Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 201 (195572)
03-30-2005 9:53 PM


It's all in the spin...
It's 9-11 and the towers are burning:
Christians that make it out alive are saved by God.
Christians that are killed are called by God to heaven, who works in mysterious ways.
Non Christians that make it out alive are saved by God, to show them God's power and mercy.
Non Christians that are killed die because they don't believe in God.
See, simple, with the right Public Relations spin, God can't go wrong.
If you pray and get what you asked for , God answered your prayer.
If you pray and it doesn't come, you were asking for the wrong thing.
If you don't pray, but get what you need, God id infinitely merciful, even to non-believers.
If you don't pray, and you don't get the things you need, it's your own fault for not praying.
Therefore, prayer never fails.
Citizzzen

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Monk, posted 04-01-2005 12:10 PM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 201 (197096)
04-05-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Monk
04-01-2005 12:10 PM


One person's spin is another person's rinse...
"...But the same Public Relations can be applied to an atheist view of prayer. If a believer gets what is asked for, it is merely chance, pure coincidence. If a believer does not get what is asked for, then prayer is a futile activity. Therefore, prayer always fails. With the right spin, the atheist can never be wrong..."
No, it really depends on what is being prayed for. Complete spontaneous remission of some advanced form of cancer would not be a coincidence. Besides, my point is that whenever someone survives a tragedy, they thank God. By contrast, the families of the survivors take heart knowing that their loved one is with God, who didn't save them here on earth because they were needed in heaven. What is the atheist corollary to that?
"...Now, what is not often considered by atheists is this question. How often does a coincidence need to occur before it can begin to look no longer as a coincidence? Does the sum total of multiple coincidences occurring on a regular basis and often in quick succession constitute something other than one large coincidence? One might say no, it is just one large coincidence, until it happens to them..."
What's your coincidence? Again, show me a cancer ward where several people miraculously went into late stage remission, and I will be impresed. Show me someone with early stage breast cancer, who has surgury, undergoes chemo and then makes a full recovery, and no, I will not be seeing the hand of God at work.
Can I have an example of a set of occurences, happeningon a regular basis, in quick succession that are obviously suernatural in origin? Perhaps I missed this happenign on the evening news...
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Monk, posted 04-01-2005 12:10 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:14 PM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 201 (197116)
04-05-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Monk
04-05-2005 10:14 PM


Athiests refuse to acknowlege the miracles that God doesn't do anymore...
"...I'm not sure I understand. Why does it depend on what is being prayed for. If a believer proclaimed that their prayers were answered, regardless of the prayer request, an atheist would not declare Divine intervention. Our atheist would, out of necessity to their belief (or lack thereof), find another explanation, any other explanation. The most common one used is mere chance, or luck..."
People claim that UFO's, Bigfoot, and any number of supernatural occurrences exist. I am sure we can come up with a couple of examples neither of us thinks are real. Clearly their belief does not convince you. So, when people claim that their prayers are answered, yes atheists are likely to doubt it. But again, show me a late term, stage three cancer remission, and I would hardly call that a coincidence.
Now, let me turn this around for a moment... Do you believe the prayers of Hindus, Theist Buddhists, and Muslims are answered? If so, who do you believe is answering them? If not, what do you think would explain their believing that their God's answered them?
"...You assume that the only way in which God could or would make His presence known is through the media in some kind of global photo op. Atheist will never understand that God does not operate that way...
So, fist you say that atheists refuse to acknowledge that some coincidences are simply to uncanny not to be divinely inspired, but when I ask for example, you say that God doesn't work that way... So which is it, are atheists refusing to acknowledge the divine, or is the divine not acting in a way they can acknowledge?
"...God does not operate that way... (At least not in recent times)"
Yeah, that's true of a lot of Gods. Zeus and Thor and Apollo are laying low these days too. In fact, in pretty much every religion the Gods used to be pretty active. Wooing mortal women, slaying mythical beasts, doling out fire, etc. In the OT God is constantly getting involved in the affairs of men, lot's of showy miracles too... In the era of video cameras, instant communications and the internet, about the best he can conjure up anymore is a face on a Mexican billboard...
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 10:14 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Monk, posted 04-08-2005 2:34 AM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 201 (197826)
04-09-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Monk
04-08-2005 2:34 AM


Don't be dissing pixies!
"...I don’t know what these comments (People claim that UFO's, Bigfoot, and any number of supernatural occurrences exist) have to do with prayer request..."
They have to do with your comment that, "...If a believer proclaimed that their prayers were answered, regardless of the prayer request, an atheist would not declare Divine intervention..."
My point being that, yes, an atheist would not simply "believe" the claims of Divine intervention, but since lots of people make lots of claims, why should s/he simply believe any of them? Especially when the claim includes an implicit belief in a supernatural force? More importantly, what makes your claims of Divine intervention any more credible than people who say they have been visited by Aliens? If someone made that claim, you and I would probably both be skeptical. In the case of the power of prayer, I am still skeptical.
"...I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. (Hindus, Theist Buddhists, and Muslims)..."
But you don't automatically believe them, yes? So, we are again on the same side. People from other religions claim that their Gods (Some of whom are mutually exclusive with your God) are answering their prayers and you are, if not skeptical, at least not willing to immediately believe them. So, what's so strange that atheists would add your claims to that list?
"...If they say that God is answering their prayers, who am I to say He is not..."
If they say that their God is the one, true God and he is answering their prayers, would you agree with that also? If not, we are back to the same argument. A believer claims his/her prayers are being answered by their God, and you don't believe them.
"...Both you and crashfrog have asked for an example of a coincidence and I’ll provide one. But not one necessarily caused by God. In fact, I am not interested in determining the cause of the coincidence. I am only interested in determining whether the sum total of coincidences constitute a phenomenon that is beyond chance or luck.
So then here is your example:
Suppose you are driving on the highway...and you are humming a song....Then you reach over and turn on the car’s radio and the same song is playing...The next day the same thing occurs...This time with a different song...So how many days does this event need to occur before it would no longer be considered a coincidence? How many times before the statistical probability is beyond mere chance? 3 days? 4, 5...That’s the question I would like to know and I’m not interested in speculating as to the cause. I don’t care to hear any sarcasms related to magic pixies casting spells..."
I would certainly agree with you that this seems like a lot more than a coincidence. However, since I do not believe in any divine force, or magic, or other non-straight forward forces in the world, I would have to try to postulate a real world reason for why that happened, and then see if I can test the theory.
Now, are you claiming that this, or a similar coincidence is happening to you? If not, this is an interesting hypothetical, but I don't see where it takes us. Yes, there are events that atheists can not explain. That doesn't mean they are going to throw out all of their experiences and suddenly believe in a largely unbelievable story (to atheists) simply because they can't explain something...
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Monk, posted 04-08-2005 2:34 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:37 AM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 201 (198107)
04-10-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Monk
04-09-2005 2:37 AM


So far it is a confusing tangent, nothing more.
At the risk of sounding admin. like, I don't get how this relates to prayer. I thought the point was that Atheists always try to find "real world" explanations for things, but that sometimes coincidences happen so often, and so repeatedly that "coincidence" just doesn't cut it.
Crashfrog and I both asked for examples of the "coincidences" that Atheists were dismissing, but were first told that God doesn't work that way (anymore...) Now we are debating a completely hypothetical top 40... I am not a stickler for relevance, but if this is an elaborate set up to make a point, I am ready for the point to be made...
Oh, and to contribute to the current tangent, when I was in college our local townie radio station was completely automated. As such, sometimes a song would play and then a pre-recorded DJ would back sell the previous song and announce the next song. Other times, the songs would just play back to back. Because it was all pre-recorded and programmed, it was like listening to an album, where one song would end and you would immediately start humming the next song before it started. I don't know if this proves/disproves anything, but it tells you to avoid Central PA if you want innovative music selection!
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:37 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Monk, posted 04-11-2005 3:48 PM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 201 (199598)
04-15-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Monk
04-11-2005 3:48 PM


Sorry I'm late, I was paying Caesar
Thank you for the recap, it brought your example into better focus.
"...I was trying to offer a scenario where all is not what it seems and that some events in life appear to be more than random chance. I do this in order to open the possibility that these events do not always have a plausible, identifiable, physical cause..."
I think your example was a good way to demonstrate that sometimes things occur, and they can not be explained. However, when this happens, people will speculate about an explanation. Speculation leads to hypothesis, which leads to conditions that can be tested.
At this point, you have to ask, has any hypothetical supernatural explanation ever been proven to be true, or even resisted efforts to prove that it is false? I do not know of one. In fact, James Randi has a standing offer of $1,000,000.00 for verifiable proof of any supernatural force. He has never had to pay up.
I realize that not every phenomenon (prayer, for example) has ever been proven or "disproven" conclusively. However, no supernatural occurrence has ever been proven to be real. Also, real world explanations continue to be found for potential supernatural events. Until at least one supernatural occurrence is ever proven, I think skeptics are right to discount supernatural hypothesis outright, and search only for real world reasons.
"...For atheist, the quest for a physical explanation has no end. If one is not found, then the argument is simply that some day it will be. Believers get to a point where potential physical explanations have been stretched beyond limits and a supernatural cause begs to be recognized..."
Again, no supernatural occurrence has ever been proven, and if real world explanations have ultimately been found for many events. Based on this, which outlook makes more sense? Let me use another, non-religious, example.
I watched a special on Discovery (?) about a UFO sighting in the Southwest. Lights had hung in the sky apparently motionless for almost a half hour, and then just disappeared. The lights had been seen by thousands of people, and there was no immediate explanation. Ufologists looked into the event and, surprise, decided that they were extra-terrestrial in nature. Ultimately it was shown to be flares used by the military, which eventually dropped behind a ridge line and "disappeared". My point is, the more open people are to supernatural occurrences, the more likely they are to find them.
"...I was trying to show this using the hypothesis as foundation and also to show how it is possible that perfectly sane rational people come to a belief in God and that, in doing so, they have not suddenly become delusional..."
I agree. But nowadays "perfectly sane rational people" develop belief in Allah, Krishna, God, and many other deities. In times past "perfectly sane rational people" believed in Zeus, Thor, and Apollo. If you don't propose that all of the deities exist (or existed) then aren't some of them, if not delusional, coming to an incorrect conclusion?
"...If...events can be shown to be beyond random chance...and if the cause has been explored extensively and no viable physical explanation presents itself then causes outside of nature would, to some people, be feasible..."
Well, to bring things back to prayer, are you suggesting that most Christians explore every possible "real world" reason for the appearance of prayers being answered, before they decide that prayer works? I would argue that, much like the Ufologists, most Christians have already made up their minds.
I would bet the same is true for religious belief in general. Some people have experimented with various religions, before choosing the one that "works" for them. However, my experience is that most people simply adopt the dominant religion of their family/neighborhood/country.
I was dealing with a personal communication from God that I found impossible to deny
I am curious why you assumed you were being contacted by God, as opposed to Allah, or Krishna, or some other deity.
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Monk, posted 04-11-2005 3:48 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 3:20 PM Citizzzen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024