Bay 12 Games Forum

Do you all want to tell him, or can I?

As you said, god will not respond to observed prayer contitions or do anything heavly physical. You pray to come to terms with your own desires. We are officaly out of the ballpark at that point, and into a gap of human knowlage. Like I said, we won't really move from here. The only thing to be said by me at this point is that your prayer has no supernatural origins, and you just get results from focus.

*Shrugs* At that point I think it ceases to be a matter of "Gaps in human knowledge" and more "Matter of perspective".
As for the origin of  the responses to my prayers... at this point I don't know that it's that significant. Whether or not my actions would have different results, this perspective is valuable to me; as I have no interest in trying to tear others from their beliefs, and as no one has been able to show mine to be actually invalid/illogical... yeah, I think we're done.

Okay, I'll post.

Quote from: Dwarf mc dwarf on July 18, 2010, 08:51:26 am

I don't mind theists atheists as long as they don't try to convert me

Why do you guys have to be harshing his good vibes?

So, first of all, thank you. You posted *just* as I was about to make my final comment and walk away. Seriously. I was *this* close to freedom.

I'll get you for that...

No, it doesn't invalidate your point, because your point is fully insubstantial. I just thought I'd give the study to prove I wasn't making it up. We've come to a bit of a stalemate here. You and I won't be moving from this point in the argument, I assure you. You are in the gaps of knowlege, and I am outside. We cannot take this further, unless we decide to just start insulting one another.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the study didn't exist; I meant that the study could not have been scientifically valid, for the reason I described.

"In the gaps of knowledge"- you're getting a little too metaphory for me there. Explain?

What I'm trying to say here is that you just projected your belief onto god. Why should god avoid tests? Is god trying to loo like a figment of human cultures collective imagination. Without faith is he nothing and goes "poof" in a cloud of logic? And for that point, what is a "genuine prayer"?

Describing the god that is already doubted only gives more context for a doubt. It's easier to disbelieve a giant amorphous entity beyond space and time that grants wishes than a  regular old giant amorphous being beyond space and time.

I can come to terms with my desires without praying. It may be hard for other people so I see how asking some invisible confidant for help might work. (is your god invisible or really far away? I'm only familiar with astronomical cosmology.)

Well, it isn't a valid study. Maybe he loves test, and would answer prayers more if it'd show off that he existed. But it's still not a fair sampling, and never can be.

As for the lack of proof/evidence, I explained my theory on that many pages ago- I can rehash it if you really need, but it boils down to the importance of free will.

Ok. I can come to terms with my desires by praying. What's the issue? As for my god, he's... spread out.

Neuroscience may not, but double-blind studies have shown that no people of any relgious belief experiance higher levels of having their prayers answered.

Two notes.

One: if by "answered" you mean "Wishes met", then the studies were bogus. If god *does* exist, and did answer prayers, don't you think he'd put more value on genuine prayers than those made only for a study?

Secondly, I don't think supplicant prayers are granted, at all. I said this quite a ways back. I think the point of supplicant prayers is to meditate on and come to terms with your own desires.

Well... you could say that...

But surely the default lies at "nothing" not "there is an invisible being who can answer my prayers".

Except your belief isn't "nothing"- you have to believe in properties about the universe that I don't, and vice versa. That was the whole red picks blue picks thing.

I... guess?  But this doesn't really apply unless you reached your new beliefs via evidence.

Well, the whole argument we were having some time ago was that, since there's no support for or against the god I believe in, it's logical to default to disbelief; if it's not that, but that we both believe things the other does not, that argument doesn't apply (though, I don't really think it does anyway).

What may be stumping you here is that Atheism doesn't describe what someone believes. It describes what they don't. A materialist (by definition) has to believe that all that exists is observable, a naturalist (by deifinition) has to believe that the universe is governed by natural forces. An atheist needs only say he or she is unconvinced that a god exists to be labeled as so.

The problem with these gaps is that even if you get to a point where you think the gaps can no longer be filed with yellow toothpicks, materialists and naturalists will keep probing those gaps until everything is filled.

I object that. Of course theists don't believe a lot of things that atheists generally do - like evolution. But it is not necessarily the case. The ideal atheist does not believe anything, because with evidence belief becomes knowledge. And on the other hand, what there is no evidence of is not believed to exist. But not-belief is not a belief. (That sure sounds confusing)

This conversation seems to be suffering from a crippling degree of abstraction- sadly, my ideas for what the blue and red picks are are difficult to describe. I'll try, but take this more as an example than a belief.

One red pick I saw as an atheist was "The value of utter individuality"- to trust and examine every idea yourself, allowing no black-box thinking or taking anything on faith. The blue pick that's being replaced with (maybe... it's a hard one to let go, I might keep it after all) is the value of trust and community- surrendering yourself to being part of a greater network.

As for the thing about "Something interacting with my brain"... neuroscience is not going to be able to disprove god. I'm sure that at some point they'll be able to find which parts of my brain are active during prayer, determine the neural pathways, map and maybe even predict. None of that denies the involvement of God; even as an atheist I believed that, however far human understanding got, there'd still another beneath it (turtles all the way down).

Yes, I've been there. But now the thing : why would "god" be benevolent. The old testament god is really something that I would fight with all I have, even with no hopes of victory. What does he want? In our own way, we're small DF gods. If you were one of your dwarf, do you think you should worship the player. And why worshiping something, by the way?
Do you realize that with so little information, you're almost certainly wrong on the nature and purpose of God?

Because the nature of god is benevolent? Because you don't move from "There's an omniscient god" to "That god is benevolent," you reach god *through* benevolence?

I claim that god exists, and his voice is what I hear when I pray. I don't claim to support everyone else who's ever said they were guided by god's hand, and I certainly don't believe in the old testament.

Nope.  The whole point of atheism (to me) is that you don't believe anything additionally (I obviously don't speak for all atheists here though).

So, did you read the one about the tribesman and the tachyons? Cause I'm pretty certain you believe in the law of gravity, which would be additional to him.