Without religion, is a prayer just a wish?
Comments
-
differencePhillieG said:Hmmm..
How I see the definition, one thinks there could be a God but doesn't know and knows they do not know (Agnostic) while the other does not think there is a God at all (Atheist).
To be precise, an agnostic is an un-knower. An agnostic simply acknowledges that he or she does not what is out there beyond what we are humanly capable of understanding; an agnostic is, perhaps, someone who has not yet seen the burning bush, has not yet been confronted by a god, someone who is honest enough with oneself that he or she cannot invent belief because it it makes the 'trip' easier or the 'destination' a much more pleasurable goal.
An atheist on the other hand, and ironically, has faith. An atheist BELIEVES that there is no god, KNOWS that there is no god. That requires as much faith as does any religion.
Which is sort of extremely illogical, since it implies that said atheist is omniscient, and thus possessing a trait typically associated with gods.
Faith, incidentally, is not logically, rationally, based, and most religious leaders of any integrity will acknowledge that, must, in fact, insist on it, as god(s) cannot be proven by the ways we prove things today.
As for prayer, I know no agnostics other than phil who pray. I certainly do not. My words to folks are that they are in my thoughts, which is to say, I cannot beseech a higher power to take action on your behalf (is there not hubris in the very notion?) but that I will be thinking of you and hoping that you do well.
Take care,
Joe0 -
Atheist
I don’t think Atheist pray but I do know some of them know as much about religion or more then most Christians do.
My Boss and I have worked together for almost 28 years before he passed away, he was an Atheist all the way. At times he would talk for hours about religion and not just talk but stuff in the Bible that most people never studied. He always told me that he liked talking to me about religion while driving, I asked him why, he said because it kept him awake as he knew I would not shut-up until he reach his destination.
I sure miss him, atheist or not he was a very good friend0 -
studyHondo said:Atheist
I don’t think Atheist pray but I do know some of them know as much about religion or more then most Christians do.
My Boss and I have worked together for almost 28 years before he passed away, he was an Atheist all the way. At times he would talk for hours about religion and not just talk but stuff in the Bible that most people never studied. He always told me that he liked talking to me about religion while driving, I asked him why, he said because it kept him awake as he knew I would not shut-up until he reach his destination.
I sure miss him, atheist or not he was a very good friend
A recent study by some facility or another determined that agnostics and atheists knew more about 'religion', in the sense of the history, the books (the bibles, the koran, and so forth) than did professed believers of any faith, by a large percentage.
It is provocative to consider that those most knowledgeable about religion are least likely to accept its premises.
Take care,
Joe0 -
Is seeing, believing?soccerfreaks said:difference
To be precise, an agnostic is an un-knower. An agnostic simply acknowledges that he or she does not what is out there beyond what we are humanly capable of understanding; an agnostic is, perhaps, someone who has not yet seen the burning bush, has not yet been confronted by a god, someone who is honest enough with oneself that he or she cannot invent belief because it it makes the 'trip' easier or the 'destination' a much more pleasurable goal.
An atheist on the other hand, and ironically, has faith. An atheist BELIEVES that there is no god, KNOWS that there is no god. That requires as much faith as does any religion.
Which is sort of extremely illogical, since it implies that said atheist is omniscient, and thus possessing a trait typically associated with gods.
Faith, incidentally, is not logically, rationally, based, and most religious leaders of any integrity will acknowledge that, must, in fact, insist on it, as god(s) cannot be proven by the ways we prove things today.
As for prayer, I know no agnostics other than phil who pray. I certainly do not. My words to folks are that they are in my thoughts, which is to say, I cannot beseech a higher power to take action on your behalf (is there not hubris in the very notion?) but that I will be thinking of you and hoping that you do well.
Take care,
Joe
Ah Joe, just the fellow I was hoping to hear from. Thanks for steppin in. Agnosticism seems facinating to me and you have a very educated manner of explaining things. So how do you view prayer? Do you think it is religious in nature and that is why you don't pray or do you lean toward the definition Phil mentioned where it can be just a wish or hope? I've always felt that prayer had to be tied to some formal belief system but I'm not sure. Also, since you are an "un-knower" do you have an idea of what it would take for you to "know"?
Ok, I understand the basis for knowledge is very tricky and this might get confusing but here goes. I'm going to use the word knowledge so as not to overuse the word "know". So, you have knowledge that you are an "un-knower" but where does THAT knowledge come from? Is it at all possible you could "know" and yet chose not to? Many Agnostics put faith in science even though they themselves had no part in the discovery. I think our capacity for human understanding changes constantly based on the willingnes to accept things. How could people thousands of years ago possibly understand what interaction the planets have in space. But we think we understand now. People chose to believe what seems logical through description without the actual first-hand knowledge. Can we prove, on our own, what forces are at work that make the Earth revolve around the sun resulting in the sunrise and sunset or do we just accept the work of others? So much of our belief in this world is based on our senses do you think if you were blind you would be an "un-knower" of the sunrise and sunset even though people would tell you about it? Everyone requires a different degree of proof on subjects so what about prayer. Do you believe, without a doubt, that it serves no purpous? What if, through scientific experiment, prayer was found to be beneficial to healing would it give credence to religion? Have you ever considered that faith and belief are based on senses we don't all share equally? (some people are born with good vision while others need glasses). It's not completely illogical since it is similar to other examples in nature. If you needed glasses but never tried them would you believe everyone had blurry vision and THAT was the norm?
I know, crazy thoughts....0 -
I believe that could besoccerfreaks said:study
A recent study by some facility or another determined that agnostics and atheists knew more about 'religion', in the sense of the history, the books (the bibles, the koran, and so forth) than did professed believers of any faith, by a large percentage.
It is provocative to consider that those most knowledgeable about religion are least likely to accept its premises.
Take care,
Joe
I believe that could be true, but most people who watch the nightly news and read the newspapers think that crime is out of control, the country will soon fall apart, there is little good in the world and everyone is corrupt. While much of that is true, too much information will change the way you view the world around you and you will rely less on what you feel or experience yourself. That study doesn't prove their level of understanding what they read just that they read it. Knowledge of religion goes beyond reading it. I can read a book about crime in Chicago but that doesn't mean I understand what the city is truly like unless I go there. Even biblical scholars don't fully understand much of the Bible so why would I expect anyone else to. You make it sound as if all you have to do is study religion to see all the faults and inconsistancies. Those books are read "in the eye of the beholder". I don't think many people read a religious book and say, "oh, now I understand that makes it all clear".
Then again, maybe so...0 -
Open to Interpretationbelieveit 2011 said:I believe that could be
I believe that could be true, but most people who watch the nightly news and read the newspapers think that crime is out of control, the country will soon fall apart, there is little good in the world and everyone is corrupt. While much of that is true, too much information will change the way you view the world around you and you will rely less on what you feel or experience yourself. That study doesn't prove their level of understanding what they read just that they read it. Knowledge of religion goes beyond reading it. I can read a book about crime in Chicago but that doesn't mean I understand what the city is truly like unless I go there. Even biblical scholars don't fully understand much of the Bible so why would I expect anyone else to. You make it sound as if all you have to do is study religion to see all the faults and inconsistancies. Those books are read "in the eye of the beholder". I don't think many people read a religious book and say, "oh, now I understand that makes it all clear".
Then again, maybe so...
The bible, since this is the book that comes up the most on here, was written by many people over many hundreds (if not longer amount of time) of years. It's not anything like watching the news, it's very open to interpretation based on language differences and what the wording may have meant at that time. There are also many books of the old and new testament that were omitted from the finished bible as we see it today. Why they were left out is anyone's guess.
So when you read "The Bible" it is just one of very many translations of the book. You say that "You make it sound as if all you have to do is study religion to see all the faults and inconsistencies." I think that might depend whether you look at the bible as being factual or being a collection of mostly parables that are meant to get a point across. I know there are many who take it all as fact and that the earth is only 6000 years old and there are many that take the teachings and parables as a guide of how one should live their lives in order to please God or just so they can be better people in their eyes.0 -
The Studysoccerfreaks said:study
A recent study by some facility or another determined that agnostics and atheists knew more about 'religion', in the sense of the history, the books (the bibles, the koran, and so forth) than did professed believers of any faith, by a large percentage.
It is provocative to consider that those most knowledgeable about religion are least likely to accept its premises.
Take care,
Joe
I read/heard that study too Joe. It makes sense to me and I've seen it in action a bit too. I think that those who have more doubt or are just interested in various faiths read about them more and in that way become more familiar with their teachings as well as the teachings of other faiths. It certainly makes sense (to me at least).
While there are many out there who study what they believe and know a lot about it, there are also many out there who believe what they do because that is what their family practiced and they are either OK with it or do not feel the need to question things or rock the boat in the family by converting to something or to nothing.0 -
"When you wish upon a star"believeit 2011 said:Is seeing, believing?
Ah Joe, just the fellow I was hoping to hear from. Thanks for steppin in. Agnosticism seems facinating to me and you have a very educated manner of explaining things. So how do you view prayer? Do you think it is religious in nature and that is why you don't pray or do you lean toward the definition Phil mentioned where it can be just a wish or hope? I've always felt that prayer had to be tied to some formal belief system but I'm not sure. Also, since you are an "un-knower" do you have an idea of what it would take for you to "know"?
Ok, I understand the basis for knowledge is very tricky and this might get confusing but here goes. I'm going to use the word knowledge so as not to overuse the word "know". So, you have knowledge that you are an "un-knower" but where does THAT knowledge come from? Is it at all possible you could "know" and yet chose not to? Many Agnostics put faith in science even though they themselves had no part in the discovery. I think our capacity for human understanding changes constantly based on the willingnes to accept things. How could people thousands of years ago possibly understand what interaction the planets have in space. But we think we understand now. People chose to believe what seems logical through description without the actual first-hand knowledge. Can we prove, on our own, what forces are at work that make the Earth revolve around the sun resulting in the sunrise and sunset or do we just accept the work of others? So much of our belief in this world is based on our senses do you think if you were blind you would be an "un-knower" of the sunrise and sunset even though people would tell you about it? Everyone requires a different degree of proof on subjects so what about prayer. Do you believe, without a doubt, that it serves no purpous? What if, through scientific experiment, prayer was found to be beneficial to healing would it give credence to religion? Have you ever considered that faith and belief are based on senses we don't all share equally? (some people are born with good vision while others need glasses). It's not completely illogical since it is similar to other examples in nature. If you needed glasses but never tried them would you believe everyone had blurry vision and THAT was the norm?
I know, crazy thoughts....
A lot to consider here, some of it the usual issue with semantics when one deals with questions of philosphy.
A word can mean what we want it to mean although we might find it difficult to communicate with others if our definitions of words are contrary to what others in our culture have decided they mean. Phil offers a definition of 'prayer' from somewhere that supports the notion in our culture the word can be used to express an earnest hope or wish. I find no reference to religious entities in that definition, although I would bet there are others that do.
Personally, I define prayer as communication between one and one's deity or deities, whether it be to ask forgiveness, to repent, to confirm one's belief, to give thanks, or, of course, to plead for some action on the deity's part in one's behalf. I am sure you can think of other reasons to pray, as well, but I am long since out of practice.
I stopped using the word prayer, even though I really used it as a convenience, as a habit, and in the way of Phil's definition, some time ago because I found it rather hypocritical of me, or at least misleading to others, people such as yourself who are probably in the majority in your usage of the word.
Knowledge, to me, is a much more interesting word to consider. To my mind, when trying to describe knowledge, three states must be considered: rational, irrational, and faith. Belief and knowledge are not the same, to my way of thinking. I may believe a thing to be true, but if I have no proof, my belief is not knowledge. This does not mean that my belief is NOT true; it simply means that I haven't proven it to be true and thus, in a rational sense, I cannot know it. Athiests, I suspect, have a very difficult time describing such a state as anything but irrational. I have stated elsewhere in this stream that I consider faith to be irrational, but unlike athiests I leave the door open for something that I do not know but which may very well exist. I do not claim to be all-knowing, I do not claim to have observed all that is contained in the universe and beyond.
The knowledge you speak of with respect to the planets and so forth is based on what we call science. If you refute the notion of science as legitimate and rational then our conversation must stop now, since we have no common ground, and you have little in common, in your thinking, with most of humanity. If you agree, on the other hand, that knowledge is derived from proof and that proof is derived by designing and performing tests the results of which are the same every time the test is performed (to simplify) then we can continue.
Here is what I am getting at: you and phil and I are in Blacksburg, VA (GO HOKIES!). A man at a pulpit tells us that there is a woman in nearby Christiansburg wearing a red dress. Now, just as many of us think, without proof, that there has to be god, else how did we get here, you believe that there must certainly be at least one woman in a red dress in Christianburg. "Yes!" you shout, "I believe!". Phil on the other hand states unequivocally that there is NOT a woman in a red dress in the nearby town. For our example, he is an athiest. Me, I say, well, there may or may not be a woman in a red dress in Christiansburg; I just don't know. Until such time as the lady in the red dress calls me, invites me to her home for dinner, I accept, I go, and find her in a red dress, I cannot know, one way or the other.
With respect to a scientific experiment proving that prayer helped healing, I would not find that 'religious' but psychological. There is some evidence, for example, that humor helps, so I would not be surprised that true believers find extra strength through prayer.
Just one man's opinions.
Take care,
Joe0 -
DeepPhillieG said:The Study
I read/heard that study too Joe. It makes sense to me and I've seen it in action a bit too. I think that those who have more doubt or are just interested in various faiths read about them more and in that way become more familiar with their teachings as well as the teachings of other faiths. It certainly makes sense (to me at least).
While there are many out there who study what they believe and know a lot about it, there are also many out there who believe what they do because that is what their family practiced and they are either OK with it or do not feel the need to question things or rock the boat in the family by converting to something or to nothing.
Very deep subject!!!
Now I am trying to figure out exactly what I am!!!
I pray....at least started when mom was diagnosed..
I do not go to church..
I do believe that my mother is in heaven..
Her brother was an atheist, I do not think he is there..(which confused us very much when she was "talking to him and seeing him in her final days"...
I believe there is something "higher" than us, but do not know what...
OK....what am I folks!!!????
Elysia0 -
Elysiahope0310 said:Deep
Very deep subject!!!
Now I am trying to figure out exactly what I am!!!
I pray....at least started when mom was diagnosed..
I do not go to church..
I do believe that my mother is in heaven..
Her brother was an atheist, I do not think he is there..(which confused us very much when she was "talking to him and seeing him in her final days"...
I believe there is something "higher" than us, but do not know what...
OK....what am I folks!!!????
Elysia
Since you believe in heaven and in a higher power I would suggest that you are a theist or a deist (from wikipedia): Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
Just a notion.
Take care,
Joe0 -
That's good.......soccerfreaks said:Elysia
Since you believe in heaven and in a higher power I would suggest that you are a theist or a deist (from wikipedia): Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
Just a notion.
Take care,
Joe
That's good.......0 -
Three guys walk into a bar, the first guy says; Ouch that hurtsoccerfreaks said:"When you wish upon a star"
A lot to consider here, some of it the usual issue with semantics when one deals with questions of philosphy.
A word can mean what we want it to mean although we might find it difficult to communicate with others if our definitions of words are contrary to what others in our culture have decided they mean. Phil offers a definition of 'prayer' from somewhere that supports the notion in our culture the word can be used to express an earnest hope or wish. I find no reference to religious entities in that definition, although I would bet there are others that do.
Personally, I define prayer as communication between one and one's deity or deities, whether it be to ask forgiveness, to repent, to confirm one's belief, to give thanks, or, of course, to plead for some action on the deity's part in one's behalf. I am sure you can think of other reasons to pray, as well, but I am long since out of practice.
I stopped using the word prayer, even though I really used it as a convenience, as a habit, and in the way of Phil's definition, some time ago because I found it rather hypocritical of me, or at least misleading to others, people such as yourself who are probably in the majority in your usage of the word.
Knowledge, to me, is a much more interesting word to consider. To my mind, when trying to describe knowledge, three states must be considered: rational, irrational, and faith. Belief and knowledge are not the same, to my way of thinking. I may believe a thing to be true, but if I have no proof, my belief is not knowledge. This does not mean that my belief is NOT true; it simply means that I haven't proven it to be true and thus, in a rational sense, I cannot know it. Athiests, I suspect, have a very difficult time describing such a state as anything but irrational. I have stated elsewhere in this stream that I consider faith to be irrational, but unlike athiests I leave the door open for something that I do not know but which may very well exist. I do not claim to be all-knowing, I do not claim to have observed all that is contained in the universe and beyond.
The knowledge you speak of with respect to the planets and so forth is based on what we call science. If you refute the notion of science as legitimate and rational then our conversation must stop now, since we have no common ground, and you have little in common, in your thinking, with most of humanity. If you agree, on the other hand, that knowledge is derived from proof and that proof is derived by designing and performing tests the results of which are the same every time the test is performed (to simplify) then we can continue.
Here is what I am getting at: you and phil and I are in Blacksburg, VA (GO HOKIES!). A man at a pulpit tells us that there is a woman in nearby Christiansburg wearing a red dress. Now, just as many of us think, without proof, that there has to be god, else how did we get here, you believe that there must certainly be at least one woman in a red dress in Christianburg. "Yes!" you shout, "I believe!". Phil on the other hand states unequivocally that there is NOT a woman in a red dress in the nearby town. For our example, he is an athiest. Me, I say, well, there may or may not be a woman in a red dress in Christiansburg; I just don't know. Until such time as the lady in the red dress calls me, invites me to her home for dinner, I accept, I go, and find her in a red dress, I cannot know, one way or the other.
With respect to a scientific experiment proving that prayer helped healing, I would not find that 'religious' but psychological. There is some evidence, for example, that humor helps, so I would not be surprised that true believers find extra strength through prayer.
Just one man's opinions.
Take care,
Joe
Thanks Joe, that's great. But can't the three of us, instead, be in a pub in Cleveland Ohio at 6:00pm and the bartender says he has the last case of Christmas Ale in the city being delivered at midnight.(this has the making of a good joke) So Phil, being a whiskey drinker, couldn't care less how many cases he has and sticks with his plan of having a couple drinks and being home by 10:00pm. I on the other hand, love Christmas Ale and proceed to call home and tell my wife not to wait up. This is a big deal and I don't understand how Phil could be so uninterested. Then there's you, who had just seen a story in the news saying there is plenty of Christmas Ale to go around this year even though there have been shortages in the past. You point out the statistics and averages and scientific reasons why there should be plenty of Ale available and while you like Christmas Ale you don't believe the bartender and think he's just trying to get us to stick around another couple of hours and spend money. Phil says Christmas Ale is a marketing gimmick and it's just overpriced regular beer that's why he drinks whiskey. Phil doesn't believe the bartender talked to other bars that had run out of Ale and he must be making it up either way Phil just doesn't care and he thinks we shouldn't wait until midnight to find out. He's leaving. I try to explain that I know the bartender as an honest guy, I come here often and he's never cheated me before so why would I doubt him, I like the pub and crowd and if the bartender is telling the truth I'll be darn glad I stayed as I would hate to miss out on the last of the Ale for the year. If I stay I'm really not missing out on anything since my wife is going to bed anyway and I don't have work the next day so what's the harm. I'm staying. You however are reasonably sure there's more Ale out there and unless the bartender can prove he has the last case in the city you're not buying his story. You think I'm being taken advantage of for my fear of missing out on the last of the Ale and since there is no way to know if the Ale is coming or not you are not staying either. You think to yourself, maybe you'll stop back in a few hours or call later since you would like some of that Ale but you have better things to do then wait around just on some bartender's word. You're leaving. So, I sit there by myself waiting, talking to other people, enjoying the night with anticipation of the midnight delivery. Slowly the pub fills up and everyone is happy and excited talking about how lucky we are to get the last of the Ale. I feel bad for my drinking buddies that they missed out on such a fun night. Midnight comes and goes the pub stays crowded until closing, I go home (walking) and go to sleep content. Did the Christmas Ale arrive as promissed and if it did, was it truly the last in the city?
Should it matter to you if you weren't there?
Sorry for the long story, I got distracted....
And yes, I believe in science I only meant could you prove those things without the aid of others.0 -
Whew!!soccerfreaks said:Elysia
Since you believe in heaven and in a higher power I would suggest that you are a theist or a deist (from wikipedia): Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
Just a notion.
Take care,
Joe
I'll take that Joe!! For a minute I thought maybe I was an Oyster Rockerfellar!!
Elysia0 -
Christmas Alebelieveit 2011 said:Three guys walk into a bar, the first guy says; Ouch that hurt
Thanks Joe, that's great. But can't the three of us, instead, be in a pub in Cleveland Ohio at 6:00pm and the bartender says he has the last case of Christmas Ale in the city being delivered at midnight.(this has the making of a good joke) So Phil, being a whiskey drinker, couldn't care less how many cases he has and sticks with his plan of having a couple drinks and being home by 10:00pm. I on the other hand, love Christmas Ale and proceed to call home and tell my wife not to wait up. This is a big deal and I don't understand how Phil could be so uninterested. Then there's you, who had just seen a story in the news saying there is plenty of Christmas Ale to go around this year even though there have been shortages in the past. You point out the statistics and averages and scientific reasons why there should be plenty of Ale available and while you like Christmas Ale you don't believe the bartender and think he's just trying to get us to stick around another couple of hours and spend money. Phil says Christmas Ale is a marketing gimmick and it's just overpriced regular beer that's why he drinks whiskey. Phil doesn't believe the bartender talked to other bars that had run out of Ale and he must be making it up either way Phil just doesn't care and he thinks we shouldn't wait until midnight to find out. He's leaving. I try to explain that I know the bartender as an honest guy, I come here often and he's never cheated me before so why would I doubt him, I like the pub and crowd and if the bartender is telling the truth I'll be darn glad I stayed as I would hate to miss out on the last of the Ale for the year. If I stay I'm really not missing out on anything since my wife is going to bed anyway and I don't have work the next day so what's the harm. I'm staying. You however are reasonably sure there's more Ale out there and unless the bartender can prove he has the last case in the city you're not buying his story. You think I'm being taken advantage of for my fear of missing out on the last of the Ale and since there is no way to know if the Ale is coming or not you are not staying either. You think to yourself, maybe you'll stop back in a few hours or call later since you would like some of that Ale but you have better things to do then wait around just on some bartender's word. You're leaving. So, I sit there by myself waiting, talking to other people, enjoying the night with anticipation of the midnight delivery. Slowly the pub fills up and everyone is happy and excited talking about how lucky we are to get the last of the Ale. I feel bad for my drinking buddies that they missed out on such a fun night. Midnight comes and goes the pub stays crowded until closing, I go home (walking) and go to sleep content. Did the Christmas Ale arrive as promissed and if it did, was it truly the last in the city?
Should it matter to you if you weren't there?
Sorry for the long story, I got distracted....
And yes, I believe in science I only meant could you prove those things without the aid of others.
Your story has faulty logic.
To begin with, the guy who craves only whiskey should not be in the tale at all. What has he got to do with the ale, since he won't drink it even if it arrives. Athiests, I do not believe, would refute a god that showed itself to exist through some convincing means (and there any number of former athiests who can attest to that, the one coming to mind first being C. S. Lewis, the Narnia author who set out to disprove the notion of Christianity and instead became a believer). The person you describe would disregard such a sign simply because he doesn't care.
I think there are very few who would not WANT to get a sign.
Additionally, you indicate that the agnostic (me) would rely on graphs and statistics and news reports to determine what I believe (science, I suppose). I have expressed my awareness that there is much beyond the rational, the proven, that may be true, and I am keenly aware that a god could touch me tonight in fact and provide the faith I lack, science be damned. Again, faith is irrational. That doesn't mean it has no merit. In my case it simply means that I have found no reason to make the leap.
As for you, in this tale, the bartender appears to be god, or at least a representative (priest, pastor, guru?) that you comfortably assume knows all about the ale throughtout the city (the universe). This is the most egregious of the flaws in your tale: how did you get to the point where you became so easily able to believe the story you were being told? Could it be that you have been to the bar so often that you are now swallowing everything the bartender tells you?
I would answer your last question by stating that if I thought the existence of the ale was important enough to change my life dramatically, I would have stayed to find out, without being convinced of the bartender's veracity.
However, if the ale could have such a dramatic impact on my life, I would wonder as well why the bartender didn't introduce it to me earlier.
Take care,
Joe0 -
interpretationsoccerfreaks said:Christmas Ale
Your story has faulty logic.
To begin with, the guy who craves only whiskey should not be in the tale at all. What has he got to do with the ale, since he won't drink it even if it arrives. Athiests, I do not believe, would refute a god that showed itself to exist through some convincing means (and there any number of former athiests who can attest to that, the one coming to mind first being C. S. Lewis, the Narnia author who set out to disprove the notion of Christianity and instead became a believer). The person you describe would disregard such a sign simply because he doesn't care.
I think there are very few who would not WANT to get a sign.
Additionally, you indicate that the agnostic (me) would rely on graphs and statistics and news reports to determine what I believe (science, I suppose). I have expressed my awareness that there is much beyond the rational, the proven, that may be true, and I am keenly aware that a god could touch me tonight in fact and provide the faith I lack, science be damned. Again, faith is irrational. That doesn't mean it has no merit. In my case it simply means that I have found no reason to make the leap.
As for you, in this tale, the bartender appears to be god, or at least a representative (priest, pastor, guru?) that you comfortably assume knows all about the ale throughtout the city (the universe). This is the most egregious of the flaws in your tale: how did you get to the point where you became so easily able to believe the story you were being told? Could it be that you have been to the bar so often that you are now swallowing everything the bartender tells you?
I would answer your last question by stating that if I thought the existence of the ale was important enough to change my life dramatically, I would have stayed to find out, without being convinced of the bartender's veracity.
However, if the ale could have such a dramatic impact on my life, I would wonder as well why the bartender didn't introduce it to me earlier.
Take care,
Joe
Sorry Joe it wasn't about Athiests, Agnostics and "believers" and it doesn't have to be logical. Everything in life isn't, just ask my brother, an Agnostic and perpetual bachelor, who had his heart broken and swore off relationships. He believes all relationships are pointless because they only cause grief. (can't argue with that) The story was simply an exercise in belief. Some people say "why should I believe" when others say "why shouldn't I believe" and other don't care either way. I didn't need infallible proof to believe the bartender and you did. The question might be, what is at stake either way?
Take it easy0 -
Whoa!soccerfreaks said:Christmas Ale
Your story has faulty logic.
To begin with, the guy who craves only whiskey should not be in the tale at all. What has he got to do with the ale, since he won't drink it even if it arrives. Athiests, I do not believe, would refute a god that showed itself to exist through some convincing means (and there any number of former athiests who can attest to that, the one coming to mind first being C. S. Lewis, the Narnia author who set out to disprove the notion of Christianity and instead became a believer). The person you describe would disregard such a sign simply because he doesn't care.
I think there are very few who would not WANT to get a sign.
Additionally, you indicate that the agnostic (me) would rely on graphs and statistics and news reports to determine what I believe (science, I suppose). I have expressed my awareness that there is much beyond the rational, the proven, that may be true, and I am keenly aware that a god could touch me tonight in fact and provide the faith I lack, science be damned. Again, faith is irrational. That doesn't mean it has no merit. In my case it simply means that I have found no reason to make the leap.
As for you, in this tale, the bartender appears to be god, or at least a representative (priest, pastor, guru?) that you comfortably assume knows all about the ale throughtout the city (the universe). This is the most egregious of the flaws in your tale: how did you get to the point where you became so easily able to believe the story you were being told? Could it be that you have been to the bar so often that you are now swallowing everything the bartender tells you?
I would answer your last question by stating that if I thought the existence of the ale was important enough to change my life dramatically, I would have stayed to find out, without being convinced of the bartender's veracity.
However, if the ale could have such a dramatic impact on my life, I would wonder as well why the bartender didn't introduce it to me earlier.
Take care,
Joe
First, I prefer scotch (single malt) and I do enjoy ale. IPA and Christmas ale and whatever ales ya.
Second, why can't I have dinner with the lady in the red dress?
Third, are we there yet?
;-)0 -
Wow!hope0310 said:Whew!!
I'll take that Joe!! For a minute I thought maybe I was an Oyster Rockerfellar!!
Elysia
There is much material there that I am resisting because I am a good boy. Instead I am laughing out loud for real.
Take care,
Joe0 -
believeit -believeit 2011 said:What about Hope?
Hey thanks. So if you were to want good things for someone, that you have no control of, how would you convey that sentiment? Would you say hope, wish or something else? Do you ever say "I hope you feel better" or similar sentiments? If so, what value do you give that hope? I know in religion a prayer has great value so saying a prayer for someone or something is important. If there is no belief of an outside presence then is there any point in hoping for something or do you feel humans have some undetermined ability to give value to a hope or a wish? I mean value more than just a kind expression. I guess what I'm asking is, would someone of your persuasion use the word "hope" or "wish" in the same context as prayer or are they just words to convey the expression of caring?
Thanks for the input.
Cute picture. So you may not believe in Santa but what about the cat?
I often do say "I hope things go well" and "I hope this works for you" - it has nothing to do with prayer and everything to do with my concern for whomever I'm saying it to. It's tantamount to saying "I have no control over what is troubling you, but it will make me happy if the treatment works!"
The cat only believes in the Holy Tuna Can
0 -
bluerose -bluerose said:Oh Stayingcalm I bet you do believe in Santa Clause, lol
Just kidding around. Couldn't resist.
That's what I was going to assume about atheists, they don't pray - period. Guess that assumption is right by the sounds of it.
I think it's just when people believe in a higher power so deeply they can't fathom anyone not praying to any higher power period. Prayer is always there to them and I think they assume in others too no matter what their faith says or if they say they have no faith.
Hope you had a good Non Christmas. lol Again, sorry, couldn't resist, sheesh what is wrong with me today. lol
Take care
Bluerose
Well, I wouldn't presume to stand in for any atheist except myself, but why would I pray when I don't believe there is anything to pray to ;-) I had a great secular Christmas, thanks, I got my frying pan! (and a new saucepan and a 320GB USB hard drive, yayy!)
Bluerose, you're such a caring, sweet lady I wouldn't be able to take anything you say amiss!
stayingcalm0 -
@ Joe.....soccerfreaks said:Wow!
There is much material there that I am resisting because I am a good boy. Instead I am laughing out loud for real.
Take care,
Joe
I can only imagine!!!
Happy New Year!0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 234 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 646 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards