HOME | DD
AAtheist — Don't think. Do.
#atheism #atheist #atheists #god #prayers #thoughts
Published: 2017-11-14 13:36:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 1230; Favourites: 36; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
Thoughts and prayers don't do much.Related content
Comments: 47
Hey! Guess who blocked me after a phony apology for blocking me?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seriously. Even if there was a Heaven, I wouldn't go there if it was littered with people like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aw, look, itty-bitty cry baby blocked me! Here's how I would've responded:
Hey, at least I have intelligence. I'm more impressed by intelligence than someone who can't decide if they're more afraid of dying or eternity with people they don't like so they pretend there's a Heaven and a Hell and cries every time someone wishes them "Happy Holidays". Whatever makes you feel better.
Yeah, great way to end an argument. Throw a tantrum and shout "You big bully!" But you're the mature one. Sure. Well, you do have a talent for believing the unbelievable.
Spoken like a true loser.
Fuck your prayer list. I told you, prayer has never and never will work on me. You're so charitable, hoping I burn forever in Hell. If you didn't hope for that, you wouldn't worship a monster that created Hell.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I owe you an apology. If you check on our page, we're rather knew here at DA. and there are five of us, so I'm not always on when others post. I thought blocking you kept you from harassing us on our page, I didn't realize that it prevented you from a response on someone else's page. So you have been unblocked and I won't block you unless you start in on our page with your rudeness and swearing. I hope you'll understand the mistake.
As far as any other response from me, my previous one below this is sufficient.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you Legion? Royalty? Gollum? Why are you using the plural?
Also, you want the word "new" in this case rather than "knew". And if you can't handle rudeness and swearing, maybe you need to get off the internet and go have some cookies and milk.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As Forest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does." If you read my previous reply, it tells you why I used the plural. You, having the self-defined superior intellect you mentioned earlier, probably missed that. XD!
Or you COULD read our profile, but I think you're too busy taking hate vitamins. Good news, though, they're working really well! XD!
As far as the "new" and the "knew", wow, you got me there, I'm guilty of being human. But you are a really good editor!! If you want, you can edit my next post. It's all about God and how prayer works for everyone, even if they don't like it or it has never worked on them before! XD! This is hilarious! I crack myself up! The other writer who is here at the moment laughed to. (I know it's supposed to be "too", but I'm testing you to see if you'll catch it) They just laughed out loud, like LOL!
By the way, I've got a parrot named Gollum. And she just laughed.
How's the blood pressure? I can pray for that, too! Right now I can imagine the veins sticking out in your neck. Or, no, sorry, it's a wrinkle. XD!
I think you prayed at one time or another, and I think prayer worked for you and then something else turned you away from God. MORE good news. He's waiting there until you come around, and you will. So I'll pray for you. That's another great thing about prayer, you can't block it, it just seeps right into that hardened heart of yours and eventually you'll be singing in a church choir. If you can't sing, no worries, you can read the bible to us.
God Bless you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why are you sharing a profile? You know they're free, right?
Only a true idiot would attempt to make fun of someone for being smarter than them. You really aren't making yourself look better at all. I could read your profile, but you'd probably just block me, so why should I?
You really are an idiot, laughing at your own jokes, if you call those jokes. Oh well, Christians never were known for their humor. Your pet parrot at least has the excuse of being a dumb animal that just repeats what it hears. What's your excuse?
Oh, now we're getting to insults on personal appearance, even though you haven't the slightest clue what I look like. Yes, you are the superior in everything compared to me, I'm sure. (That's sarcasm, BTW.)
Prayer NEVER worked for me. Not once. Not ever. My grandmother went to her grave with her prayers for me to turn to God unanswered. You think God likes you more? You think you're special? Do you think God really cares more about your piddling concerns than, say, the people in Puerto Rico who are really suffering? That's just one more thing I hate about Christians. Your narcissism.
Go fuck yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it very well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please stop talking to that mirror. You're MPD as it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If prayers had a tangible effect, world peace would have already been achieved, everyone would be healthy and everyone would have won the jackpot at thier local lottery.
I’m inclined to believe actions > prayers as well. Perhaps thoughts too, but at least thoughts tend to lead to actions, so not as much I suppose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It makes sense. Most people who call theirselves in any religion call theirself "a good person", but anyone who disagrees with them are human trash. I recently became a Deist, and truly, reason is truth, I do believe in a god, but I don't think we need to be religious. Also, a lot of religious texts do contradict theirselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have not yet come across a religion which is not consistently illogical in many way. Apart from humanism possibly, but even there it depends on which flavour of humanism you choose, and when practised as a religion I think it still has inconsistencies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What? Actually doing something has a more measurable effect than hoping things will happen, or appealing to primitive bipolar skywizards?
I think I'mma need a moment, this is blowing my mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Prayers and thoughts are one thing, but by acting you do what is needed most. That's what a true believer really is
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for a chance to reply.
A beautiful digital piece of art, very inspirational.
As far as the concept? You can do both, you know, and that is what Christianity is all about. Prayer is conversing with God, acts of kindness are putting God's message of love to work in the world. Of course prayer works.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Prayer works at what? What does it actually do? It certainly doesn't do anything physical. If it did, it would be easy to see and recognise.
"Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting." ~Sam Harris.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your response.
First of all, I really did like your digital art, all opposing views on the concept aside, it drew my eye to it immediately. It really is a very good composition. And I respect your right to not believe in God. It's a free choice.
Now, regarding the mentioned "single act of kindness" in your post. Perhaps you get the same result on the temporal side of things, but not on the spiritual side. If you do both the act of kindness and pray for them as well, you are doing two acts of kindness. Helping them in this world, and asking God to enrich their soul at the same time, whether they believe in God at that moment in their life or not. That is how conversions happen. Christians believe that praying for someone else is a selfless act. We don't do it for a personal reward, we do it for the one we're praying for and the glory of God. So it is a spiritual act of kindness.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." ~ Pope John Paul II
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A very polite reply, thank you for that.
There are a few problems that I see with your response. First, you are asserting that there is a spiritual side to be affected in the first place, which is something I see no evidence for.
Next, many prayers are indeed for physical effects. For example, many people will pray for a relative or friend to get better. If prayer had an effect this would be very simple to collect data on. Those people who lived in religious countries (for whichever religion you think is suitable) would be more likely to get better. General recovery from surgeries and treatments would be better. The entire population would be healthier and probably have a longer lifespan. Unfortunately that divide does not exist. Peoples general health and welfare is divided very obviously along a countries access to good medical care, and the quality of that care. As Sam Harris noted also, people only pray for things which could be attributable to God if they go right, but which are not conclusive. As in his example of people not praying for someone to grow an arm back. However if someone recovers from a tricky surgery then maybe it was God's intervention. But also maybe not.
Finally, God is (supposedly) omniscient. God already knows everything about the subject that you are praying about. Your prayer will not change God's mind or actions. It cannot, because you are not giving God any new information, or changing his opinion of old information. This means that even if I accept that God exists, that there is a spiritual world, your prayer will still make no difference to anything except your own thoughts. No matter what you pray about it can change nothing but your own mind. And even there the effect is extremely limited, mostly just making you feel a little better about a situation, thinking that you have done something to alter the outcome.
So I'm sorry, even if we completely ignore the question of God's existence, or the spiritual world you claim, I still don't see how prayer can "work" at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You deserve a polite response; after all, you're really no different than I am. We're both searching for answers, we both have areas we understand better than others, and we always learn the valid points of others arguments by listening and responding with respect rather than verbally beating the snot out of each other with personal attacks. People should be able to discuss things and then go have a hamburger and a beer together. Maybe two beers! XD
I can respect your view on the spiritual side of things; it's a tough argument for Christians. The way I see it, is just because a person can see no scientific evidence of a spiritual side, that doesn't discount its existence. It just shows that no current evidence, as of yet, has been found that it exists. Somewhat along the lines of "the earth was flat until we discovered the earth is round”. There are supernatural events that science has no answer for, so I don’t have need for the evidence. If you do, I respect that.
I do believe that God is omniscient, however I don't think that "all knowing" eliminates uncaring or the ability to be swayed. If that were the case, then I can see how prayer would look worthless. I don’t believe in Deism, I believe in an active and participating God.
I understand why you might think that people in religious countries would be more likely to get better; however I’m not sure how you could accurately measure that. I’m not sure you understand the concept of prayer. When people pray they are not trying to control God, or manipulate Him, or tell Him what he should do. It is a request. The final choice is up to God. To measure it as you suggest, means to measure just the favorable response from God. But we believe that God, being all knowing, knows what is best for people, (like parents for children or children for their pets), so we respect "no" as well as a "yes", to be an answer.
True, you can claim that the relative would have gotten better anyway, but you don't know that for certain, he might have died without the prayers. We believe that all good things come from God, so because it didn't interfere with His plan for humanity or that specific individual, the prayer was granted. I THINK it falls somewhere within the free will choice and I believe Sam Harris doesn't honor that in his arguments. I haven't followed Sam Harris closely, so someone more qualified might be able to answer that better for you. Same as with the regeneration of the appendage issue. The only answer I have for that is that when we pray, we do so keeping in mind the "respect for God's design". God created all species, with certain abilities, for a certain purpose. Salamanders might be able to regenerate limbs, but neither birds nor humans have that capability. We believe that God HAS the ability to regenerate the arm, because he made the man. That's the best I can do. (Maybe the beer would have helped here!)
Modern research on prayer healing is for the most part in an early phase. I’m aware of tests that already counter my position, however, there is a vast amount of information on miraculous prayer healings which have been scientifically studied, in some cases over hundreds of years with the most sophisticated methods known to man, and have not been able to be scientifically justified. Against popular opinion, The Catholic Church isn’t in the deception business; it seeks the truth as does science. But they are two different disciplines. That is probably where both you and I would, so to speak, “hit an immovable wall”.
I’m not implying faith-healings that one might see on Evangelical shows on Sunday morning television, where an invalid suddenly jumps up out of a wheel chair and everyone screams “Praise be to God”, those may be well-intentioned (if that's a word) but they certainly aren’t helpful. XD
Sorry, I got carried away, so I'll wrap it up. In other words, if I were to present to you those inconclusive examples of well-documented healings ( i.e., Parkinson disease healed overnight) within the Catholic Church , it would be easy for you to conclude that even if a natural explanation is not currently known, there is one out there which will eventually be found.
However, to me, that is as much of a “faith” as the one which I hold. So on those grounds, I come to the conclusion that until science proves the healings natural, they are legitimate supernatural arguments for my “faith”.
Sorry I got so wordy, I think a beer and hamburger are in order! If I don’t hear from you before Thanksgiving, have a good one!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are natural explanations for nearly every event you are ever likely to be aware of. The few things that cannot be explained are usually deep physics. If a reasonable scientific explanation can be found for an event that posits no external or supernatural forces then why would you ignore that explanation in favour of a supernatural one that requires supernatural forces that cannot be explained?
If a God is omniscient then it cannot be swayed. It knows your opinion. It knows what you think. It always knew what you were going to think. Nothing has changed by your attempt to change it's mind. It received no new information. Nothing changed for the God. So why would it change it's mind? In a funny way an omniscient God doesn't even have free will. It's opinion cannot cannot change, no new variables can appear, it knows the outcomes and consequences of every decision it will ever make before it ever makes them. It even already knows what decisions it will make. In a way it cannot make a decision, because those decisions have already been made, long before the situation occurred which prompted the necessity of the decision.
If a God is omniscient, it has no free will.
Accurately measuring whether the power of prayer works or not would actually be easy. More religious countries pray more. Therefore if prayer changes outcomes for the better then those countries would have better outcomes generally speaking. More people would recover from injuries, more people would recover from diseases, more people would do well in businesses. Every single demographic in the country would do better and be happier than other, less religious countries. Those statistics are actually pretty easily collected. For example if you take a look at the World Health Index you will find that LESS religious countries tend to be happier than religious countries.
Here is a link for your perusal, worldhappiness.report/
All "Miraculous" healings have been either undocumented or in less than scientific circumstances (to put it mildly). Many are later found to be hoaxes, and others have had simple natural explanations. Of those that cannot be explained there is little to no documentation and often little more than anecdote as "evidence". Anecdote does not count as evidence.
To steal the words of another, "Throughout history, every mystery, has turned out to be... Not magic."
To claim that because some things cannot be explained therefore results in God is simply a God of the Gaps argument, and is frankly an old and tired argument with no logical merit. You will have to do better than that and actually provide some form of evidence to prove that there is actually something supernatural about a mystery before you can actually attribute it to supernatural sources.
To steal the words of another "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your reply.
Natural explanations don’t have the capacity to explain supernatural events; they work only with what is available in the natural world. Questions such as the effects of prayer, miraculous healings, explanations for the stigmata, The Shroud of Turin, that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. That makes them outside the realm of science but doesn’t make them false. For many, including myself, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. That is why I rely on the bible and believe that prayer does work.
As I mentioned earlier, I haven’t read much of what Sam Harris has to offer because Harris refuses to confront many of the arguments that philosophers doing work on “free will” have offered. Most philosophers consider that an act of academic irresponsibility. I do too.
You may believe God has no free will, probably because Sam Harris believes it, and by all means believe it; but I don’t believe that. It holds no weight with me.
If I presented a view that reflected the argument of the God Gap, my bad, it’s not only old and boring, it’s irrelevant to me, and the bible doesn’t support it.
So basically, this is what I meant when I said we were going to hit that “Immovable wall”. I’m not going to change my views, I believe in prayer, my religion and the bible. You are not going to change your views, you believe in no prayer, no religion (non-theism) and science. If we were able to disprove the other’s views, it would undoubtedly be a world-changing event!
I still like your art but disagree with the content. I think in evaluating conceptual art, the viewer has the right to do so.
By the way, you should be careful when you refer to magic, believing that absolutely everything started from absolutely nothing sure sounds like it.
Thanks for your time!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You assume that there are in fact supernatural events, without providing any reason for me to believe such. As I have already said, every "supernatural event" that has been in conditions where scientific scrutiny is possible has turned out to not be so supernatural at all. Even where scientific scrutiny has not been possible simple logic has been able to come up with perfectly reasonable explanations. You say natural explanations do not explain supernatural events. Of course not, that's why they're called supernatural. I'm saying that I have no reason to believe that supernatural events even exist.
As for Sam Harris, I did not mention him in respect to free will at all. I mentioned him solely in a quote about the efficacy of prayer. The arguments about free will are my own understanding of it. Indeed I haven't read or heard any of Sam Harris' arguments on free will in about 10 years. I'm sure his arguments have changed since then.
So you cannot simply ignore my arguments by attributing them to someone else and using canned responses. They are my own, and if you want to be intellectually honest I expect you to argue against them properly without dismissing them out of hand.
You think that starting the universe without a creator sounds like magic? OK fine, but where did the creator come from? I know, I know, you're going to say that it is eternal. Great. Where did that knowledge come from? bearing in mind that the bible is a heavily suspect source without scientific validity. The bible has too many scientific inaccuracies to be taken as a scientific source.
Now you say that we've hit that immovable object in your mind. I have not. If you actually provide evidence for your claims I assure you I will give them as objective a chance as I can. I have to say though that saying you will not change your mind, no matter the evidence or argument shows that you are, as I have said before, being intellectually dishonest. You are not actually considering the arguments I propose at all. In fact you aren't even really arguing at all, merely rehearsing your own opinions and using canned arguments that you've learned from someone else.
Until you can tell me that you will try, merely try, to look at my arguments objectively then I agree that you are correct. This conversation is pointless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your reply.
No, I believe in supernatural events and these events don’t hinge on reasons which you feel I need to provide in order for you to believe. The material is out there for you as well as it is for me.
As far as Sam Harris, regardless of what specific quote you gave, if he is considered by most of his peers to be academically irresponsible, I don’t consider him a credible source. You apparently do, as of yet, or you wouldn’t quote him at all.
Do I think the theory "something from absolutely nothing" sounds like magic? Hell yes. If I told you I just made an ostrich out of nothing, you'd laugh. I'd laugh, too. But you expect me to believe that all of creation came from nothing, including something as complex and the DNA code? When atheist Francis Crick discovered DNA, he knew it meant disaster to a naturalistic origin of life (evolution) worldview. But instead of admitting to a Creator, he argued that aliens seeded life on the planet.
I'm not ignoring your arguments, I'm looking at them comprehensively.
What you are asking me to do is to let you attempt to wrap science around God and then justify it for you. You can't wrap science around God, God encompasses science. He created science. Science is finite thought. God is infinite intelligence and existence. Science may consider the bible "a heavily suspect source without scientific validity". This is because science is limited to the natural. The bible says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16). The bible deals with what science can't, or doesn't want to admit; and that is why science attempts to discredit it. Science fears the bible. As do atheists. That is why you hear so many times, "let's debate but without the bible".
Bible scholars tell us that 300 references from different people at different points in time refer to 61 specific prophecies of the Messiah , all of which which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The odds of that are beyond all mathematical possibility. One chance in a trillion and trillions of trillions. Yet it happened. Only God can do that.
The Bible is the only religious book that correctly portrays the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the hydrologic cycle. For example: “For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man." (Job 36: 27-28)
NASA’s Ames Research Center confirmed that every element in man can be found in the soil. (Reader's Digest 1982)
The value of Pi can be found in the bible. ldolphin.org/pi/
I can go on and on, but I don't need to. I believe in science but not as my ultimate authority; God is, as is the bible. So when you tell me to look at your side objectively, what you are really saying is look at your side without my religious beliefs. The flip side of that coin, why don't you look objectively at my side? Have you studied the bible? Have you seen what it says about prayer? Here are a few passages:
"He will respond to the prayer of the destitute; he will not despise their plea." (Ps 102:17)
"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2)
"I call on you, my God, for you will answer me; turn your ear to me and hear my prayer. (Ps 17:6)
So when you say prayer doesn't work, you are in fact saying science can't prove that prayer works. But the bible proves it works. And the bible is the word of God. God is outside the realm of science. God created science. So why would I take an inferior position based on science when I can take a superior position based on God's word?
What else do I believe? I believe that deep down all of us know the truth because it is innate within us. Many, just as Francis Crick, merely won't admit it to themselves.
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)
"You show that you are Christ’s letter, delivered by us, not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God—not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (2 Corinthians 3:3)
So with all due respect, to address your final statement, am I willing to disregard my religious beliefs so I can see the merit of your argument? No I am not. Are you willing to accept my religious arguments? It's highly unlikely. THAT is what I was referring to as the "immovable wall" we would eventually hit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are absolutely ignoring my arguments, and those that you do not ignore you are misinterpreting.
For example, my quote from Sam Harris is a self contained argument that does not require a credible source. I mentioned that it was a quote from Sam Harris not because I think it adds any weight to the argument, but because I did not wish to claim the argument for my own when it is not. Your obsession with the fact that it is said by Sam Harris allows you to ignore the argument in itself. This is effectively a combination of a straw man argument and an Ad Hominem fallacy. You are attacking the source of the argument without addressing the argument itself.
Now, you say you believe in supernatural events, and then you say that you do not have to provide evidence. For your own belief you are absolutely correct, for yourself you do not have to have evidence. But if you want me to take you in any way seriously you absolutely have to provide a reason for me to do so. You are not doing so.
I do not give the bible any credence, saying "but the bible says..." without hard data to back up your point it is useless. Even when there is hard data that you try to use it is often factually wrong. For example, Pi is not in the bible. It tries to give Pi and actually comes very close, it equals what was a scholarly excepted version of Pi for when it was written. However, it works out Pi as 3. Pi is not 3. Pi is an irrational infinite number that never repeats and is quite incredible all on it's own. But the bible doesn't mention any of this. The bible says it is 3.
And no, when I say prayer doesn't work I am not saying that science cannot prove whether prayer works. I have already given you several arguments showing how the effects of prayer could be scientifically measured and proven. In fact those studies are already in place as a coincidental results of healthcare statistics in various countries. when something should provide evidence of its existence if it exists but doesn't, then that means it does not exist. An absence of evidence is in the case evidence of absence. This is another case where you have ignored the argument I have presented and reinterpreted it to something you can argue against.
If there was any reason to believe that your religious arguments held merit I could in fact look at them objectively. I have on several occasions played devils advocate and taken the religious side in an argument, and even won arguments while doing so. However you are using religious arguments to try and counter scientific ones. "Because I believe it to be so." Is not an argument, neither is "because the bible says..."
Finally I have not tried to wrap God in science, I have actually tried to understand your view of God using ethics and philosophy, two completely different disciplines to science and both closely related to theology. My argument is fairly
well encapsulated in the flow chart below. As far as I can see there is no way for your view of God to be logically consistent with the universe in which we live. Science is not in fact needed to see that, simply a theological debate of the properties of God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not surprised that you give no credence to the bible, for it has all the needed answers. That's more than you can say about ethics, philosophy and science.
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
"They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." (Ephesians 4:18)
"Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
Much thanks for you time and I wish you well.
"If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave." (Matthew 10:14)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It does not hold the answers. Trying to use the bible to prove that the bible is true is circular reasoning at its worst. Science, philosophy and ethics hold a lot more answers than the bible ever has.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I recently came across some information which might interest you, however, I am a writer, not an apologist, so you debate much better than I do. These are just FYI:
There actually was a miracle in which a limb grew back in answer to prayer, in the miracle of Calanda. I was unaware of it at the time of our discussion.
churchpop.com/2016/01/12/god-c…
And this issue was actually addressed by a very prominent Catholic apologist by the name of Trent Horn:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3-Li…
The Catholic Answers site I think would address your questions much better than I could ever do, it is a very interesting site for those seeking the truth.
I thought of you when I came across both of them.
I hope they answer the concerns you had, and thanks again for your time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, one alleged miracle from 1640 does not prove that prayer works. Prayer clearly doesn't work otherwise there would be many more cases of amputees getting their limbs back, and certainly a lot more recently than nearly 400 years ago. A time when there were no cameras of any kind.
As for the catholic addressing atheist openmindedness, his reasoning is highly flawed. To start he builds a straw man argument saying that when atheists are presented with evidence they then usually question the evidence, which is certainly true as there is no credible evidence for God to date. However he then states that we argue there is no possible evidence, which is not true. There are many possible evidences for God, amputees simply being one.
Second he says that if someone prayed for a limb to grow back and then it did this wouldn't prove the existence of God and would simply be another "God of the gaps" argument. Which is in part true, in order for something to be proven correct it also has to be shown not to be simply a coincidence. Things just happening to work out correctly. Therefore a single instance of a regrown limb would not be proof, but an anomaly that cannot yet be explained. However if it was a repeated phenomena then it constitute as proof.
Another logical fallacy that he commits is a false analogy. He states a limb cannot grow from nothing, which is true, and therefore if a limb grew and that was proof of God then why isn't the origin of the universe evidence for God? To start, they aren't even close to being analogous, a limb regrowing wouldn't grow from nothing it would grow from the body of the amputee using all the normal resources that the body usually uses. The body does in fact have the genes to regrow limbs, they simply in the "off" position. So this would not be an unreasonable experiment. If people who lost their limbs could simply pray to God for their limbs to grow back and they did, while people from other religions experienced no such benefit, then that would indeed constitute evidence of God. Finally he says that a universe cannot come from nothing. On this point he is simply ignorant of the great deal of science already done on this exact topic. I would suggest reading the work of theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss.
In fact there are so many problems with his arguments that going over his entire video would be quite exhausting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You could skip the prayer, do the act of kindness and have the same result.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for being decent with your reply.
I assume you are an atheist also. I respect your choice.
Perhaps you get the same result on the temporal side of things, but not on the spiritual side. If you do both the act of kindness and pray for them as well, you are doing two acts of kindness. Helping them in this world, and asking God to enrich their soul at the same time, whether they believe in God at that moment in their life or not. That is how conversions happen. Christians believe that praying for someone else is a selfless act. We don't do it for a personal reward, we do it for the one we're praying for and the glory of God. So it is a spiritual act of kindness.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, you're praying that a person completely changes who they are to suit you. How charitable of you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your response.
I'm not sure I understand. So you believe then that it can happen and you are concerned about that? Or you don't believe it can happen but you're concerned that I pray?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't get sarcasm, do you? Fine, I'll dumb it down for you. I'm saying that it isn't very charitable to want someone to change who they are to make you happy. It is condescending, presumptuous and self-centered. Take people as they are or leave them alone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your response.
I understood the sarcasm and that's a classic -- You telling me what is condescending and presumptuous, right after you so charitably "dumb" things down for me. XD That's another thing about Christianity. It teaches a person to be respectful to others and to learn to disagree without stooping to personal attacks and rudeness.
So I'll clarify what I meant. Charitability is subjective. I respect your opinion, I respect the artists opinion, however you don't determine what I consider charitable, I determine that on my own according to my religious beliefs. That is why in my initial comment on the art, I left my opinion, "of course prayer works". And I did so respectfully and I didn't say anyone was wrong. Since DA allows room at the end of a post for comments, either in favor of what the artist did or not so favorably, and it also allows for the artist to disable comments if they wish not to hear any; he didn't do so, so I felt I'd leave a comment.
Also note, I commented on the art. Then I commented on the concept of the art, which is still commenting on the art if it is a conceptual piece, which it is. I didn't comment of the artist's beliefs, I didn't comment of atheism. I commented on the art.
Now let's consider something else. My comment was for the artist. You're not the artist. You didn't comment on the art. In fact, you STILL haven't commented on the piece. So what exactly is YOUR motive here then?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Christianity teaches someone to be respectful and learn to disagree? That's rich. I haven't seen that in action yet.
Are you aware how colonialism works? It starts out as charity. "Oh, those poor savages! They need to be taught the proper way to live!" Then it mutates into more parasitical than charitable. "Hey, know that piece of land you said your gods gave you? Well, there's only one true god, and that's my god and he said that piece of land is mine, so I'll be taking my property now. Thanks!" And no, prayer doesn't work. Things either happen or they don't. There's no invisible man pulling the strings. Think about it; what happens when two people pray for two different things? To tell the truth, I'm living proof prayer doesn't work. If prayer works, why don't you just pray that I'll stop disagreeing with you?
Didn't say you couldn't comment. All I did was point out the blindingly obvious and it hurt your tender feelings. Sorry, I keep forgetting only your opinion matters. My motive, such as it was, was just to point out what should have been obvious since you didn't seem to notice it. Should have expected as much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0