Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything)

[jesusmademe]

And why is that?

 

[FiveLinden]

To me as an unbeliever the greatest evidence of in inefficacy of prayer is the evidence of the lack of answers to the prayers of the parents of hundreds of millions of children who died none-the-less.

 

[vz71]

You’re saying that it’s possible that God refuses healing for one billion people asking for it.

Are all of them in line with God’s will?
Are none of them?

Why do you keep trying to reword the question?
You have already been told, one cannot empirically test the efficacy of prayer. Is this answer really so hard for you to accept that you find yourself with no other option but to simply keep asking the same thing?

 

[vz71]

To me as an unbeliever the greatest evidence of in inefficacy of prayer is the evidence of the lack of answers to the prayers of the parents…

This can also be contrasted against all of those that found comfort in their relationship with God in that time of need.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They likely don’t feel a need to go so they just don’t.

 

[Sean]

Do you believe in the soul

 

[Gorgias]

The only thing you referred was the authority of the Church. At least be consistent in your arguments. You did NOT offer anything else.

I am being consistent: when you ask a question, then go to the appropriate expert for the answer. Easy peasy!

I did NOT say that that the crowd is right, because they are a crowd. I merely referred to their conviction.

The funny thing is that this was your response to the assertion that they’re mistaken. So, if your response wasn’t meant to convey “they’re right, and they’re legion”, then what force does it have?

Why would it? The principle is the same.

No, the principle is completely different: it’s not that prayer causes God to heal, it’s that prayer causes us to align to the will of God. Unless you want to assert that your experiment measures “alignment to the will of God”, you don’t have a leg to stand on here…

If there is no causative relationship between a prayer, and the healing, then the only rational conclusion is that the once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence is just a lucky break.

Believers would say that it wasn’t “lucky break”, but “will of God”.

You sound more and more like my kids complaining that I always say no.

They even tried to make the same argument that there is no correlation between their asking and my granting permission. That somehow it is just a crap shoot as to whether or not my approval will come.

LOL!

That is how these sorts of petulant responses appear, no?

Unfortunately no one attempts to explain it. They merely declare it ex-cathedra, and that is the problem. I wonder if you actually understand the difference?

What ‘explanation’ do you need? We’ve provided the teaching of the Church. If you wish, you can look it up in the Catechism. What else do you need?

If everything was the same except none of the 100 people prayed would those same 60 people be healed? If the answer is yes, then why are people told to pray when they are in dire straits?

So that they begin to align their will with God’s will.

 

[Gorgias]

Why would a vast majority of miracles certified to grant sainthood involved people who were healed after praying to that saint?

Because we’d say that it was God’s will that people pray for each other, and that a person in heaven be publicly declared a saint.

It’s usually because I’ve pointed out that scripture is allegedly supposed to mean the opposite of what it actually says.

Nah; it’s usually because you demand that it mean what it says on the letter of the text. God help us all if you find Scripture asserting that it’s raining cats and dogs…

A vast majority of apologetics is claiming that disconfirming evidence doesn’t count

Says you.

Even as a symbolic tale it casts God in a very poor light.

Really? It says that God’s willing to save the many (evil) for the sake of the few (good). That “casts God in a very poor light”? I’d hate to see what you think casts Him in a good light!

That’s not an answer. Yes or no, in some cases would you say the benefit of the prayer is the healing that is asked for?

Of course it’s an answer. If I asked you to get @vz71 a glass of water, and you were already planning to get him a glass of water, and in fact you did get him a glass of water… would you say that he got a glass of water because of my request? Or, would you rather say that we’re all aligned in our desire to make sure that his thirst was quenched?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I am being consistent: when you ask a question, then go to the appropriate expert for the answer. Easy peasy!

But you did not bring up any arguments, only referred to the authority. Learn this: “if you have an actual argument, you don’t need to refer to some authority. If you have no argument, reference to some authority will not help you”.

The funny thing is that this was your response to the assertion that they’re mistaken. So, if your response wasn’t meant to convey “they’re right, and they’re legion ”, then what force does it have?

Except I did not say anything of that kind. Read it again. I did not say that the number of the believers make their belief acceptable, I only pointed out that zillions of believers pray for something, and if their prayer seems to be fulfilled, then they attribute that result to the power of the prayer.

Of course I do not believe that, I believe that there was no causative relationship between the prayer and the positive outcome. Looks like your belief is the same. So why don’t you say it out loud? Go to the “Prayer intentions” sub forum and tell the posters: “do not ASK for anything, just try to get closer to God’s will”. Are you ready to do that?

And when a positive response SEEMS to happen, then explain that the response that nothing to do with their supplication, it would have happened anyhow. Just do this, and see what will happen.

Believers would say that it wasn’t “lucky break”, but “will of God”.

What is the difference? The will of God has nothing to do with the supplicative / intercessory prayers, does it? If God’s will would have been to heal anyhow, then the prayer did not add anything. There are different kinds of prayers, especially the “contemplative or meditative prayers”, which DO try to get closer to God, and submit to God’s will. But those prayers do NOT ask for favors. This is really elementary logic 101.

What ‘explanation’ do you need? We’ve provided the teaching of the Church. If you wish, you can look it up in the Catechism. What else do you need?

Rational substantiation. The fact that I respect the Church and the catechism does not mean that I automatically accept what they say. My stance is simple: “A causative relationship is the same, whether the causative agent is a medication, or God’s will.” It is you, who asserts otherwise. But to be successful, you need to ARGUE for it, not say that “the Church says otherwise”.

 

[ForeverLearn]

No, the principle is completely different: it’s not that prayer causes God to heal, it’s that prayer causes us to align to the will of God. Unless you want to assert that your experiment measures “alignment to the will of God”, you don’t have a leg to stand on here…

My question would be, how can you align with something when you don’t know what it is?

 

[vz71]

how can you align with something when you don’t know what it is?

God left us his church to help us with that question.

 

[Gorgias]

But you did not bring up any arguments, only referred to the authority.

Which means that your appeal to the logical fallacy doesn’t hold. Thanks for proving my point.

Just do this, and see what will happen.

Pass. If you want to poke the bear, that’s up to you. I’ll leave their catechesis to their pastors.

What is the difference?

“Lucky break” means ‘no cause’. “Will of God” is a cause. One would have hoped you’d perceive the difference.

This is really elementary logic 101.

Nah… more like “elementary mischaracterization of Catholic belief 101”. Seems like you could teach the course.

Rational substantiation.

I’ll bite. What would count as ‘substantiation’ of doctrine (which, by the way, is understood as “God’s teaching”)?

But to be successful, you need to ARGUE for it, not say that “the Church says otherwise”.

Try again. We’re talking doctrine. “This is what we believe God teaches” is precisely how we substantiate it.

My question would be, how can you align with something when you don’t know what it is?

“God, please let me come to desire what you wish to give me.”