Not sure how chemistry is relevant; ice crystals start forming, then get organized.
On prayer - "magic" is not relevant either. Believers - in any religious conceptual universe - have been wrestling with the concept of "unanswered prayer" for all time. Prayer *may* change the attitude or behavior of the ones who pray, whether toward acceptance or toward action. For example, I could pray all day for the hungry to be fed, but until i realize it is on me to help make that happen, my prayer would be useless. And, as you know, atheists know that part already!
PRAYER, IN MY OPINION, IS AN ACT OF DOUBT, NOT AN ACT OF FAITH. FOR IF YOU TRULY TRUSTED YOUR GOD'S PLAN, SURELY YOU WOULDNT PRAY FOR ANYTHING.
- MICHAEL SHERLOCK
Prayer doesn't work. Perhaps it makes the believer feel better (in the same way that meditation or deep thought would), but prayer doesn't actually affect the external world.
Not only is it ineffective, but it is also a very narcissistic practice... why would a 'God' change its 'Divine Plan' to accommodate any person's wishes?
David G. McAfee
"GOD" IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE COLD, DEAD SILENCE THAT ANSWERS THE PRAYER OF THE CHILD BEING MOLESTED.
The true purpose of prayer is not to try and coerce God into giving you what you want, but to establish a relationship with ultimate Reality, the source and ground of all consciousness & existence, which is beyond form and conception. For most practitioners this relationship is mediated by an image of God, such as divine father, divine mother, etc. Through sustained practice this relationship transforms one’s entire personality by grounding one’s being & identity in the divine.
How in the world do you know that “most” atheists “have a very primitive conception of religion”?! I myself have an extensive background in religious studies as well as philosophy. And I know countless atheists/agnostics who are much more knowledgeable than you would give them credit. Moreover, whether your gibberish (sorry for offending your transcendent faith) is consistent with idealist metaphysics is largely beside the point. And did you really think mentioning those “big” names was going to intimidate any of us, much less convince any of us? It still boils down to one person’s perception/opinion, whether it’s yours, mine or Heisenberg’s. Besides, what of the countless people for whom prayer has never worked—in any sense? Are they counted in your “empirical” calculus? And I’m sorry to break this to you, but saying your POV is “empirically grounded in the spiritual experience of…” is literally an oxymoron. Now of course an oxymoron CAN be true (most often isn’t), but the burden of proof is on your camp to show how and why your claim isn’t self-contradictory, or how and why prayer can be anything more than the whimsical wishes of a subjective mind.
What I have described in this response is not simply my POV. It is a summary of the perennial wisdom tradition that underlines the advanced stages of all the great religions. It is the fundamental spiritual calculus that lies at the heart of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. It is the revelation that has been passed to us by the most enlightened teachers and adepts of the world‘s great spiritual traditions. And is a teaching that each of us can personally verify to some extent, depending on our stage of spiritual development.
And if you’re truly a religious scholar, then it should be obvious to you that the level of understanding of religion that is exhibited in these atheistic discussions of religion is quite primitive. You should also understand that all of the terms I’ve been using are well defined within the context of the world’s spiritual traditions. And you should also understand that the efficacy of prayer is not solely determined by external events or the immediate emotional impact of the prayer, it is most fundamentally determined over the long-term by the depth of communion with the One Being that the prayer practice facilitates.
And by the way, about your insulting quip questioning whether I’m “truly a religious scholar”: that’s rather unclassy of you. I could retort, for instance, that you write as though you’re reading and writing from a prepared script—so how do I know you’re even worth conversing with? See what I mean? That would be unnecessary and rude of me… Needless to say, I have the academic credentials to prove it. But I won’t even ask you to put your credentials on the table. It’d be tantamount to an ad hominem attack as far as I’m concerned. Our “proof in the pudding” should be from our arguments themselves. I certainly hope that you’d concur.
My apologies if I came across as disrespectful, that was not my attention. I find this conversation interesting because I consider you to be a highly intelligent and credentialed academic.
It is clear than you are quite steadfast in your materialist faith. Please be awareness that this “gibberish“ is empirically grounded in the spiritual experience of countless spiritual practitioners over thousands of years, and consistent with the idealist metaphysics of many (most?) of the founders of modern physics, i.e. Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Jeans, Pauli, DeBroglie, etc. It is important to post this analysis in an atheist discussion group, because, based on what I have been reading here, many atheists (like biblical literalists) have a very primitive conception of religion. What point is it for atheist to discuss the nature of prayer without a proper definition of the object of study? All of this is relevant because the very quest for knowledge which drives the deconstruction of primitive religious beliefs eventually leads beyond the constraints of the external facing physical senses.
My god, man. By all means, keep telling yourself that. Merely b/c religion/prayer might have become more sophisticated among religious scholars or even practitioners does not make it TRUE. And tradition itself does not make it true. Your talk of “the perennial wisdom tradition” or “the fundamental spiritual calculus” is a bunch of semantic hooey. The idea of prayer—no matter how sophisticated and no matter how long it has been practiced or believed in—can no more be proven empirically than can the notion of a transcendent god. You can’t prove it empirically nor can you replicate it in any meaningful scientific way. It will always be a matter of personal, subjective faith. So please—particularly in an atheist’s forum—save your breath. You’ll not find a gullible audience here.
The profound transformative power of a sustained prayer practice can be proven to ourselves, even though we may not be able to prove it to anyone else. On the other hand, there is no way that anyone can prove the existence of a material universe that exists ‘outside’ of consciousness, because everything that we know or can know about the universe arises within the domain of conscious awareness.
This is too simplistic. Why would water have its highest density at +4° C and not at the point it freezes at (0° C)? It doesn't make sense, or does it?
Not sure how chemistry is relevant; ice crystals start forming, then get organized.
On prayer - "magic" is not relevant either. Believers - in any religious conceptual universe - have been wrestling with the concept of "unanswered prayer" for all time. Prayer *may* change the attitude or behavior of the ones who pray, whether toward acceptance or toward action. For example, I could pray all day for the hungry to be fed, but until i realize it is on me to help make that happen, my prayer would be useless. And, as you know, atheists know that part already!
PRAYER, IN MY OPINION, IS AN ACT OF DOUBT, NOT AN ACT OF FAITH. FOR IF YOU TRULY TRUSTED YOUR GOD'S PLAN, SURELY YOU WOULDNT PRAY FOR ANYTHING.
- MICHAEL SHERLOCK
Prayer doesn't work. Perhaps it makes the believer feel better (in the same way that meditation or deep thought would), but prayer doesn't actually affect the external world.
Not only is it ineffective, but it is also a very narcissistic practice... why would a 'God' change its 'Divine Plan' to accommodate any person's wishes?
David G. McAfee
"GOD" IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE COLD, DEAD SILENCE THAT ANSWERS THE PRAYER OF THE CHILD BEING MOLESTED.
Bingo, and there we have the heart of it: a god that doesn't interfere is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist.
But just try and get a god-bothered to even comprehend that. Like trying to get a trumper to grok second grade level logic, it cannot be done.
The true purpose of prayer is not to try and coerce God into giving you what you want, but to establish a relationship with ultimate Reality, the source and ground of all consciousness & existence, which is beyond form and conception. For most practitioners this relationship is mediated by an image of God, such as divine father, divine mother, etc. Through sustained practice this relationship transforms one’s entire personality by grounding one’s being & identity in the divine.
How in the world do you know that “most” atheists “have a very primitive conception of religion”?! I myself have an extensive background in religious studies as well as philosophy. And I know countless atheists/agnostics who are much more knowledgeable than you would give them credit. Moreover, whether your gibberish (sorry for offending your transcendent faith) is consistent with idealist metaphysics is largely beside the point. And did you really think mentioning those “big” names was going to intimidate any of us, much less convince any of us? It still boils down to one person’s perception/opinion, whether it’s yours, mine or Heisenberg’s. Besides, what of the countless people for whom prayer has never worked—in any sense? Are they counted in your “empirical” calculus? And I’m sorry to break this to you, but saying your POV is “empirically grounded in the spiritual experience of…” is literally an oxymoron. Now of course an oxymoron CAN be true (most often isn’t), but the burden of proof is on your camp to show how and why your claim isn’t self-contradictory, or how and why prayer can be anything more than the whimsical wishes of a subjective mind.
What I have described in this response is not simply my POV. It is a summary of the perennial wisdom tradition that underlines the advanced stages of all the great religions. It is the fundamental spiritual calculus that lies at the heart of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. It is the revelation that has been passed to us by the most enlightened teachers and adepts of the world‘s great spiritual traditions. And is a teaching that each of us can personally verify to some extent, depending on our stage of spiritual development.
And if you’re truly a religious scholar, then it should be obvious to you that the level of understanding of religion that is exhibited in these atheistic discussions of religion is quite primitive. You should also understand that all of the terms I’ve been using are well defined within the context of the world’s spiritual traditions. And you should also understand that the efficacy of prayer is not solely determined by external events or the immediate emotional impact of the prayer, it is most fundamentally determined over the long-term by the depth of communion with the One Being that the prayer practice facilitates.
And by the way, about your insulting quip questioning whether I’m “truly a religious scholar”: that’s rather unclassy of you. I could retort, for instance, that you write as though you’re reading and writing from a prepared script—so how do I know you’re even worth conversing with? See what I mean? That would be unnecessary and rude of me… Needless to say, I have the academic credentials to prove it. But I won’t even ask you to put your credentials on the table. It’d be tantamount to an ad hominem attack as far as I’m concerned. Our “proof in the pudding” should be from our arguments themselves. I certainly hope that you’d concur.
My apologies if I came across as disrespectful, that was not my attention. I find this conversation interesting because I consider you to be a highly intelligent and credentialed academic.
Not quite. Rather, it grounds one’s being and identity in sheer delusion. I mean, what would you expect posting such gibberish on an ATHEIST’S page?
It is clear than you are quite steadfast in your materialist faith. Please be awareness that this “gibberish“ is empirically grounded in the spiritual experience of countless spiritual practitioners over thousands of years, and consistent with the idealist metaphysics of many (most?) of the founders of modern physics, i.e. Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Jeans, Pauli, DeBroglie, etc. It is important to post this analysis in an atheist discussion group, because, based on what I have been reading here, many atheists (like biblical literalists) have a very primitive conception of religion. What point is it for atheist to discuss the nature of prayer without a proper definition of the object of study? All of this is relevant because the very quest for knowledge which drives the deconstruction of primitive religious beliefs eventually leads beyond the constraints of the external facing physical senses.
All you’re doing is repeating yourself.
My god, man. By all means, keep telling yourself that. Merely b/c religion/prayer might have become more sophisticated among religious scholars or even practitioners does not make it TRUE. And tradition itself does not make it true. Your talk of “the perennial wisdom tradition” or “the fundamental spiritual calculus” is a bunch of semantic hooey. The idea of prayer—no matter how sophisticated and no matter how long it has been practiced or believed in—can no more be proven empirically than can the notion of a transcendent god. You can’t prove it empirically nor can you replicate it in any meaningful scientific way. It will always be a matter of personal, subjective faith. So please—particularly in an atheist’s forum—save your breath. You’ll not find a gullible audience here.
The profound transformative power of a sustained prayer practice can be proven to ourselves, even though we may not be able to prove it to anyone else. On the other hand, there is no way that anyone can prove the existence of a material universe that exists ‘outside’ of consciousness, because everything that we know or can know about the universe arises within the domain of conscious awareness.
Just subscribed 😘
This is too simplistic. Why would water have its highest density at +4° C and not at the point it freezes at (0° C)? It doesn't make sense, or does it?