Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything)

  • Thread starter Thread starter SomeGuyWithQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
Seems to me those that believe they can measure the actions of almighty God are delusional.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm…and some would argue that miracles are evidence of God…I guess you would argue otherwise.
 
vz71 said:
That is not a tangible thing.
Since the efficacy is something that cannot be measured, I doubt the findings.
Click to expand...
What about the efficacy of a medication? The double-blind method measures the efficacy really well. Half of the patients receives the real medication, the other half gets a placebo… and we can measure which one was effective.
 
vz71 said:
No.
Just that God is not something that can be empirically tested.
Click to expand...
Ah, but the efficacy of prayer can be measured. As the study’s authors pointed out, the fact that prayer seems to be ineffective doesn’t tell us anything about God. But it does tell us something about the efficacy of prayer. Don’t confuse the two.
 
You’ll need to explain this, if you would.

There are things I hope for — the happiness of my family; the welfare of my neighbours; and so on — I’m not sure what you mean by hope in.

I was born because I am the child of my parents. Why should there have been a need, other than my parents’ need?

Why would there be a purpose, other than those purposes we choose to have, or those purposes we carry because of our duty to those who depend on us? Are those not enough?
 
Last edited:
Right, thank you, I understand, and I agree with you, It is the reply I usually make if I am accused of denying God. How can I if I don’t believe God exists?
 
The source of my hope is within myself. If I hope for the happiness of my grandchildren, the source of that hope is my love for my grandchildren.
 
What makes you think so?

Yes, this is the argument that life must have “meaning”. What does that “mean”? Does life have no meaning if I determine my own purpose and pursue it? Does it have more purpose if I am a bit player in a drama someone else has plotted?
 
Last edited:
Thank you. You are obviously very happy in your faith, and that is good to see.
 
PickyPicky said:
although different people and different cultures may have different opinions as to what is shameful and what constitutes justice.
Click to expand...
And how do we decide whether those differing opinions are just, nor not?
PickyPicky said:
Their ontological differences may exist as you believe, but the fact remains that God A and God B and gods c, d, and e may require different things from their followers, may urge different moralities, just as one atheist or culture may have a different morality from another.
Click to expand...
It’s the difference between an absolute source (a supernatural cause) and hypothetical entities that may or may not be identified with that source. The latter may have differing moral codes but the former is the basis for ethical realism.
PickyPicky said:
So your question applies to believers just as much as non-believers
Click to expand...
I think we should not identify non-believers and atheists too closely together. Someone can be a “None” but a philosophical deist, rather than an atheist. I wonder why there are so few of these.
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
And how do we decide whether those differing opinions are just, nor not?
Click to expand...
You may perhaps judge by the tenets of your church; another by the tenets of his. I may judge it by the morality of my culture; another by the tenets of his. So the believer is in no more assured a situation than the atheist.
 
Neithan said:
I think we should not identify non-believers and atheists too closely together. Someone can be a “None” but a philosophical deist, rather than an atheist.
Click to expand...
Yes. I tend to use the term non-believer for myself to avoid the discussion about agnostics v atheists, hard atheists against soft atheists, and all the rest of it.
 
But you’re all of you judging by some standard, right?
And the standard has to be apart from your current culture or religion or whatever, right?
Where did the STANDARD come from?

If there is no standard (or what we might call ‘absolutes’ with regard to moral truths), then why would we find some societies to be MORE moral and some LESS?

Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, North Korea today, Libya, Iran, Iraq are all functioning according to their moral standards. But few people would find those moral standards to ‘match up’ with those of say ancient Greece, Rome in the Golden Age, the "Golden Rule’ of Confucius, England under Magna Carta, etc.

Why do we say some moral teachings or values are ‘less worthy’ than others unless we are comparing them to something else–a yardstick by which we measure our ‘own’ moral teachings and values and find them more or less in line with that standard or yardstick?

And where did it come from?
 
vz71 said:
40.png
lelinator:
Ah, but the efficacy of prayer can be measured.
Click to expand...
Any answer to prayer is an act of God.
And as we agreed, actions of God cannot be empirically tested.
Click to expand...
The study that we’re talking about consisted of people suffering from illnesses. Some were verified to have been prayed for while others were not. The idea was to check to see If those prayed for were more or less likely to get healed than those who were not prayed for. The answer was they were healed at about the same rate.

Now we do the same thing all the time with new medicines. We give half a group of people suffering from an illness a new drug and the other a placebo (so as to account for purely psychological effects of thinking one is taking a drug that can heal them). Us laypeople don’t often know how these drugs work, but we can gauge their results. Drugs that do no better than placebos are considered ineffective.

Now taking it back to prayer, the point of intercessionary prayer is asking God to intercede on their behalf to get something needed (in this case health). If such prayer doesn’t increase the chance of being healed, it doesn’t disprove your God, but it does give doubters a very good reason to doubt.

As far as “no” answers, to disbelievers it seems more like “no answer”. If I ask my boss for a raise he will tell me “yes” or “no”, and if it’s a “no” I know I’ve been answered. By hearing nothing, seeing nothing in response to a prayer it’s the believer who assumes there is an answer. I would get the same non-response if I had prayed to a god we agree doesn’t exist or to an inanimate object.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
The study that we’re talking about consisted of people suffering from illnesses. Some were verified to have been prayed for while others were not. The idea was to check to see If those prayed for were more or less likely to get healed than those who were not prayed for. The answer was they were healed at about the same rate.
Click to expand...
So people prayed to God, and didn’t get the answers they were expecting.

How exactly did they limit God to just those options in the test? To some degree, testing of prayer will require some measure of control over God. Good luck with that.
 
Prayer is supposed to be used in the spiritual life not exterior things.
 
It can be like how the latin words pulchra, formosa, bella and speciosa can all mean beautiful.
 
Interesting question. @SomeGuyWithQuestions what do you think?

There’s a fair amount of research showing a positive correlation between faith and happiness. On the other hand, it’s no guarantor because clinical depression can strike anybody.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top