Why can't people be more open minded. There was a post awhile back that said some thing like "maybe science is God's way of explaining things" and I like that idea! For us, somewhat "lesser beings", God gives us something to explain all the wierd and strange things in our world. But the church is so stuck up in itself that it doesn't see these things and doesn't accept change or new theories. It's more "my way or the highway" to them, and that's where the ignorance comes in. Now true there are strong Christian followers that arent ignorant to science and i believe those might be some of the best people out there. But the ones that are totally one way or another need to open up a bit more...
And It also shouldn't take a -book- to teach Right and Wrong. But if that's what it you believe, then have fun, following advice from 2000+ years ago. :L
Another aspect of prayer that wasn't mentioned is that it helps the one that is praying spiritually become closer to God. Perhaps God doesn't need our help, and he knows what he is doing; praying benefits the one that is praying.
In regard to religion (mostly Christianity) people seem to throw around the word "placebo" quite a lot, mostly in a derogatory way. I never really understood that. I'm saying that's what you did, but it's true nonetheless. In this instance, someone overcoming a disease without "divine intervention" but through sheer will/determination/mind power is FUCKING INCREDIBLE. IMO. Not all people (myself included) subscribe to the idea that there's a Creator god that interferes with our lives. Both "god" and "prayer" are defined in many different ways for many different people. Likewise, the idea of what constitutes as "divine" is subjective. I think the fact that the human brain is capable of the placebo effect is pretty damn miraculous. And really fucking interesting, I might add.
I think the whole "prove it!" idea really ignores faith as a whole. One believes in a God because of faith - the whole point of the damn thing is that it can't be proven. At the same time, saying "prove it's not!" is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how modern our technology is or how smart of a species we are, there are some things we will never be able to prove. I'd like to think that any faith falls under the category of unprovable.
You can be a theist and not believe in the power of prayer. Before I abandoned Christianity, I was uncomfortable with the idea that God picks and chooses which prayers to answer and which to ignore. It just seemed arbitrary and unfair, so I chose not to believe in it.
In my opinion, there's really only two things a person must believe in order to be a Christian: that a personal God exists and that Jesus was the Messiah. Beyond that, you can believe whatever you want about the specifics and still be considered a Christian.
That's different. Here, someone said praying does not work because there is no way of seeing whether or not it works, which is basically an assumption, which OH WAIT is what atheists hate about religion.
Don't say all Atheist hate religion because I can turn around and say all Christians are uptight pricks.
I don't hate religion, I hate ignorance.
There is proof that medicine will help someone recover from an ailment.
There is no proof that prayer aids in this. That's like saying your table is supported by an army of invisible midgets that can't be felt or heard.
They why is it even considered? When I walk up right it's because a tiny Chinese man in China is using a voodoo doll of me to control my movements. There is no evidence against it even if the assumption is completely illogical.
I understand that you're Christian and while I don't respect that, I know there is a good chance you won't change. But thanking god for something a doctor did is a dick thing to do and it makes me sick you're okay with it.
*Thanking God for HELPING
It is considered because it is a way to explain many things that cannot be explained logically.
It makes me sad that you don't respect my beliefs. Nowhere in this argument did I try to convert you or discriminate against you for your beliefs, and I am disappointed that you had to end the discussion on such a negative and personal note, by taking shots at me.
How can I honestly respect someone who believes in an imaginary man who created everything?
Saying prayer helped someone recover is still terrible in my opinion. That's taking credit from the medical team and giving it to someone who doesn't exist.
How can it not be explained? Do you think doctors just pump medicine into someone's body and hope they get better?
By consciousness I'm going to assume you mean the perception of emotions. Humans have a whole variety of chemicals in our brains that cause different emotions we experience everyday. That's why some people experience depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders because there is an imbalance of chemicals that throws it out of wack.
Existence as in the reason life is here?
A couple of atoms joined together at random and began copying themselves which lead to simple single celled organisms.
The Big Bang theory is the idea that at one point in time all the matter in the universe was packed so densely in a single point because gravity was holding it all together. It's been speculated that a force opposite of gravity cause it all to shoot out. Some physicist think this is the same force that repels negative and positive ions.
The fact you're telling me to explain all of these flawlessly just shows how ignorant you truly are. We as a race don't have all the answers because we're still studying the universe. Everyday scientist find new evidence that can change these theories, disprove them, or prove them.
All Christianity does is fill in those gaps with "god did it" which I hate. Instead why not say "We don't know the answers, let's find out!" which is a lot more logical.
It is true that there are some things that science cannot flawlessly explain. However, there are thousands of concepts in history that seemed to necessitate a religious explanation before scientific theories and laws emerged based on evidence, experimentation, and careful observation. If history is any indication, that which has not yet been explained by science will be, or at least HAS a scientific explanation we do not yet fully understand.
Have you ever read/seen "Inherit the Wind"? It deals a lot with this idea of religion and science side by side. I believe it can happen and can happen logically and peacefully, as I want to be a neurobiologist when I grow up and expect to keep my faith.
I love Inherit the Wind! I agree that in many cases, religion and science can coexist. However, there are times when science- hard evidence and observable information- must be put BEFORE, not next to religion.
I'm not sure if God had anything to do with those aspects of the world we don't understand. I never said I was sure. However, I don't -think- divine intervention had anything to do with it. Time and time again, that has been proven wrong in the past as scientific explanations come to light.
The general public used to think yellow fever only attacked those who lived immoral lives. Many didn't believe that it was passed via mosquito, and continued to think it was God's way of punishing people. If the religious explanation had prevailed over the scientific one, the disease would have continued.
That makes no sense on so many levels.
What about all of the decent people, or even the small children, who died from yellow fever? What about when science discovered the cause and significantly ebbed its occurrence? Was God mad that one of his avenues for killing people was gone? Or did He give people the solution when he got sick of torturing people that way?
Do you realize that you're agreeing with the lunatics that said yellow fever only attacked immoral people?
You're saying that God wanted the little girl bleeding out of every orifice and vomiting every hour to die that way.
I have no idea, there could be no religious explanation whatsoever. I'm just saying it's possible that some of those people who died were being punished, not necessarily all.
The human brain is an amazing organ. It's the more powerful than any computer created and it runs on natural occurring elements and compounds. I wouldn't be surprised if your grandfather was hallucinating from the lack of nutrients being sent to the brain.
I'm sure in the next 20 years this phenomenon your family has experienced will be explained with science.
No, i take both sides on this issue. I don't really know exactly what happens. That way of thinking and arguing is just making whatever the Faith of said commenter look weak. You need to relax and not make accusations about people that aren't even remotely true, please.
There actually have been experiments to test the power of prayer and none have shown an effect. The one I know of was a double-blind procedure in which patients (with cancer, I believe) were either prayed for by randomly selected churches or not. The patients did not know if they were being prayed for or not and the people from the churches did not know the patients personally, only by name. The patients who were not prayed for actually had better results, but nothing significant.
Who knows? Maybe those patients had completed their earthly work, or maybe they got better after the experiment, or something like that. My one and only point here is that nobody KNOWS whether there is a God or not, so there is really no point in Atheists trying to act like they're above Christians by acting like they somehow know for sure that there is not a God.
I don't know any sane atheist who will say that there is a 100% chance that there is no God. Anyone who states that they "know for sure that there is not a God" is an idiot... I wholeheartedly agree with you there.
I believe in God in about the same way that I believe in fairies. It's impossible to know for sure that something "doesn't" exist. That's why I -believe- there is no God.
I didn't get a chance to read through all of his comments, but all I've seen him write is that he "assumes" there is no God in the same way you assume there is one. No one said they knew for a fact there was no God because that would be ridiculous.
I didn't see him say anywhere in that comment that he knew there was no God, but if I misread his comment, then I apologize. If he heavily implied that the nonexistence of God was fact, rather than belief, then I disagree. I really don't think there's any more to discuss. I don't really care whether 'SomeDude' is right or wrong. If anyone claims to know the existence or nonexistence of God as fact, including him, they're kidding themselves, end of story.
Right, but the people praying were not the ones testing God - they didn't know they were in an experiment, so their intention was pure. Of course God would be aware of the experimenter's underlying intention, but I don't see why He would disregard earnest prayers for that reason.
I was just showing that there is some evidence against the power of prayer, though it could be questioned philosophically.
If god doesn't like to be tested, why not kill all the athiest and nonchristians in the world?
You can argue "ooh, free will of course", or "meant to allow for christians on how not to act" but... he's supposed to love you, not condem you.
If He killed them, they would have no chance to become Christian. Other than that, I don't really see how you reached the "kill everyone because He doesn't like to be tested" idea.
And death isn't condemnation. Those sick patients may have been good Christians who had done what He sent them to do.
I feel like the whole "God works in mysterious ways" things is a just a cop out. When someone says something illogical that God says in the Bible or is assumed to be behind, Christians will just say it was God's will and we were not meant to understand it. As humans, we strive for understanding. I don't think a God that can't be explained would create people who want to explain Him. But of course every time I say that, people use their cop out.
Prayer doesn't work. It's been proven. Christians just laugh at it because you can't test God. But when a test for proof of God goes in their favor, they use that as proof that God exists. They cling to that one test for dear life, even though God doesn't like being tested.
The experiment didn't test for the existence of a god, just the power of prayer. And you're right, the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven, but the probability can be shaded one way or the other. With every new discovery, the probability skews further towards non-existence.
This is what bothers me about that notion. If a scientific experiment concludes something that goes against a religious belief, it will be dismissed because you "can't test something like that." However, if the experiment concludes something that affirms a religious belief, it would be paraded around by the religious community as proof.
But in the case of religion, I believe there is proof that many choose to ignore and invalidate. Then it becomes a matter of what is correct information and what is not, and that's a debate that will never be able to be ended.
sigh you're a very simple one, aren't you? First of all, nice job anonymously voting up your comments and down mine. Second, there IS proof. Therefore I believe it. You believe there is not because you choose to ignore it because it relates to religion and, in your point of view, everything religious is WRONG no matter what.
The fact that the apostles who said they saw him rise all went out and taught, with the risk of death, his message. They took a huge risk and would not do it for nothing.
There have been very mysterious happenings such as Our Lady of Fatima and people experiencing the stigmata
People have experienced miraculous recoveries that medical help would not have been able to complete on its own.
I believe that natural selection (although I believe in it, let's get that straight) is an eeexxtrrreeeemmmmeeellllyyyy slow process as it is basically like winning the lottery over and over and would take more than the millions of years that science speculates it took without God helping it along.
Natural Selection is a result of survival of the fittest. People are different through mutations in DNA, which is a very long and complicated code. A mutation that causes something beneficial to an organism is very rare and is like winning the lottery. Then, in order for humans to evolve from the single-celled organisms they evolved from, an incomprehensible amount of mutations would need to take place, then be passed down through enough generations that those without the gene would not be able to outlive those with it. This would take more time than one can imagine if not helped along in some way.
If most of them aren't beneficial, it's even harder to evolve...
That's what I meant, but still. Think about it. One single, tiny little cell. Through tiny, gradual mutations, one at a time, it slowly evolved into humans. Humans that have amazing brainpower and knowledge of crazy subjects. Humans that are so stable that they can lose a hundred cells and not feel a thing. Humans so advanced that they can almost make natural selection an obsolete process. That takes a long time.
Yes I think maybe you aren't wrapping your head around the amount if time this takes. Four BILLION years. We can see flies evolving in a matter of months.
Because you're saying our mutations were lucky. Most were not. It is rare and that is why most species do not exist anymore. You are assigning luck in retrospect, which is nonsensical. People DO won the lottery, every time. Someone does, every time. That is not an argument.
If I gave everyone on earth a coin and said they had to flip 1,000 heads in a row or I shot them, each person who DID get it would think they were impossibly lucky. Well no shit, they're only alive to think that because they DID get lucky.
No, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. A mutation is relatively rare in itself, mistakes a ren't very common. When they do happen though, it's less of a chance of it being a beneficial mutation. The chances of mutation times the chances of that mutation being beneficial are very slim. It doesn't happen often at all today. You see millions more genetic diseases than someone with a beneficial mutation. That is why a beneficial mutation, never mind billions of them, is very hard to come by.
There isn't actually any proof the apostles did anything besides write parts of the Bible or that the majority of them even existed.
The mysterious happenings are obviously not proof, considering people see UFOs and are "abducted by aliens", report haunted houses, and all that all the time. That's not proof that aliens are swirling around in flying saucers, or that ghosts exist, and no sane person interprets the reports as so.
"Miraculous recoveries that medical hope would not have been able to complete on its own." Let's see, well, first of all, sometimes people are lucky - I don't know if you noticed. Second, studies have shown, and I can give you links if you like, that prayer does absolutely nothing to help those who are ill.
http://amirite.net/706418/1666806
Can you explain luck to me? How are you sure there's no divine intervention? and, if you had read my previous comments, God does not like to be tested.
So because I argue against your proof really being proof, I'm passing it off as bullshit? Considering I gave evidence for my views, that's not really the case.
Luck: Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.
And I cannot be sure there's no divine intervention. However, I do not need to disprove that there is divine intervention, you need to prove that there is. Going back to a previous statement I made: if I were to claim that a mutated horse were orbiting Jupiter (furthering this claim by referring to a book that claims it to be true, a book with many contradictions that was also written my multiple people throughout 1500-5000 years in the past) it would be ridiculous for me to claim that someone else needs to prove that it's not true, instead of me proving that it is true.
"God does not like to be tested." I hear this argument very frequently. I also frequently hear that we humans cannot understand the divine will and unlimited intelligence of Him. If the latter is true, then claiming that God does not like to be tested is a ridiculous assertion, as we cannot know what He does and does not like.
What evidence did you give? I only read passing it off as bullshit.
Maybe instead of luck, it was God.
I already gave you proof, but once again, all you did was pass it off as bullshit.
Actually, we can know what He doesn't like, as it's been explained in the Bible. We didn't just assume that God doesn't like to be tested. Many times when Jesus was in the desert, the Devil tempted him, telling him to turn the rocks into food if he was hungry and was actually God. He didn't because you do not test God's power, that's called doubt, which is the opposite of faith. God responds to faith.
Also, there's no proof that those were actually UFOs. Thousands of people saw the Our Lady of Fatima and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't all just make up a lie.
First of all, it seems to me we must be thinking of different events, because from what I've heard Our Lady of Fatima is apparitions of Mary appearing to 3 kids giving them various visions.
Also, speaking of no proof, there's no proof Jesus even existed.
And also, have you noticed the severe drop in events like OLoF since video cameras were invented? These events were not recorded.
Yes, I'm thinking of the same event, and from what I've been told, she appeared again in the same spot, this time with more witnesses.
Actually, there is proof Jesus existed. There has been a chain of Popes dating from today all the way back to soon after Jesus's death, because of Jesus's death.
They were recorded in writing, and I also doubt that the visions would be captured on a video camera, but who knows.
Also, I'm not going to keep handing you the reasons why I believe. If you don't agree, then I'm sorry, but all you're doing is passing it off as bullshit.
We need empirical evidence, solid proof and not anecdotes or the shared hallucinations of a bunch of hyper religious people sitting somewhere WAITING TO SEE and EXPECTING the same phenomenon.
my issue with these situations is that God supposedly put them in that position in the first place, do you think He would just change His mind because you said pretty please?
I don't mean that in a smart-ass way, I honestly don't get it.
If He put them there for a reason, and you ask for forgiveness for that reason, or at least show your faith, then yes, I believe He would change his mind, as He is merciful.
There's no proof that skipping down the street naked DOESN'T help in any medical treatment. There are an infinite number of things that could help a person recover because they haven't been disproven. Why don't you try them all next time a loved one gets sick?
I, however, don't believe in any of those things. I have before been helped by prayer, in my belief, and will continue to pray for sick/ needy people, thank you.
OK, but see, prayer is something that people believe helps because they've experienced its power and I believe these observations cannot be disproved without proof, which I consider impossible to find. Nobody believes in many of those infinite things, except crazy superstitions like four leaf clovers. You can say luck from a four leaf clover is not there all you want, but if that person believes in it, and it works for them, who are you to tell them that it doesn't exist? You know no better than they do.
Obviously you can't disprove (or prove) anything without proof. It's there in the word. But technically, there is no absolute proof. Asking for it is impossible and unreasonable. Significant evidence is the best you'll ever get.
And anyway, it's not as if I'm bursting into your place of worship and telling you God doesn't exist. This is a debate about the power of God and the influence of prayer. If it were a debate about the luck of a four-leaf clover, I would make the same arguments. If someone is asking to have a conversation about God's existence, etc., I would love to partake. Cliches like "who are you to tell them that it doesn't exist" have no place in a debate.
OK, and I'm simply saying the power of God is something that, I believe, to be true because I've seen and heard of it work. Asking for proof is not unreasonable, because the only way we'll know anything for sure is with proof. Until then, we will believe what we want.
One of the first things you learn in any higher level study of science is that it is impossible to prove anything. All you can do is eliminate all other reasonable possibilities. Kind off off-topic, but that's what I was saying.
How is that related to what I was saying? I was just correcting your statement that proof is the only way to know anything for sure by pointing out that technically, there is no absolute proof, so my original statement was correct; it is unreasonable to ask for proof in the accurate sense of the word.
"All you can do is eliminate all other reasonable possibilities" is what I was referring to. I'm not legitimately asking for proof, I'm just saying, you can't give it to me and so it cannot be eliminated as a possibility.
I see. I guess then it just comes to what one considers a reasonable possibility. Obviously this is very subjective, which is why my point about the existence of proof was kind of off track from the actual argument. Everyone's interpretation of reasonable is different.
Why can't people be more open minded. There was a post awhile back that said some thing like "maybe science is God's way of explaining things" and I like that idea! For us, somewhat "lesser beings", God gives us something to explain all the wierd and strange things in our world. But the church is so stuck up in itself that it doesn't see these things and doesn't accept change or new theories. It's more "my way or the highway" to them, and that's where the ignorance comes in. Now true there are strong Christian followers that arent ignorant to science and i believe those might be some of the best people out there. But the ones that are totally one way or another need to open up a bit more...
And It also shouldn't take a -book- to teach Right and Wrong. But if that's what it you believe, then have fun, following advice from 2000+ years ago. :L
Another aspect of prayer that wasn't mentioned is that it helps the one that is praying spiritually become closer to God. Perhaps God doesn't need our help, and he knows what he is doing; praying benefits the one that is praying.
If the power of prayer was so powerful, why does it only work when the people know they're being prayed for?
What about all the people praying for the starving children in Africa? I know they're helping more than those stupid volunteers and people who donate.
They are clearly the exception.
Is that sarcasm?
I truly hope it is.
Have you seen my other comments?
In regard to religion (mostly Christianity) people seem to throw around the word "placebo" quite a lot, mostly in a derogatory way. I never really understood that. I'm saying that's what you did, but it's true nonetheless. In this instance, someone overcoming a disease without "divine intervention" but through sheer will/determination/mind power is FUCKING INCREDIBLE. IMO. Not all people (myself included) subscribe to the idea that there's a Creator god that interferes with our lives. Both "god" and "prayer" are defined in many different ways for many different people. Likewise, the idea of what constitutes as "divine" is subjective. I think the fact that the human brain is capable of the placebo effect is pretty damn miraculous. And really fucking interesting, I might add.
This website shows everything I believe. www.dafk.net/what/
I think the whole "prove it!" idea really ignores faith as a whole. One believes in a God because of faith - the whole point of the damn thing is that it can't be proven. At the same time, saying "prove it's not!" is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how modern our technology is or how smart of a species we are, there are some things we will never be able to prove. I'd like to think that any faith falls under the category of unprovable.
OP's a troll, and an effective one at that
I didn't know that anyone had disproved the existence of a deity yet
You can be a theist and not believe in the power of prayer. Before I abandoned Christianity, I was uncomfortable with the idea that God picks and chooses which prayers to answer and which to ignore. It just seemed arbitrary and unfair, so I chose not to believe in it.
In my opinion, there's really only two things a person must believe in order to be a Christian: that a personal God exists and that Jesus was the Messiah. Beyond that, you can believe whatever you want about the specifics and still be considered a Christian.
But, yes, fair enough.
He's right though. There is no proof that praying to a divine entity helps in any medical treatment.
But yea, Atheism > religion.
There's no proof of any divine entity.
What a coincidence.
I know, right? It's crazy
There is no proof that praying to a divine entity DOESN'T help in any medical treatment.
http://ctrlv.in/71612
That's different. Here, someone said praying does not work because there is no way of seeing whether or not it works, which is basically an assumption, which OH WAIT is what atheists hate about religion.
Don't say all Atheist hate religion because I can turn around and say all Christians are uptight pricks.
I don't hate religion, I hate ignorance.
There is proof that medicine will help someone recover from an ailment.
There is no proof that prayer aids in this. That's like saying your table is supported by an army of invisible midgets that can't be felt or heard.
Once again, there is no proof that prayer DOESN'T aid in it.
They why is it even considered? When I walk up right it's because a tiny Chinese man in China is using a voodoo doll of me to control my movements. There is no evidence against it even if the assumption is completely illogical.
I understand that you're Christian and while I don't respect that, I know there is a good chance you won't change. But thanking god for something a doctor did is a dick thing to do and it makes me sick you're okay with it.
*Thanking God for HELPING
It is considered because it is a way to explain many things that cannot be explained logically.
It makes me sad that you don't respect my beliefs. Nowhere in this argument did I try to convert you or discriminate against you for your beliefs, and I am disappointed that you had to end the discussion on such a negative and personal note, by taking shots at me.
How can I honestly respect someone who believes in an imaginary man who created everything?
Saying prayer helped someone recover is still terrible in my opinion. That's taking credit from the medical team and giving it to someone who doesn't exist.
How can it not be explained? Do you think doctors just pump medicine into someone's body and hope they get better?
Some things in this world, medical or not, cannot be explained.
YOU believe He is imaginary, but have yet to prove it, and therefore you cannot assume He is imaginary.
I can assume your god is imaginary the same way you assume he is real.
Name one thing that can not be explained with science. I dare you.
Consciousness, existence, and the Big Bang. Explain it, flawlessly, without using God.
By consciousness I'm going to assume you mean the perception of emotions. Humans have a whole variety of chemicals in our brains that cause different emotions we experience everyday. That's why some people experience depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders because there is an imbalance of chemicals that throws it out of wack.
Existence as in the reason life is here?
A couple of atoms joined together at random and began copying themselves which lead to simple single celled organisms.
The Big Bang theory is the idea that at one point in time all the matter in the universe was packed so densely in a single point because gravity was holding it all together. It's been speculated that a force opposite of gravity cause it all to shoot out. Some physicist think this is the same force that repels negative and positive ions.
The fact you're telling me to explain all of these flawlessly just shows how ignorant you truly are. We as a race don't have all the answers because we're still studying the universe. Everyday scientist find new evidence that can change these theories, disprove them, or prove them.
"We as a race don't have all the answers"
-Thank you, my point exactly
All Christianity does is fill in those gaps with "god did it" which I hate. Instead why not say "We don't know the answers, let's find out!" which is a lot more logical.
And that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
It's not an opinion it's true. When Christians can't explain things you say "god did it".
"All Christianity does", "which I hate", "a lot more logical"
Okay you quoted me. I don't see the point in this.
You said "It's not an opinion it's true" and I was showing you the many biased points in your argument.
You know dolphins share a lot of characteristics as humans right?
In the original comment I thought you meant that humans were the only ones who had special characteristics.
It is true that there are some things that science cannot flawlessly explain. However, there are thousands of concepts in history that seemed to necessitate a religious explanation before scientific theories and laws emerged based on evidence, experimentation, and careful observation. If history is any indication, that which has not yet been explained by science will be, or at least HAS a scientific explanation we do not yet fully understand.
Have you ever read/seen "Inherit the Wind"? It deals a lot with this idea of religion and science side by side. I believe it can happen and can happen logically and peacefully, as I want to be a neurobiologist when I grow up and expect to keep my faith.
I love Inherit the Wind! I agree that in many cases, religion and science can coexist. However, there are times when science- hard evidence and observable information- must be put BEFORE, not next to religion.
But, my point is, how is it sure that God didn't cause the big bang? Or put those atoms into self-replicating cells?
I'm not sure if God had anything to do with those aspects of the world we don't understand. I never said I was sure. However, I don't -think- divine intervention had anything to do with it. Time and time again, that has been proven wrong in the past as scientific explanations come to light.
Give me an example of when has it been proven wrong, and I'll show you what I mean
The general public used to think yellow fever only attacked those who lived immoral lives. Many didn't believe that it was passed via mosquito, and continued to think it was God's way of punishing people. If the religious explanation had prevailed over the scientific one, the disease would have continued.
What if God led the mosquitos? What if it WAS his way of punishing people, for just a short time?
That makes no sense on so many levels.
What about all of the decent people, or even the small children, who died from yellow fever? What about when science discovered the cause and significantly ebbed its occurrence? Was God mad that one of his avenues for killing people was gone? Or did He give people the solution when he got sick of torturing people that way?
Do you realize that you're agreeing with the lunatics that said yellow fever only attacked immoral people?
You're saying that God wanted the little girl bleeding out of every orifice and vomiting every hour to die that way.
I have no idea, there could be no religious explanation whatsoever. I'm just saying it's possible that some of those people who died were being punished, not necessarily all.
But I wasn't bringing my personal assumption into the argument and am not telling anyone it as if I believe it as a fact.
Out of curiosity, what specifically do you mean by your "experiences"?
The human brain is an amazing organ. It's the more powerful than any computer created and it runs on natural occurring elements and compounds. I wouldn't be surprised if your grandfather was hallucinating from the lack of nutrients being sent to the brain.
I'm sure in the next 20 years this phenomenon your family has experienced will be explained with science.
Actually, that's not what anyone said here. It said that there is no proof. Not "there's no way to tell."
This is perfect situation for this picture.
No, i take both sides on this issue. I don't really know exactly what happens. That way of thinking and arguing is just making whatever the Faith of said commenter look weak. You need to relax and not make accusations about people that aren't even remotely true, please.
There actually have been experiments to test the power of prayer and none have shown an effect. The one I know of was a double-blind procedure in which patients (with cancer, I believe) were either prayed for by randomly selected churches or not. The patients did not know if they were being prayed for or not and the people from the churches did not know the patients personally, only by name. The patients who were not prayed for actually had better results, but nothing significant.
I'm not going to get all preachy and shit here, but God doesn't really like to be tested. It's been said in the Bible.
So instead He would abandon people because of His Pride?
Who knows? Maybe those patients had completed their earthly work, or maybe they got better after the experiment, or something like that. My one and only point here is that nobody KNOWS whether there is a God or not, so there is really no point in Atheists trying to act like they're above Christians by acting like they somehow know for sure that there is not a God.
I don't know any sane atheist who will say that there is a 100% chance that there is no God. Anyone who states that they "know for sure that there is not a God" is an idiot... I wholeheartedly agree with you there.
I believe in God in about the same way that I believe in fairies. It's impossible to know for sure that something "doesn't" exist. That's why I -believe- there is no God.
[See SomeDude's argument for said idiot]
I didn't get a chance to read through all of his comments, but all I've seen him write is that he "assumes" there is no God in the same way you assume there is one. No one said they knew for a fact there was no God because that would be ridiculous.
http://amirite.net/706418/1666701
I didn't see him say anywhere in that comment that he knew there was no God, but if I misread his comment, then I apologize. If he heavily implied that the nonexistence of God was fact, rather than belief, then I disagree. I really don't think there's any more to discuss. I don't really care whether 'SomeDude' is right or wrong. If anyone claims to know the existence or nonexistence of God as fact, including him, they're kidding themselves, end of story.
Right, but the people praying were not the ones testing God - they didn't know they were in an experiment, so their intention was pure. Of course God would be aware of the experimenter's underlying intention, but I don't see why He would disregard earnest prayers for that reason.
I was just showing that there is some evidence against the power of prayer, though it could be questioned philosophically.
I get your point, but I believe there was something bigger in that experiment than the patients' illnesses
Because it's been said in the Bible?
You know the Bible also said rape and slavery are okay with your god but he fucking hates mixed fibers.
I'm talking about the New Testament
If god doesn't like to be tested, why not kill all the athiest and nonchristians in the world?
You can argue "ooh, free will of course", or "meant to allow for christians on how not to act" but... he's supposed to love you, not condem you.
If He killed them, they would have no chance to become Christian. Other than that, I don't really see how you reached the "kill everyone because He doesn't like to be tested" idea.
And death isn't condemnation. Those sick patients may have been good Christians who had done what He sent them to do.
I feel like the whole "God works in mysterious ways" things is a just a cop out. When someone says something illogical that God says in the Bible or is assumed to be behind, Christians will just say it was God's will and we were not meant to understand it. As humans, we strive for understanding. I don't think a God that can't be explained would create people who want to explain Him. But of course every time I say that, people use their cop out.
Prayer doesn't work. It's been proven. Christians just laugh at it because you can't test God. But when a test for proof of God goes in their favor, they use that as proof that God exists. They cling to that one test for dear life, even though God doesn't like being tested.
The experiment didn't test for the existence of a god, just the power of prayer. And you're right, the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven, but the probability can be shaded one way or the other. With every new discovery, the probability skews further towards non-existence.
This is what bothers me about that notion. If a scientific experiment concludes something that goes against a religious belief, it will be dismissed because you "can't test something like that." However, if the experiment concludes something that affirms a religious belief, it would be paraded around by the religious community as proof.
There is no proof that a mutated horse isn't orbiting Jupiter right now, but it's safe to say that's probably not true.
My point is that you don't need to disprove an idea, you need to prove it.
But in the case of religion, I believe there is proof that many choose to ignore and invalidate. Then it becomes a matter of what is correct information and what is not, and that's a debate that will never be able to be ended.
How can you 'believe there is proof'? That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Proof either is, or is not.
sigh you're a very simple one, aren't you? First of all, nice job anonymously voting up your comments and down mine. Second, there IS proof. Therefore I believe it. You believe there is not because you choose to ignore it because it relates to religion and, in your point of view, everything religious is WRONG no matter what.
I voted his up and yours down. Mister paranoid.
Sorry, I didn't figure anyone was still reading this thread -_-
You won't get anywhere by insulting me and accusing me of doing anything which would not benefit me whatsoever. But more relevantly:
What is this proof? I am legitimately interested, as any form of proof that God exists would be somewhat interesting to hear.
The fact that the apostles who said they saw him rise all went out and taught, with the risk of death, his message. They took a huge risk and would not do it for nothing.
There have been very mysterious happenings such as Our Lady of Fatima and people experiencing the stigmata
People have experienced miraculous recoveries that medical help would not have been able to complete on its own.
I believe that natural selection (although I believe in it, let's get that straight) is an eeexxtrrreeeemmmmeeellllyyyy slow process as it is basically like winning the lottery over and over and would take more than the millions of years that science speculates it took without God helping it along.
It seems like you sincerely do not understand evolution.
Humor me. I got an A in Honors Biology last year. Explain how I don't understand evolution.
An A in a high school science class? Are you serious? :P
Explain how on earth it's comparable to winning the lottery. Please.
Natural Selection is a result of survival of the fittest. People are different through mutations in DNA, which is a very long and complicated code. A mutation that causes something beneficial to an organism is very rare and is like winning the lottery. Then, in order for humans to evolve from the single-celled organisms they evolved from, an incomprehensible amount of mutations would need to take place, then be passed down through enough generations that those without the gene would not be able to outlive those with it. This would take more time than one can imagine if not helped along in some way.
It isn't like winning the lottery if the vast majority of mutations aren't beneficial.. You're only looking at it in retrospect, that makes no sense.
And as far as a single cell to a human we are talking billions, not millions of years.
If most of them aren't beneficial, it's even harder to evolve...
That's what I meant, but still. Think about it. One single, tiny little cell. Through tiny, gradual mutations, one at a time, it slowly evolved into humans. Humans that have amazing brainpower and knowledge of crazy subjects. Humans that are so stable that they can lose a hundred cells and not feel a thing. Humans so advanced that they can almost make natural selection an obsolete process. That takes a long time.
Yes I think maybe you aren't wrapping your head around the amount if time this takes. Four BILLION years. We can see flies evolving in a matter of months.
But those are flies evolving as flies. This is one single cell evolving into every plant, virus, and animal you see on Earth right now.
You forget than 99% of the species that have lived on this planet are already extinct.
I don't get how that's relevant...
Because you're saying our mutations were lucky. Most were not. It is rare and that is why most species do not exist anymore. You are assigning luck in retrospect, which is nonsensical. People DO won the lottery, every time. Someone does, every time. That is not an argument.
I'll try to phrase it in a less inarticulate way.
If I gave everyone on earth a coin and said they had to flip 1,000 heads in a row or I shot them, each person who DID get it would think they were impossibly lucky. Well no shit, they're only alive to think that because they DID get lucky.
No, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. A mutation is relatively rare in itself, mistakes a ren't very common. When they do happen though, it's less of a chance of it being a beneficial mutation. The chances of mutation times the chances of that mutation being beneficial are very slim. It doesn't happen often at all today. You see millions more genetic diseases than someone with a beneficial mutation. That is why a beneficial mutation, never mind billions of them, is very hard to come by.
There isn't actually any proof the apostles did anything besides write parts of the Bible or that the majority of them even existed.
The mysterious happenings are obviously not proof, considering people see UFOs and are "abducted by aliens", report haunted houses, and all that all the time. That's not proof that aliens are swirling around in flying saucers, or that ghosts exist, and no sane person interprets the reports as so.
"Miraculous recoveries that medical hope would not have been able to complete on its own." Let's see, well, first of all, sometimes people are lucky - I don't know if you noticed. Second, studies have shown, and I can give you links if you like, that prayer does absolutely nothing to help those who are ill.
http://amirite.net/706418/1666806
Can you explain luck to me? How are you sure there's no divine intervention? and, if you had read my previous comments, God does not like to be tested.
So because I argue against your proof really being proof, I'm passing it off as bullshit? Considering I gave evidence for my views, that's not really the case.
Luck: Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.
And I cannot be sure there's no divine intervention. However, I do not need to disprove that there is divine intervention, you need to prove that there is. Going back to a previous statement I made: if I were to claim that a mutated horse were orbiting Jupiter (furthering this claim by referring to a book that claims it to be true, a book with many contradictions that was also written my multiple people throughout 1500-5000 years in the past) it would be ridiculous for me to claim that someone else needs to prove that it's not true, instead of me proving that it is true.
"God does not like to be tested." I hear this argument very frequently. I also frequently hear that we humans cannot understand the divine will and unlimited intelligence of Him. If the latter is true, then claiming that God does not like to be tested is a ridiculous assertion, as we cannot know what He does and does not like.
What evidence did you give? I only read passing it off as bullshit.
Maybe instead of luck, it was God.
I already gave you proof, but once again, all you did was pass it off as bullshit.
Actually, we can know what He doesn't like, as it's been explained in the Bible. We didn't just assume that God doesn't like to be tested. Many times when Jesus was in the desert, the Devil tempted him, telling him to turn the rocks into food if he was hungry and was actually God. He didn't because you do not test God's power, that's called doubt, which is the opposite of faith. God responds to faith.
Also, there's no proof that those were actually UFOs. Thousands of people saw the Our Lady of Fatima and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't all just make up a lie.
First of all, it seems to me we must be thinking of different events, because from what I've heard Our Lady of Fatima is apparitions of Mary appearing to 3 kids giving them various visions.
Also, speaking of no proof, there's no proof Jesus even existed.
And also, have you noticed the severe drop in events like OLoF since video cameras were invented? These events were not recorded.
Yes, I'm thinking of the same event, and from what I've been told, she appeared again in the same spot, this time with more witnesses.
Actually, there is proof Jesus existed. There has been a chain of Popes dating from today all the way back to soon after Jesus's death, because of Jesus's death.
They were recorded in writing, and I also doubt that the visions would be captured on a video camera, but who knows.
Also, I'm not going to keep handing you the reasons why I believe. If you don't agree, then I'm sorry, but all you're doing is passing it off as bullshit.
We need empirical evidence, solid proof and not anecdotes or the shared hallucinations of a bunch of hyper religious people sitting somewhere WAITING TO SEE and EXPECTING the same phenomenon.
I'm pretty sure any knowledge from before 1900 is based on anecdotes; do you not believe in that?
Are you serious?
It's all writing and records.
my issue with these situations is that God supposedly put them in that position in the first place, do you think He would just change His mind because you said pretty please?
I don't mean that in a smart-ass way, I honestly don't get it.
If He put them there for a reason, and you ask for forgiveness for that reason, or at least show your faith, then yes, I believe He would change his mind, as He is merciful.
There's no proof that skipping down the street naked DOESN'T help in any medical treatment. There are an infinite number of things that could help a person recover because they haven't been disproven. Why don't you try them all next time a loved one gets sick?
I, however, don't believe in any of those things. I have before been helped by prayer, in my belief, and will continue to pray for sick/ needy people, thank you.
I was specifically addressing your point that nobody has proven that it "DOESN'T" help, which is a useless argument by itself.
OK, but see, prayer is something that people believe helps because they've experienced its power and I believe these observations cannot be disproved without proof, which I consider impossible to find. Nobody believes in many of those infinite things, except crazy superstitions like four leaf clovers. You can say luck from a four leaf clover is not there all you want, but if that person believes in it, and it works for them, who are you to tell them that it doesn't exist? You know no better than they do.
Obviously you can't disprove (or prove) anything without proof. It's there in the word. But technically, there is no absolute proof. Asking for it is impossible and unreasonable. Significant evidence is the best you'll ever get.
And anyway, it's not as if I'm bursting into your place of worship and telling you God doesn't exist. This is a debate about the power of God and the influence of prayer. If it were a debate about the luck of a four-leaf clover, I would make the same arguments. If someone is asking to have a conversation about God's existence, etc., I would love to partake. Cliches like "who are you to tell them that it doesn't exist" have no place in a debate.
OK, and I'm simply saying the power of God is something that, I believe, to be true because I've seen and heard of it work. Asking for proof is not unreasonable, because the only way we'll know anything for sure is with proof. Until then, we will believe what we want.
One of the first things you learn in any higher level study of science is that it is impossible to prove anything. All you can do is eliminate all other reasonable possibilities. Kind off off-topic, but that's what I was saying.
Yeah, but I think, in this case, science and God are considered clashing possibilities, even though they could stand together.
How is that related to what I was saying? I was just correcting your statement that proof is the only way to know anything for sure by pointing out that technically, there is no absolute proof, so my original statement was correct; it is unreasonable to ask for proof in the accurate sense of the word.
"All you can do is eliminate all other reasonable possibilities" is what I was referring to. I'm not legitimately asking for proof, I'm just saying, you can't give it to me and so it cannot be eliminated as a possibility.
I see. I guess then it just comes to what one considers a reasonable possibility. Obviously this is very subjective, which is why my point about the existence of proof was kind of off track from the actual argument. Everyone's interpretation of reasonable is different.
I guess so, agree to respectfully disagree?
Of course!
Except for those Christians who deny medical help and only pray...and then die.
I've never heard of that before, but I believe it is stupid to ask for God's help and then shut off all means of help.
A doctor can explain an entire procedure to you without saying "Well I'm going to pray to god and see what he thinks". This is enough proof.
So now all of a sudden there's only one way to fix problems?
When did I say that?
A doctor can perform a procedure and help the patient.
That is no reason for prayer not ALSO being a way to help.
You had a ridiculously long argument on here. But I agree with your first comment.