act of faith. It's an act based on statistical probability.

    You continue to admit there is no comparison and then make your comparisons so as to fit your own jaded view of the role of faith and your own embarrassing unwillingness to admit that you, too, often resort to faith based on nothing other than previous experiences and observations. Perhaps if you had experienced and observed "successful" prayers, you would try it yourself.
    Now THIS is an ad-hominem, because it addresses nothing whatsoever and just attacks my personality. I wonder why it wasn't moderated?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The irony is if those mistaken ideas were really faith, we'd all still believe that way. Science is self correcting because its based on objective evidence and reason...the opposite of faith, which by definition is immune to reasoning based on evidence.
    Incorrect. You are talking about "blind faith". Skiyk's comment that about faith is 100% correct. Your observation just means that science is a very good example of the proper and rational use of faith and your example shows what is wrong with blind faith. So you would indeed be quite right to say that if medicine were run like many religions are then we would keep on using that medicine insisting that it is good and that any problems were the the fault of the people taking them. LOL Hell that might be a way of breeding a human race that was immune to the effects of that particular drug, at enormous cost to the quality of human lives and at the cost of a substantial reduction of the world population.
    There's no such thing as a rational use of faith in a theist context, hence no real difference between blind-faith and faith. A theist believes in things that can't be proved and often is proud of the fact.

    But enjoy your pin-dance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Especially since faith quote clearly means "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    You continue to admit there is no comparison and then make your comparisons so as to fit your own jaded view of the role of faith and your own embarrassing unwillingness to admit that you, too, often resort to faith based on nothing other than previous experiences and observations. Perhaps if you had experienced and observed "successful" prayers, you would try it yourself.
    Now THIS is an ad-hominem, because it addresses nothing whatsoever and just attacks my personality. I wonder why it wasn't moderated?
    moderator:

    This is not quite true. It is not making the argument that you are a bad person therefore your argument is wrong. It is explaining why Dayton thinks your approach to the subject is wrong. No one should have to explain that they are not stupid, so a comment of that sort is off limits. But there is ample room here for you to explain that despite the impression that Dayton is getting from your post, your view of faith is not really jaded or that you are in fact willing to admit that you resort to faith (if in fact either of these are the case). The word "embarrassing" however is indeed out line, since clearly no one can make a determination on whether you feel any embarassment except you. (unless what Dayton means that it is he who is feeling embarassment over this?)

    In any case the primary subject of discussion is what you have been "continuing" to post and not indisputably just you yourself, though the wording could certainly use some improvements in order to make this more clear.

    In any case I hope that the both of you will make an effort to make any further posts more about the topic under discussion and less about each other.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Incorrect. You are talking about "blind faith". Skiyk's comment that about faith is 100% correct. Your observation just means that science is a very good example of the proper and rational use of faith and your example shows what is wrong with blind faith. So you would indeed be quite right to say that if medicine were run like many religions are then we would keep on using that medicine insisting that it is good and that any problems were the the fault of the people taking them. LOL Hell that might be a way of breeding a human race that was immune to the effects of that particular drug, at enormous cost to the quality of human lives and at the cost of a substantial reduction of the world population.
    There's no such thing as a rational use of faith in a theist context, hence no real difference between blind-faith and faith. A theist believes in things that can't be proved and often is proud of the fact.
    Everyone believes in things that cannot be proved in every human endeavor, including in every science. We can occasionally prove some things and we can even sometime find evidence for things, but most of the time we simply have reasons for accepting things because it seems reasonable to do so at least on a provisional basis. The point that you were making before regarding an unwillingness to change in the face of the evidence was a good one. I was pointing out that THIS is the distinction between blind faith and rational faith. Regardless, the full range of the meaning of the word "faith" cannot be confined to theism or religion.

    But your effort to say that the only way people could capable of rational faith is if they agree with your belief concerning this one question of theism, is terribly irrational, for you are not only unable to prove such a thing but it is simplicity itself to prove that you are wrong. To maintain such a claim you must distort your view of the world to an enormous degree pretending that all the scientists that happen to be theists don't exist in an act of blind faith on your own part, that is on par with that of the Flat Earth society.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Darius said:
    Now THIS is an ad-hominem, because it addresses nothing whatsoever and just attacks my personality. I wonder why it wasn't moderated?
    I wondered if the term "jaded view" might be a little subjective, but overall, the statement you object to is an assessment of your unwillingness to recognize that you, too, act on faith in many instances. What is so funny is that we Christians are continuously subjected to ad hominom attacks and put up with it for a long time before complaining, but there are so many atheists who take any criticism of their thoughts as being ad hominem

    Darius writes:

    FACT: It's not an act of faith, it's an act of calculation. I already said this.
    And you are just as wrong this time as you were the first time. Unfortunately, what you are saying here still does not relate to the point being made. The point is that we are capable of doing things without knowing or understanding what it is we are doing.

    It seems virtually impossible to get the point across to you, since you seem incapable of getting beyond the point of noting that vectoring and faith are not the same things which no one has claimed.

    Again, my point is that vectoring is something we can do whether we know what it is called, whether we understand how our brain is accomplishing it, whether we realize it or not. If you see someone sitting at a stop sign, looking back and forth for an entry point into traffic, you know that person is vectoring whether he does or not. He can try to say, "Oh, no, I don't believe in that vectoring stuff. I am not doing it. What I am really doing is judging when I can get into traffic."

    In the same way, I know that people who claim they do nothing from faith actually do act from faith each and every day. You walk down the sidewalk in the faith and belief that cars are not going to drive up there and kill you. You eat food in a restaurant in the faith and belief that it has been properly prepared and will not poison you. You claim you are merely acting on what you belief will be the outcome based on your experience and knowledge. But that is what faith is about too. Merely claiming this is not faith does not remove it from the realm of faith.

    You may wish to call it something other than faith so as to maintain your distance from your own faulty definition of faith. People operate on their experiences and observations, but as long as one does anything wherein he does not absolutely know the final outcome, he is doing so with the faith that your experience and observation predicts a successful end.

    No matter how many times or how many ways you attempt to exclude yourself from the use of faith, you will be as guilty of using faith just as is the driver at the stop sign is guilty of vectoring.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But your effort to say that the only way people could capable of rational faith...
    "Rational faith" is an oxymoron, that only makes sense in broader context of what you refer to as blind faith. For example an Islamic teenager about to blow himself has rational faith that the only way to get back into Allah's grace after screwing his sister. His idea is only internally rational because it's built upon the blind faith that Allah really exit and the angle Gabriel revealed Allah's word to Mohammad. I remember Catholicism, the religion into which I was raised--it's also highly rational within its framework of blind faith--but the use of the phrase rational faith is meaningless outside that framework and obfuscates the point that it's entirely based on what you referred to as "blind-faith."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Lynx-Fox said (in part):

    I remember Catholicism, the religion into which I was raised--it's also highly rational within its framework of blind faith
    Hmmm. Do you realize that one of the main bickering points between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is that Protestants claim that Catholicism is a religion of works rather than a religion of faith?

    Fifty Hail Marys for your penance.

    You and Darius must have both gone to the same School of Dawkins to get your understanding of faith -- "Faith is evil..."

    And it is really laughable to see you (as well as Dawkings) operating from this narrow view of one potential adverse side effect of faith as being the only possible result. That, in and of itself, is a conclusion based on faith.

    Faith, as the Bible defines it, is the "Substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

    Do you ever hope for something that you do not know you will receive but feel certain you will? You ever apply for a job and feel that you had the qualifications, had a good interview and feel reasonably confident that you will get the job? That is an aspect of faith.

    Have you ever received a present and, knowing the giver, observing the shape of the present and shaking it and feeling its heft, developed a firm belief as to what was inside the gift wrapping? That is an aspect of faith.

    You (nor Darius) don't seem to like that characterization because you are so hung up on Dawkins' faulty, incomplete view of faith.

    In neither case do you know the final outcome, but you may well believe and act on your belief before you get the job or open the present. You might start looking for a new apartment or you may look at accessories to present. You are acting on faith, but not blind faith, there is substance and evidence to support your belief and motivate your action. Blind faith would be going out and renting a new apartment before knowing you had the new job. Blind faith would be purchasing accessories before opening the present. Blind faith is not what most Christians practice.

    Now then, I may not agree that you have the necessary qualifications for the job. Does that mean your faith is baseless or unfounded? (No.) I may not agree that the gift package seems to hold what you think it holds. Does that mean your faith is baseless and unfounded? (No.)

    Do some people misuse or misapply their idea of faith? Most certainly. If someone throws away his insulin to rely on God to cure their diabetes, I call that stupidity, not faith, and I will check to see if they have a good funeral plan. When some Muslim goes out and suicide bombs innocent people, I call that murder, not faith.

    Just because you call something faith does not mean it is really faith. One may use the term to justify an unwise or foolish act. Another may use the term to castigate or denigrate the acts someone else. One's faith can be misplaced or faith can blind one to the facts. Or you may call faith something else when it is actually faith.

    As a Christian, I am as skeptical of people who claim to do "everything" by faith as I am of those who claim to do "nothing" by faith.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I wondered if the term "jaded view" might be a little subjective, but overall, the statement you object to is an assessment of your unwillingness to recognize that you, too, act on faith in many instances.
    So, I argue that these aren't based on faith, and it's my "unwillingness to recognize it" based on...?

    And you are just as wrong this time as you were the first time.
    And you're still not proving it wrong, just like the last time!

    The point is that we are capable of doing things without knowing or understanding what it is we are doing.
    Yet this, in no way, supports your claim that it is done based on faith (ignorance != faith), OR proves prayer works.

    It seems virtually impossible to get the point across to you, since you seem incapable of getting beyond the point of noting that vectoring and faith are not the same things which no one has claimed.
    Straw man anyone? Also, your statement
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The statement was about acting from faith (an element of prayer) and vectoring emphasizing that people do these things (and many other things) without understanding what they are doing.
    correlates faith to ignorance, so yes you did argue they are the same thing.

    In the same way, I know that people who claim they do nothing from faith actually do act from faith each and every day.
    Are you never going to stop presenting constant anecdotal evidence? I see no such thing. How will you prove it?

    You walk down the sidewalk in the faith and belief that cars are not going to drive up there and kill you.
    No, I judge logically based on their behavior and, once again, statistical probability.

    You eat food in a restaurant in the faith and belief that it has been properly prepared and will not poison you.
    No, it's highly implausible based on statistical probability. There's no faith, only probability.

    You claim you are merely acting on what you belief will be the outcome based on your experience and knowledge.
    I claim what?

    You may wish to call it something other than faith so as to maintain your distance from your own faulty definition of faith. People operate on their experiences and observations, but as long as one does anything wherein he does not absolutely know the final outcome, he is doing so with the faith that your experience and observation predicts a successful end.
    Ones actions are determined by probability, not by faith. Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof, this includes the lack of statistical proof.

    No matter how many times or how many ways you attempt to exclude yourself from the use of faith, you will be as guilty of using faith just as is the driver at the stop sign is guilty of vectoring.
    You just equated faith to vectoring again.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    darius said:

    Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof, this includes the lack of statistical proof.
    That is YOUR (wrong) definition of faith. So long as you cling to this Dawkins inspired version of faith, you will be wrong about faith. You do not understand it beyond your own wrong definition. So be it. Live in your narrow minded world.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    That is YOUR (wrong) definition of faith.
    KER-PWN.


    So long as you cling to this Dawkins inspired version of faith, you will be wrong about faith.
    KER-PWN

    You do not understand it beyond your own wrong definition.
    KER-PWN
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But your effort to say that the only way people could capable of rational faith...
    "Rational faith" is an oxymoron
    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam Webster
    Main Entry: faith
    Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
    Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust more at bide
    Date: 13th century
    1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
    3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
    Thus to say that rational faith is an oxymoron is to say that you:
    1a Cannot have allegiance to duty or a person that is rational.
    Cannot have loyalty that is rational.
    Cannot have fildelity to one's promises that is rational.
    Cannot have sincerity of intentions that is rational.
    2a Cannot have a firm belief in something for which there is no proof and still be rational.
    Cannot have complete trust and still be rational.
    3 Cannot believe something with strong conviction and still be rational.

    So either you simply don't believe what you are saying with much conviction or you are not rational.

    As a scientist I have a strong conviction that mathematics is consistent and I not only cannot prove this but I know that it has been proven that it is impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent (Godel's proof). As a scientist I have a firm belief in the methods of science for I adopt the premise that the evidence is not a part of some elaborate attempt to deceive me. So call me irrational but I look at the fossil and genetic studies as well as documented observations of species and repeatable experiments evolving microbes and I conclude that the origin of the species is in the process of evolution. I cannot prove that I am not being deceived. I accept this on faith. I cannot prove what happened but I follow the direction that the evidence points in an act of rational faith.

    I look at your blind faith in this dogma of yours that rational faith is an oxymoron and you look to me like the those who believe in talking snakes, magical fruit, golems of dust and flesh, giants and a magical power of command. Why oh why do people stubbornly ignore all the evidence to insist on irrational beliefs like this? The only common denominator I see is this clinging to an argument that they are superior because of it. Fundies think their obedience to God makes them superior and you seem to think your lack of belief in anything without proof makes you superior. But I don't believe the argument of either one. I don't believe the fundies are obedient to God and I don't believe that you lack any belief without proof. Do people cling to such irrational dogmas like this ignoring all the evidence right in front of them because they are addicted to an idea of their own superiority? Just a stab in the dark because I really do not understand it. But in any case, I have no taste for your blind faith any more than that of the fundies. I choose rational faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Islamic teenager about to blow himself has rational faith that the only way to get back into Allah's grace after screwing his sister. His idea is only internally rational because it's built upon the blind faith that Allah really exit and the angle Gabriel revealed Allah's word to Mohammad.
    Yes, "blind faith" is capable of horrific things and that is why I will have nothing to do with yours any more than with that of the fundies of other types. Fundie atheists are in fact responsible for the most horrific attrocities of the last century. Now you can spout the "no-true Scottsman" fallacy until you are blue in the face, but I say a "rose by any other name" has the same smell. What is particularly scary about your particular blindness is the similarity it has to all the other sorts of bigotry in the world. It refuses to accept the diversity of human thought and human belief and human lifestyle, and looks on a group of people with some blind ideological framework and identifies them with evil in some manner just because of who they are. The fundamentalist Muslims identify non-muslims with evil, the homophobes identify homosexuality and thus homosexuals with evil and you identify relgion and thus religious people with evil.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    "Rational faith" ... only makes sense in broader context of what you refer to as blind faith.
    You may be willing to ignore the broader context but I am not. Fundies are always willing to ignore the broader context but I am not. Blind faith is a reality in the extremists of both theistic and atheistic varieties and so I reject it for the horrors of which it is capable. Rational faith is a reality in method and practice of people like scientists in both theistic and atheistic varieties and so I embrace it for the great acheivements of which they are capable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I remember Catholicism, the religion into which I was raised--it's also highly rational within its framework of blind faith--but the use of the phrase rational faith is meaningless outside that framework and obfuscates the point that it's entirely based on what you referred to as "blind-faith."
    I was not raised in any sort of religion at all, and I certainly cannot comment on whether or not the beliefs in which you were raised were a blind faith or rational faith. But I have noticed that it does seem to be the case that the habits of one's upbringing are hard to break.

    In any case, you continue to ignore the critical distinction here. Rational faith cannot ever be based on blind faith. Either you are willing to respond to the evidence in order to change what you put your faith in, or you are not. The evidence says that your faith in these dogmas of yours is blind and irrational. So which shall it be in your case, rational faith or blind faith?

    I have looked at all the so called proofs for the existence of God and I see nothing that amounts to a valid objective proof among any of them. So you can believe that there is no God and put your faith in that belief if you like, even though you cannot prove it. That is a rational faith.

    But this dogma of yours that rationality and faith are incompatible just isn't consistent, not with the definitions of the words, not with the methods of scientific inquiry, and not with the reality of the diversity of human beings in the world. Perhaps your childhood was one of blind faith but why not leave that dark past and it bad habits behind you?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    No mincing with other definitions are going to matter because they aren't relevant to this discussion. I think you know full well that this conversation is about
    2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

    And I don't think you'd find it a Dawkin's definition either...it probably dates earlier than the original Webster.

    The attempt to equivocate reason and faith are ridiculous...they have nothing do with each other. If it could be proven it wouldn't be faith.

    If there's an internally logical conversation based assumptions of faith in an unprovable god doing unproven things (like salvation), or flying pigs (e.g. big ones fly slower than thin ones yada yada etc ) , it doesn't mean it's rational-faith. The notion of rational-faith is just a form of double speak that disguises its inherently irrational faith based assumptions.

    The only faith a scientist has is that the universe is knowable.

    Most people of faith assume the universe is unknowable (cause god is BIG, omnipotent...whatever) and all too often has stop looking for answers outside that compartmentalized irrational set of assumptions they dare not examine (and are warned not to as Christians)--sometimes they even go as far as interfere with others who actually want some proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The only faith a scientist has is that the universe is knowable.
    That is one hell of an act of faith. I wonder how many scientists consciously realise, on a routine basis, that they are making this huge faith based assumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    I just want to chuck in another point here.

    Many people believe that those who believe in Christianity are foolish, compared to the common scientific reasoning behind the creation of the earth and life, etc..

    But what proof do we have that the Universe started with the Big Bang? We have bits of evidence here and there and theory. Mainly theory.

    The theory that humans evolved from another species, the theory that the Universe was formed from a Big Bang.

    But isn't that sort of like religion? There is no solid or complete proof, we merely need to believe.

    Now, I know that theory and faith are very different. Theory is an educated 'guess' based on certain facts while faith is support of an idea based on no proof. However, the principals are similar. None have solid proof but both are widely believe nonetheless.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The only faith a scientist has is that the universe is knowable.
    That is one hell of an act of faith. I wonder how many scientists consciously realise, on a routine basis, that they are making this huge faith based assumption.
    Obviously we exist. And since we are self-aware it would be reasonable to assume we can know our surroundings. The fact that we can know anything at all is enough to make an assumption as mentioned in the above quotes. Whether or not we can know the universe 'correctly' depends entirely on the methodology we use.

    In the end it all boils down to probability -- as determined by repeated testing, investigation of available data and consistency with the data, experiments and predictions -- whether or not the correct knowledge has been aquired.

    I wouldn't call it a big assumption to say that the universe is knowable. Where else would all the data come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Obviously we exist.
    It is obvious to me that I exist at least some of the time, but not necessarily all of the time. I have no idea what happens to me when I am asleep and not dreaming. It is not at all obvious to me that you exist. I assume you do, but I do so largely as an act of faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    No mincing with other definitions are going to matter because they aren't relevant to this discussion. I think you know full well that this conversation is about
    2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

    And I don't think you'd find it a Dawkin's definition either...it probably dates earlier than the original Webster.

    The attempt to equivocate reason and faith are ridiculous...they have nothing do with each other. If it could be proven it wouldn't be faith.
    The only equivocation here is yours. You are the one trying to run rough shod over distinction in order to cram your simple minded version of things down every ones throat. There is absolutely NOTHING in my posts that attemps to erase any distinction between reason and faith. I have in fact repeatedly made it clear that they are not the same thing. No the equivocation is yours and it is the one that I pointed out several posts ago, the equivocation between faith and blind faith. You pretend that all kinds of things (different kinds of people and other definitions of faith) don't exist to support this delusion that reason is the opposite of faith with the same sort of childishness that calls the moon the opposite of the sun. It is absurd.

    The child of limited experience perhaps fails to notice that the sun and the moon are actually quite often in the sky together. Wake up and look at the sky and stop pretending. Yes there are those that choose faith alone in defiance of rationality and perhaps that was how you were raised. That explains a lot. But in your reaction you have gone from one blind faith to another. Let me repeat: It is rational to believe that there is no God, but it is not rational to believe this nonsense about only believing what is proven.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The only faith a scientist has is that the universe is knowable.
    Prove it.

    Prove one scientific fact with your statement as the only given truth.

    You cannot. But I can prove the opposite.

    Let us take as our example some of the scientific research you have done. Give us some links to a scientific paper you worked on and I will read it and point out what that paper has taken on faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Most people of faith assume the universe is unknowable (cause god is BIG, omnipotent...whatever) and all too often has stop looking for answers outside that compartmentalized irrational set of assumptions they dare not examine (and are warned not to as Christians)--sometimes they even go as far as interfere with others who actually want some proof.
    First of all, I disupute your equivocation of "people of faith" and "religious people". I have no doubt that they would have us believe that they are the ones with the faith but I don't think the evidence supports this. Even if you accept the assumptions of a Christian world view (which I suspect you have done), you can make the observation that Jesus did NOT see much faith in the religious people of his time. I don't think the fact that Christians use the word "faith" a lot has changed the circumstances all that significantly.

    Now those "creationists" in anti-science cults have certainly made it clear that they do not want science to have an explanation for the origin of life and the species. But I don't think they would say that the universe is unknowable. I think they believe that with their direct line to the ultimate knower of all things that they have an inside scoop on it all. Now they might say it is unknowable without the help of their God, but the truth is that they just want to pretend they have control of the information just as they want to pretend they have control of God.

    It is a rather common story from former Catholics that some priest or person of authority in the church fed them this "its a mystery" line, and so I can imagine where you got this "universe is unknowable" hypothesis. The Catholic church is a big organization and it does not surprise me in the least that there are many in positions of power that do their best to protect their power and importance by protecting the ignorance of the people who give them that power and importance. It is one of the flaws of the Catholic church with their authoritarian approach to Christianity.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    It is obvious to me that I exist at least some of the time, but not necessarily all of the time. I have no idea what happens to me when I am asleep and not dreaming. It is not at all obvious to me that you exist. I assume you do, but I do so largely as an act of faith.
    I think you need more faith for such a statement.

    As I pointed out, where else would all the data come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    It is obvious to me that I exist at least some of the time, but not necessarily all of the time. I have no idea what happens to me when I am asleep and not dreaming. It is not at all obvious to me that you exist. I assume you do, but I do so largely as an act of faith.
    I think you need more faith for such a statement.
    Apparently not, since I made the statement with the amount of faith I currently have. More was not necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As I pointed out, where else would all the data come from?
    From my imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Praying doesnt help? Try telling that to the millions of people out there who would disagree.

    Its interesting to note that people think that God will answer all the requests he hears as prayers... where do they get that notion from me wonders???

    Yet more pathetic arguments...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Praying doesnt help? Try telling that to the millions of people out there who would disagree.
    Popularity of a belief does not change how likely it is to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Its interesting to note that people think that God will answer all the requests he hears as prayers... where do they get that notion from me wonders???
    This notion comes from priests or whatever of their religion, who pretty much tell them this. Are you saying that people's beliefs are wrong?

    Are you going to provide some sort of evidence that god listens to your prayers but does nothing about them? Or are you just assuming you are right, based on nothing?

    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Yet more pathetic arguments...
    Indeed.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I am going to take ti for granted that we are talking about the chriustian God in this thread.

    Based on this if I prayed to God to send an earthquake that would kill thousands of people, do you think he would do it just because I prayed?

    I think not...

    If you pray for forgiveness THAT will always be granted. Other things are not certain.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I never got any response to any prayer. So I gave up on that rubbish.

    So far, no harm has come from it. In fact, if anything, some good has come from it; since then I have got on with my life, unworried about magical invisible men hunting me down, scrutinising my every choice.

    It's relieving; try it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As I pointed out, where else would all the data come from?
    From my imagination.
    Where does your imagination come from?

    I think Ockham's Razor is a good principle to be taken into account here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I never got any response to any prayer. So I gave up on that rubbish.

    So far, no harm has come from it. In fact, if anything, some good has come from it; since then I have got on with my life, unworried about magical invisible men hunting me down, scrutinising my every choice.

    It's relieving; try it.
    A few months ago I was very much into christianity and so forth and I did pray and I think it did help. There have been other times since then though that it seems like im being ignored.

    An interesting point:

    When I was praying and getting some kind of benefit I was in the deepest despair. Lately when I've prayed I havent been in nearly such a bad state. So perhaps thats why nothing has been answered. Perhaps this time I didn't need any help from god to overcome my problems?

    Who knows...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    When I was praying and getting some kind of benefit I was in the deepest despair.
    Aha.

    When I'm depressed, I take some time alone to go walking, and take a fair amount of stupid risks. A combination of thinking time and adrenaline fixes my mind.

    My point is, this has a similar effect on me as praying does to you; and likewise, it only really makes me feel better when I'm very much depressed to start with.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    No mincing with other definitions are going to matter because they aren't relevant to this discussion. I think you know full well that this conversation is about
    2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

    And I don't think you'd find it a Dawkin's definition either...it probably dates earlier than the original Webster.

    The attempt to equivocate reason and faith are ridiculous...they have nothing do with each other. If it could be proven it wouldn't be faith.
    The only equivocation here is yours. You are the one trying to run rough shod over distinction in order to cram your simple minded version of things down every ones throat. There is absolutely NOTHING in my posts that attemps to erase any distinction between reason and faith. I have in fact repeatedly made it clear that they are not the same thing.
    All I see is your attempt to blend the two despite their sharp distinctions. Your attempt to explain have been examples of logical arguments made within irrational frameworks. You argue they are rational-faith, I think they are inherently irrational--hence my reference to pin-dances (and a good percentage of theological works). And to be honest I don't see how you could clearly argue anything else.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The only faith a scientist has is that the universe is knowable.
    Prove it.
    It is the very definition of being a scientist, but I don't intend to review the entire scientific method here. I'll admit some are able to compartmentalize the objective selfs from their faith--I don't get it but I'll give you that much. Successful scientist don't let the two mix, if they did they loose their objectivity.


    First of all, I disupute your equivocation of "people of faith" and "religious people".
    BS, I've several times complained that others use them interchangeably. Religion and faith are MOST DEFINITELY NOT the same thing. You can be an atheistic religious person--Buddhism comes to mind as a major religion largely based on this concept (even in obsolete form)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    All I see is your attempt to blend the two despite their sharp distinctions.
    Oh it is quite obvious that you read this into what I say. But I DO NOT read anything into what you say. You have been quite explicit and insistent with this nonsense about faith and reason being incompatable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Your attempt to explain have been examples of logical arguments made within irrational frameworks.
    What examples? LOL It is like I am having a conversation with someone who has projected several other people on top of me. I have been talking about the role of faith in science from the begining but you seem to be constantly thinking about what someone else said about rationality in relgion. So you make it constantly apparent that you do not hear what I am saying at all. LOL But of course, I take your point that rationality has a place in religion also. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You argue they are rational-faith,
    No I have not. This is you projecting again. I have argued that science is an example of rational faith. You go back over and read what I said as carefully as you should have the first time and find where I have said that anything else is an example of rational faith. Pay close attention to the user name because anything that was written under a username other than mitchellmckain was not written by me.

    Now, I have acknowledged that it is quite possible that there was absolutely nothing rational about the religion in which you were raised. But no I do not think that you can legitimately speak about the rationality of anyone else's experience in religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I think they are inherently irrational--hence my reference to pin-dances (and a good percentage of theological works). And to be honest I don't see how you could clearly argue anything else.
    Perhaps you are inherently irrational because you certainly have quite consistently refused to be rational on this subject.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    We'll just have to agree to disagree.
    Of course I cannot force to you to be rational about this any more than I can force the Flat earth people and Young earth creationists to be rational. Again I repeat for the third time, it is rational to believe that God does not exist but it is not rational to think that you only believe what has been proven, THAT can only be the product of considerable self-delusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The only faith a scientist has is that the universe is knowable.
    Prove it.
    It is the very definition of being a scientist, but I don't intend to review the entire scientific method here.
    No it is not. You really expect me to accept anyone who believes that the universe is knowable is a scientist? LOL A scientist uses the scientific methodology all the time in his work. He doesn't have to recall what he was taught in grade school, which is often pretty distorted (I know because I have seen it recently in my son's elementary school). So I think that reviewing the methodology would be very helpful in telling me just where your understanding is at. The thing is, I run into people all the time who confuse science with using scientific equipment and thus scientists with technicians.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I'll admit some are able to compartmentalize the objective selfs from their faith--I don't get it but I'll give you that much. Successful scientist don't let the two mix, if they did they loose their objectivity.
    Only on the side of science. Religious/philosophical conviction can at most inspire but not inform scientific inquiry or you get the kind of pseudoscience you find in creationism and homosexuality studies. But science can certainly inform ones relgious/philsophical convictions. For a few people like me (and I suspect John Polkinghorne is another example), who were always scientist first and religious second it goes much deeper than this. You see unlike you I was not raised in any relgion and so for me it is the scientific view of the world which is my most basic and fundamental perception of the world, so I have had no cause to delude myself into thinking that everything I believe was achieved by a scientific methodology. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    First of all, I disupute your equivocation of "people of faith" and "religious people".
    BS, I've several times complained that others use them interchangeably. Religion and faith are MOST DEFINITELY NOT the same thing. You can be an atheistic religious person--Buddhism comes to mind as a major religion largely based on this concept (even in obsolete form)
    LOL "We'll just have to agree to" agree on that one. LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    When I was praying and getting some kind of benefit I was in the deepest despair.
    Aha.

    When I'm depressed, I take some time alone to go walking, and take a fair amount of stupid risks. A combination of thinking time and adrenaline fixes my mind.

    My point is, this has a similar effect on me as praying does to you; and likewise, it only really makes me feel better when I'm very much depressed to start with.
    yeah I do the walking thing alot too. Adrenaline scary shit is not my cupa of tea though lol

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    When I was praying and getting some kind of benefit I was in the deepest despair.
    Aha.

    When I'm depressed, I take some time alone to go walking, and take a fair amount of stupid risks. A combination of thinking time and adrenaline fixes my mind.

    My point is, this has a similar effect on me as praying does to you; and likewise, it only really makes me feel better when I'm very much depressed to start with.
    yeah I do the walking thing alot too. Adrenaline scary shit is not my cupa of tea though lol
    hehe. Nothing seems to scare me

    Taking long walks, or runs, is pretty crucial to maintaining my mental health, I think.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •