I am an atheist thread 2

[Armor_of_God]

The thing is, even though I am not a believer, every prayer said would have the same effect. The measurable effects would be identical between us.

Here again is the primary definition of pray:

speak to God in worship; enter into spiritual communion with God; offer worship.

Any definition I have seen implies some kind of relationship with someone or Someone.

But OK, A, if you insist - let’s pray. I propose we pray a novena. You do not appear to be overly particular about the type of prayer, so I would like to pray a novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Here is a link to the specific prayers, to be said for nine consecutive days:

ewtn.com/devotionals/heart/sh_novena.htm

Here is some background information on the devotion to the Sacred Heart:

landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/expl.devotion_sacred_heart.htm

Here is a link to the other common Catholic prayers used in the novena:

catholic.com/library/Common_Catholic_Prayers.asp

I propose we start on Sunday, January 6, 2008 and finish on Monday, January 14, 2008. How about we add fasting to our prayers, to increase the rigor? I will pray for your soul and you pray for my soul.

I will do it for love; you can do it for science, if you want.

 

[2ndGen]

This is why is is fairly pointless to continue. If someone discovered solid proof that your god didn’t exist, you would still hold to your signature.

Can you prove the existance of “air”?

 

[_A]

Here again is the primary definition of pray:

speak to God in worship; enter into spiritual communion with God; offer worship.

Any definition I have seen implies some kind of relationship with someone or Someone.

But OK, A, if you insist - let’s pray. I propose we pray a novena. You do not appear to be overly particular about the type of prayer, so I would like to pray a novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Here is a link to the specific prayers, to be said for nine consecutive days:

ewtn.com/devotionals/heart/sh_novena.htm

Here is some background information on the devotion to the Sacred Heart:

landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/expl.devotion_sacred_heart.htm

Here is a link to the other common Catholic prayers used in the novena:

catholic.com/library/Common_Catholic_Prayers.asp

I propose we start on Sunday, January 6, 2008 and finish on Monday, January 14, 2008. How about we add fasting to our prayers, to increase the rigor? I will pray for your soul and you pray for my soul.

I will do it for love; you can do it for science, if you want.

Speaking of doing it for science, how about we approach the Randi foundation. If we can actually show that your prayer has a different effect than mine, we could be eligible for a large cash prize.
We couldn’t just pray for each other, though…I can’t see how that could give us a measurable result. We would need to find something to pray for, and rig a kind of double-blind test to really determine if prayer was having an effect (I believe the templeton foundation has already done such studies, but don’t know how to find them).
The other thing is that I am particular about the type of prayer. I see it as a way of spreading the faith, which I am unwilling to do, so it would have to be private, and there would have to be a way to get a clear result, which both of us could accept as evidence. I don’t know exactly how to arrange it yet.
Also, it shouldn’t take anywhere near that many days. If a ‘pater noster’ or a ‘hail mary’ has any utility whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate, and would take a lot less time than the 9-day one you suggest.

 

[_A]

Can you prove the existance of “air”?

I hope you can define ‘prove’ here.
How about defining ‘air’ so that I know what it is I am trying to prove.

 

[ontologysue]

meaning that on the basis of this naive measure, that amoeba is over 200 times more complex than a human being. Bit of a blow there for the idea that humans are somehow the “pinnacle of creation”, don’t you think?

A, I’m wondering if you purposely “miss the point” and in that sense are being intellectually dishonest in your response, or, if you’re really misunderstanding my point. Perhaps, I just don’t make it cogently?

Anyway, I gave you two examples of complexity taken from recent scientific studies. All the esoteric science you and your friend came up with, does nothing to refute my fundamental point.

Namely, whether we’re talking about the complexity of an amoeba or the process of protein folding of “constituent amino acids,” scientists are discovering the only language capable of articulating these processes is one, which by logical deduction, implies “intelligence.” Even your friend in the final analysis has to resort to the "laws of stereo…whatever! Who is denying matter operates according to laws? Certainly not I. Yes, laws, which also points to intelligence. This eternal intelligence would have to be limitless, boundaryless, capable of containing all states within itself. Matter cannot do this, therefore, matter cannot be the ground of intelligence from which all these laws, embodied intelligence found in DNA ,etc, are derived.

What defies logic, is to believe on faith, against all evidence to the contrary, which is what you’re doing, that all this intelligence just sprang randomly from inert matter! And, make no mistake
A, you operate on faith as much as I do. Each person operates on their own existential “faith.” You are no exception. (See Paul Tillich’s, “Dynamics of Faith.”)

I’m stating that your faith is much less rational than mine. You have to believe that the intelligent processes that underly all fields of science from biology, to physics, to cosmology to the astonishing recent discoveries in mind/brain consciousness, language, including all those laws, etc., ALL originated from, random, mindless, purposeless inert matter!

Basically, my position is utterly logical and simple. If it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck! There, hope I’m not being too esoteric.

By the way, if you and your friend don’t see more complexity in a human than in an amoeba…notwithstanding your (1) naive measure, than go for it

 

[_A]

A, I’m wondering if you purposely “miss the point” and in that sense are being intellectually dishonest in your response, or, if you’re really misunderstanding my point. Perhaps, I just don’t make it cogently?

Anyway, I gave you two examples of complexity taken from recent scientific studies. All the esoteric science you and your friend came up with, does nothing to refute my fundamental point.

Namely, whether we’re talking about the complexity of an amoeba or the process of protein folding of “constituent amino acids,” scientists are discovering the only language capable of articulating these processes is one, which by logical deduction, implies “intelligence.”

Could you show the steps you have taken to go (logically) from ‘I don’t understand’ to ‘goddidit’?
I have only a glancing understanding of logic (not to mention genetics) so if you would be so kind as to describe the logical steps from one to the other, it would be more useful to me than saying ‘logical deduction implies’ (which sounds much like an argument from authority, oddly enough).

Even your friend in the final analysis has to resort to the "laws of stereo…whatever! Who is denying matter operates according to laws? Certainly not I.

Stereochemistry, and I didn’t know about it either. My sweetheart knows all about it, and I am going to pick her brain about it. Sounds fascinating.

Yes, laws, which also points to intelligence.

The only intelligence I see is that of the men and women who have defined, tested and revised the understanding we have of these ‘laws’.

I think for you it ‘points to intelligence’ because you have presupposed this intelligence.

This eternal intelligence would have to be limitless, boundaryless, capable of containing all states within itself.

Could you be less vague, so as to make a useful definition?

What defies logic,

You didn’t answer me about that. I pointed out to you that, if the supercomputers can do anything with it, it clearly does not defy logic. If it did, why would those eggheads (oh how I wish I was an egghead…) waste their valuable supercomputer time on it?
Logic can be applied.

is to believe on faith, against all evidence to the contrary, which is what you’re doing, that all this intelligence just sprang randomly from inert matter!

I never said anything of the kind, but I guess the things that I *have * been writing here are not targets that you like, so you make an ‘a’ out of straw.

And, make no mistake
A, you operate on faith as much as I do. Each person operates on their own existential “faith.”

Why is it so important to you to say that I have “faith”? You believe in the god of the bible who created the universe. I do not. It is just a difference.

I’m stating that your faith is much less rational than mine.

Saying it is so is not the same as demonstrating that it is so.

You have to believe that the intelligent processes that underly all fields of science from biology, to physics, to cosmology to the astonishing recent discoveries in mind/brain consciousness, language, including all those laws, etc., ALL originated from, random, mindless, purposeless inert matter!

Nope. I don’t. I don’t believe, and that is what I think theists find so hard to come to grips with. Many spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince me that their god is different, and I will believe if only I will listen. Well, I do listen, and I have been presented with nothing compelling as yet.
Why can’t more folks just accept that I don’t believe, and perhaps ask me questions about being an atheist? I have noticed that there are many misconceptions about it (at the ridiculous end, we atheists are satan-worshippers, for instance). I would like to have a chance to let people ask me about things they may not know about atheists, rather than constantly trying to show me that their god is the right one and why.
Don’t worry, I will continue to answer, I just wish I got a few more ‘is it true that atheists all hate god’, or ‘how did you become an atheist’, or ‘do you, as an atheist find it challenging to maintain friendships with theists?’

 

[2ndGen]

I hope you can define ‘prove’ here.
How about defining ‘air’ so that I know what it is I am trying to prove.

air
–noun

1. a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and minute amounts of other gases that surrounds the earth and forms its atmosphere.

prove
–verb

1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one’s claim.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Speaking of doing it for science, how about we approach the Randi foundation. If we can actually show that your prayer has a different effect than mine, we could be eligible for a large cash prize.

Of course, that’s assuming that God wants to subject himself to empirical study, which I see no reason to assume. Note that this does not prove that God does not exist.

We couldn’t just pray for each other, though…I can’t see how that could give us a measurable result.

Why does a result have to be measurable in order for it to be meaningful? When my wife says “I love you,” I have no way to measure the feeling that results. I have no way to quantify her love for me. But it’s still nice to hear.

The other thing is that I am particular about the type of prayer. I see it as a way of spreading the faith, which I am unwilling to do, so it would have to be private, and there would have to be a way to get a clear result, which both of us could accept as evidence. I don’t know exactly how to arrange it yet.
Also, it shouldn’t take anywhere near that many days. If a ‘pater noster’ or a ‘hail mary’ has any utility whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate, and would take a lot less time than the 9-day one you suggest.

On what possible basis can you make that last claim? Maybe God likes the number 9. Maybe he rewards a certain level of persistence.

I didn’t understand your comment about being unwilling to spread the faith. Can you clarify that?

 

[_A]

air
–noun

1. a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and minute amounts of other gases that surrounds the earth and forms its atmosphere.

prove
–verb

1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one’s claim.

So which part of air’s existence do you think needs proving?
Have you considered how the world around us would look different (to you, me and independent observers) if air did not exist here?

 

[2ndGen]

So which part of air’s existence do you think needs proving?
Have you considered how the world around us would look different (to you, me and independent observers) if air did not exist here?

Prove “it”.

That it is real, that it exists…use the same standards that you would expect a deist to prove the existance of God.

And a world without air?

I don’t know…I don’t even know if air exists yet so I can’t answer that. I’m told that it exist, but nobody’s shown me air.

I only have “faith” that air exists based on what I’m told.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Prove “it”.

That it is real, that it exists…use the same standards that you would expect a deist to prove the existance of God.

And a world without air?

I don’t know…I don’t even know if air exists yet so I can’t answer that. I’m told that it exist, but nobody’s shown me air.

I only have “faith” that air exists based on what I’m told.

This is just silly. Air’s existence can be demonstrated in many many objective ways. Wind, air pressure, balloon experiments, vacuum experiments, chemical analysis, respiration analysis… that’s just off the top of my head.

The parallels you’re going for don’t work at all, and we’re just going to get sidetracked. And probably embarrassed.

 

[_A]

Of course, that’s assuming that God wants to subject himself to empirical study, which I see no reason to assume. Note that this does not prove that God does not exist.

Every time the empiricism comes out, those gods all hide.

Why does a result have to be measurable in order for it to be meaningful?

It depends what you want to use the result for. If results don’t matter to you, and it is the mundane effects of prayer which you benefit from ( talking out your problems helps, even if there isn’t someone listening), then you don’t need any measurable result, obviously. If, however, you wish to provide proof that somehow your *pious *prayer would have a different effect than my *insincere *one, and convince a skeptic or two (not to mention winning a big fat pile of cash from the Randi Foundation), then I would say that you need to have clearly measurable results.

On what possible basis can you make that last claim? Maybe God likes the number 9. Maybe he rewards a certain level of persistence.

Well, when I went to church (admittedly many years ago) they taught a couple of small prayers. I remember ‘hail Mary’ being one of them. Are you suggesting that the church has been teaching a prayer that has no utility in the real world?
That has been my contention all along, but I would be surprised if it was your view. Perhaps I misunderstand.

I didn’t understand your comment about being unwilling to spread the faith. Can you clarify that?

I’ll do what I can, yes.
I think that public prayer serves to spread the various religions around. I don’t want someone who might see me as a role-model watching me pray and thinking it means something. I would certainly not do it in public, for the same reasons. I would, if everyone watching was advised that it was not my belief and I did not approve of praying to a god, I suppose.
If you can deal with that first part, about measurable results, then perhaps we can move on to the logistics of the testing (such as which prayer to use).

 

[_A]

Prove “it”.

That it is real, that it exists…use the same standards that you would expect a deist to prove the existance of God.

And a world without air?

I don’t know…I don’t even know if air exists yet so I can’t answer that. I’m told that it exist, but nobody’s shown me air.

I only have “faith” that air exists based on what I’m told.

There would be large differences between a world with air and a world without. In fact, we can look at two in the near neighbourhood. Earth is an example of what a planet with air looks like, and the moon is an example of what a planet without air looks like.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Speaking of doing it for science, how about we approach the Randi foundation. If we can actually show that your prayer has a different effect than mine, we could be eligible for a large cash prize.
We couldn’t just pray for each other, though…I can’t see how that could give us a measurable result. We would need to find something to pray for, and rig a kind of double-blind test to really determine if prayer was having an effect (I believe the templeton foundation has already done such studies, but don’t know how to find them).
The other thing is that I am particular about the type of prayer. I see it as a way of spreading the faith, which I am unwilling to do, so it would have to be private, and there would have to be a way to get a clear result, which both of us could accept as evidence. I don’t know exactly how to arrange it yet.
Also, it shouldn’t take anywhere near that many days. If a ‘pater noster’ or a ‘hail mary’ has any utility whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate, and would take a lot less time than the 9-day one you suggest.

Are you scared, A?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Every time the empiricism comes out, those gods all hide.

I get the feeling you think that this is a bon mot for you, but I don’t see it. Why do you presuppose that God would deign to pee in a cup for you?

It depends what you want to use the result for. If results don’t matter to you, and it is the mundane effects of prayer which you benefit from ( talking out your problems helps, even if there isn’t someone listening), then you don’t need any measurable result, obviously. If, however, you wish to provide proof that somehow your *pious *prayer would have a different effect than my *insincere *one, and convince a skeptic or two (not to mention winning a big fat pile of cash from the Randi Foundation), then I would say that you need to have clearly measurable results.

Hmm. I think I have misunderstood the exchange here – I’m not following the thread with my full attention. Mea culpa. Well, in a sense you’re right. It’s unlikely (but not impossible) that you will ever receive proof positive of God’s existence. That just doesn’t seem to be something He’s interested in.

Are you willing to consider that God might exist, and be willing to interact with you on some level, even though it (probably) won’t be empirically measurable? If so, then ArmorOfGod’s prayer suggestion could be helpful. If not, there’s probably not much point.

Well, when I went to church (admittedly many years ago) they taught a couple of small prayers. I remember ‘hail Mary’ being one of them. Are you suggesting that the church has been teaching a prayer that has no utility in the real world?

I’m not the most qualified to talk about novenas. But I think it has something to do with the value of persistence. There are scriptures to that effect, suggesting that repeated prayers may be more effective than one-shots. That doesn’t mean that the one-shot has no utility, simply that it may have less utility.

Again, there’s no hard and fast rules. But if you’re only going to take the Prayer Challenge once, it makes sense that you should do it in such a way to maximize the potential effectiveness of that prayer, right?

Re: public prayer. Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense. I imagine AoG will be happy to stick with private prayer. Although I don’t suppose the Randi Institute will go for it.

 

[2ndGen]

This is just silly. Air’s existence can be demonstrated in many many objective ways. Wind, air pressure, balloon experiments, vacuum experiments, chemical analysis, respiration analysis… that’s just off the top of my head.

The parallels you’re going for don’t work at all, and we’re just going to get sidetracked. And probably embarrassed.

Uh, uh, uh…according to the standards you place on us proving God.

You spent more time talking about proving it, than just “proving it”.



Wind is wind.
Pressue is a measurement.

Come on man!

Where’s your proof that air exists?

It cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard.

Do you apply those same standards to us proving God?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Uh, uh, uh…according to the standards you place on us proving God.

You spent more time talking about proving it, than just “proving it”.



Wind is wind.
Pressue is a measurement.

Come on man!

Where’s your proof that air exists?

It cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard.

Do you apply those same standards to us proving God?

You’ve got me mixed up with A, I think. I’m on your side. I just don’t think this air thing is going to work for you. Because you’re flat wrong - of course air can be seen, touched, smelled, and heard. Maybe not tasted, I’ll give you that one.

 

[2ndGen]

You’ve got me mixed up with A, I think. I’m on your side. I just don’t think this air thing is going to work for you. Because you’re flat wrong - of course air can be seen, touched, smelled, and heard. Maybe not tasted, I’ll give you that one.

Ahhh, my almost agreeing brother, but I’m right!

What color is air? Clear? If you have to infuse it with a tint to see it, you’re only seeing the color of the tint, but not the color of the air.

Touched? How? Wind? Once it is in movement, it is no longer air, but wind and wind is not what I want to be proven here.

Smelled? How? Air has no scent. When you smell fresh air, the quality of that freshness is the flowers or the ocean breeze…you always smell something “but” the air. It’s odorless.

Heard? Wrong again. Air makes no noise. When ever you hear a whistling in a storm, that sound belongs to the wind, not the air. Air in and of itself makes no noise.

So, because God is denied on these same points, therefore, air cannot be proven.

Now we know that air exists because we have faith that it exists. We trust what scientists and books we read tell us. But have you ever seen air? Tasted it? Touched it? Heard it? Smelled it?

No one has.



(And sorry for the mix up! )

 

[_A]

Are you scared, A?

No.

Are you being cryptic?

 

[_A]

I get the feeling you think that this is a bon mot for you, but I don’t see it. Why do you presuppose that God would deign to pee in a cup for you?

I don’t know what bon mot means, but as far as peeing in a cup, I would not expect it of a being that does not exist.

Hmm. I think I have misunderstood the exchange here – I’m not following the thread with my full attention. Mea culpa. Well, in a sense you’re right. It’s unlikely (but not impossible) that you will ever receive proof positive of God’s existence. That just doesn’t seem to be something He’s interested in.

The reason that I will never see evidence is that there is none to see.

Are you willing to consider that God might exist, and be willing to interact with you on some level, even though it (probably) won’t be empirically measurable?

Why would I? Is there some evidence pointing in that direction? Is there some evidence that imagining undetectable superbeings will have some utility for me? Is this a demonstrated benefit, or a promise of great rewards at some vague, indeterminate future.

If so, then ArmorOfGod’s prayer suggestion could be helpful. If not, there’s probably not much point.

I think that there is little point. I have had the experience of prayer before. It didn’t convince me.

I’m not the most qualified to talk about novenas. But I think it has something to do with the value of persistence. There are scriptures to that effect, suggesting that repeated prayers may be more effective than one-shots. That doesn’t mean that the one-shot has no utility, simply that it may have less utility.

The power of positive thinking has similar usefulness, and no god is required. Simpler, no?

Re: public prayer. Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense. I imagine AoG will be happy to stick with private prayer. Although I don’t suppose the Randi Institute will go for it.

I wouldn’t mind the Randi Institute seeing me take part in a test. It would be fairly simple to make clear that I was there to make an insincere prayer.