I soooo thought I was going to run out of gas today and I prayed a lot about it. "Lord, please help me not to suffer the logical consequences of my procrastination and figurative myopia." But I made it to the Royal Farms and I probably had .3 gallons left. I mean, it may not seem like a big miracle, except that my husband and I are both coming down with colds again and I think if I'd called him and told him I'd run out of gas in downtown Baltimore (albeit the shi shi gentrified part of downtown) he would have been even more miserable than he is currently.
I can ponder on why I didn't just stop and buy gas on my way in this morning. I guess I was quite convinced that it was better to miss half the morning on account of running out of gas than to be 7 minutes late because I was filling the tank. Also, downtown is one of those time vortexes where if you are 3 minutes behind, it turns into 10 minutes because of the number of cars that get ahead of you. I dawdled around the office an extra 10 minutes in the hopes the rush would settled down a bit and I could spend less time at red lights. Well, yeah. I was dumb. But I'm still grateful it worked out.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Been there, done that!
"PLEASE let me make it!"
Glad you made it through okay!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
That's awesome, Pooka! Yay for protection from the logical consequences of foolish actions!
So next time, what will you do?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You should pray for a full tank of gas Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Next time I'll get the gas the night before. I just have to get one of those time turning goodies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Honestly, I would hope that any gods that exist might have slightly more important things to attend to.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If God hadn't watched out for pooka, she would have been killed in an automobile accident, as a semi-truck full of toys smashed into her disabled car.
...meaning that she never would have gotten the opportunity to say a kind word to a down-and-out blues musician on the corner...
...meaning he never would have gotten the gumption to get his guitar out of hock, and play one last gig at the local blues joint...
...and the waitress there would never have fallen in love with him, or married him...
...and the child they adopted from India would never have had the education he needed to become a doctor and...
...the AIDS virus would have continued to ravage the third world...
But for God's care.
:shrug:
Do what's right, and pray for help when you need it, though all you might get is just inner peace or personal strength.
Leave "important" to God.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Assuming your God of choice is omniscient and omnipotent, He can do it all, little or big.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
What Scott said is good, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Assuming your God of choice is omniscient and omnipotent, He can do it all, little or big.
I understand that. The point being, it's not being done, is it? How many cancer victims are there out there praying daily for relief?
As for the AIDS scenario: An omnipotent god does not need to work through so many butterfly steps; if it wants AIDS stopped, it'll just stop it. Or if it absolutely insists on working through humans, you can hardly be arguing that pooka is its only opportunity to do so. The point is, you can weave these scenarios about anybody, with or without prayers; but pooka is apparently asserting that her prayer was the decisive factor. And if that's true, then there are certainly lots of other prayers going un-answered, which can have just as good a butterfly effect.
For that matter, substituting <an evil power> for your god, you can just as easily make up bad effects: If <Loki> had not kept her car moving, a butterfly would have avoided going under her much-delayed car; it would not have flapped its wings; the deadly storm of 2011 would not have ravaged the East Coast, killing tens of thousands.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
You should have kept going to see how far to the left of "E" you could have gone.
One of my favorite Seinfeld's.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It was so peaceful in the religious threads for a while. *sigh*
Seriously, KoM. You have every right to make these sorts of posts in debate-type threads. But why do you think it is helpful or appropriate to make them in this kind of thread?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM:
It's not the omnipotence of God that I'm concerned with, but the idea that we can decide better than He what is "important."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Until your god starts explaining its decisions in a publicly accessible form, I'm going to have to use the only decisional apparatus I have, to wit, my own brain. To do otherwise, to accept "Leader knows best" on faith, is to abdicate your responsibility as a human; if I can borrow some Mormon terminology, agency requires that you make judgements. And "I'm sure X is good, even though I don't see how" is not a judgement, it is a total cop-out. You have a moral obligation to judge each act of your chosen leader, and not say "X and Y are good, so Z must also be". That-does-not-follow.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...I'm going to have to say that I don't think that God added more gas to Pooka's tank or changed her engine to make it use less gas. I don't think God works that obviously. God may have encouraged Pooka to drive more conservatively? Or maybe it was just luck.
Gratitude, though, is still a good idea.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Seriously, KoM. You have every right to make these sorts of posts in debate-type threads. But why do you think it is helpful or appropriate to make them in this kind of thread?
I recall he also thought that a thread about the murder of a young missionary was an appropriate time to crack a joke. Which was about the only time I wished these board had an "ignore" function.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
More likely her car was designed by another human with the full knowledge that people procrastinate about filling up their gas tanks. There's also the knowledge that the fuel pump needs gasoline in order to cool itself.
So, rather than try to educate people on filling up the tank every time it hits a quarter, the automotive designer decided to rig the fuel guage to show empty long before the tank actually emptied, thus ensuring needed gasoline when the driver forgets to even read the fuel guage and keeping the fuel pump running longer.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Honestly, I would hope that any gods that exist might have slightly more important things to attend to.
Because nothing worse than running out of gas has happened to me in my life
Actually, I run out of gas quite often. In the two week period before my fourth child was born, I think I ran out three times due to things like parking on a downhill slope and wishing that I could see the needle of the gas gauge still overlapping the E gradation slightly.
Now on the second of those occassions, as we were walking along, my three year old chased a ball into the street and a firetruck stopped about 2 feet from him. I am also grateful that that happened. Firetrucks are pretty massful vehicles.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
If you had run out of gas, would it be God's fault? For many religious people when something good happens its "praise the Lord"; when something bad happens its their own fault. In school I used to hear many "I got an A on that test, praise the Lord" not too many "I failed that test, praise the Lord".
Then there is that group where when something bad happens to another (generally despised) group it is "Praise the Lord they are getting their just rewards"
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
No, God told me to fill my tank on Monday night.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:More likely her car was designed by another human with the full knowledge that people procrastinate about filling up their gas tanks. There's also the knowledge that the fuel pump needs gasoline in order to cool itself.
Yes! My Daddy never told me this. I replaced the fuel pump seven times in my first Chrysler mini-van. I argued with the dealer each time, insisting that it must be a design flaw. I also used to play a game seeing how many miles I could go on a tank of gas. I would reset the odometer with each fill up. I lost a predictable number of times. Once, having coasted into the Safeway parking lot after running dry, I asked a friend for a lift to the gas station. He said "you really didn't run out of gas did you? You will burn out the fuel pump if you do that". The eighth fuel pump lasted over 150,000 miles. Even old dogs etc.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Right. Probably many lives have been saved by the simple fact that the Empty sign does not actually mean empty. There was a whole Seinfeld episode about it, actually.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by baduffer: If you had run out of gas, would it be God's fault? For many religious people when something good happens its "praise the Lord"; when something bad happens its their own fault. In school I used to hear many "I got an A on that test, praise the Lord" not too many "I failed that test, praise the Lord".
Then there is that group where when something bad happens to another (generally despised) group it is "Praise the Lord they are getting their just rewards"
Why not, "Praise the Lord for creating me with the ability to surmount these obstacles?"
And just because nobody says, "Praise the Lord I failed," does not mean many do not go home and pray, "I failed, Lord help me to figure out what I could have done better."
That prayer has seen more answers then just about any other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Quite so. Odd how your god tends only to answer those prayers where the answer is indistuingishable from human effort.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not odd at all. I'm pretty sure that's how it is supposed to work.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Quite so. Odd how your god tends only to answer those prayers where the answer is indistuingishable from human effort.
How interesting you deign to suggest you know of every instance where God has interacted with a human being.
Could you perhaps share with us what apparatus you are using to tally when God has communicated with a human being, as well as how it reports on the specifics of each occurance?
Nobody here has suggested that God has yet to reveal something to a person that they could not already figure out on their own.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So in that case, why bother to pray at all? Why not cut out the middlemen and stand on your own two feet?
Further, let me direct your attention to Matthew:
quote:"Truly I say to YOU men, Whatever YOU may bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU may loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I truly say to YOU, If two of YOU on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them due to my Father in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." Mt 18:18-20
In answer Jesus said to them: "Truly I say to YOU, If only YOU have faith and do not doubt, not only will YOU do what I did to the fig tree, but also if YOU say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. And all the things YOU ask in prayer, having faith, YOU will receive." Mt 21:21,22
"All the things you ask". I don't necessarily believe Matthew is relating events that actually took place, but I'll give him this: He knows how to talk straight. All the things you ask. Nothing about it being good for you. Nothing about only gifts of the spirit. Nothing about being indistinguishable from human effort. Plain talk: All the things you ask. Jesus is giving all Christians who have the faith of a mustard grain the ability to work miracles; no ifs, ands, or buts, but all the things you ask. Where are the miracles, then? Where is the healing? Where is the peace on Earth? Surely faithful Christians have prayed for these things in their thousands, and tens of thousands.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I have personally seen healing accomplished in God's name. I have seen many miracles performed through faith in God. But perhaps you are asking for something along the lines of the flood, or Moses parting the red sea. All I can say is that if you take just about any of those miracles, only a small group of people in a small area witnessed it whereas the majority of the people in the world had no idea it happened.
What were Chinese people doing when Jesus was ressurected?
quote: 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that aseeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
God cannot grant what is contrary to good. So you can't ask God to let say Satan come live in heaven. In addition, everything to God is right or wrong. So if it would be wrong of him to heal somebody whose time has come he will not heal them. However if it is right for you to learn that trust in God is a correct principle, he would grant your petition that he heal a family member.
As for peace, Jesus has already said it is forthcoming. Peace is certainly right, but we have already discusse why God can't just come down an dominate all we do thus coercing us to be good and peaceable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No. You are contradicting the plain words of Jesus. All the things you ask. It doesn't say anything about being good for you, or not contradicting free will. It is an unlimited, open-ended promise. No weaseling lawyer-words.
quote:I have personally seen healing accomplished in God's name.
Splendid! Then why are these healers not in hospitals, curing cancer? Or better still, helping all those soldiers who come home from Iraq missing a limb or two? All the things you ask, remember. There's nothing in there about being limited to the flu.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I'm not weaseling, you're taking an extremely literalist view of Matthew's words in that instance. You are not taking it in light of other things that Jesus has commanded men to do.
Heck, look at the Lord's prayer. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
A good Christian will always preface their requests with, "If it be thy will." They should then have full confidence that their requests will be answered if they have faith.
A Christian the moment they stop caring about God's will cease to retain God's promise of giving.
Examples, Peter walks on the sea, Matthew 14:28-29 "28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus."
Jesus in Gethsemane Luke 22:42 "42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."
Jesus did TONS of miracles, but only if so commanded by his father, hence him refusing to turn rocks into bread, or leap off the roof of the temple to test his father's power.
Members of my church's priesthood often make trips to the hospital to administer to the sick who request their coming. Many of those have miraculous experiences.
For some reason you do not agree that if God heals one sick person he does not neccesarily have to heal everyone who is sick. Or that people get sick for more then one reason.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When I was a Christian, it always upset me that there aren't any real miracles any more. Back in the day, miracles were burning bushes talking to people, walking on water, water turning to wine, blind people having their sight restored, the dead coming back to life.
Now that we have the knowledge and technology to record events - so we're less willing to believe big fish stories - and to understand the science behind other so called miracles, or to debunk attention seekers, you really don't see good quality miracles any more.
We're talking about God, an all-powerful being, and he won't actually perform any believable miracles. What's the deal?
No bible verses appear in 50 mile high letters on the moon. No healing powers for the Pope or other religious leaders. No clearly answered prayers. It's always just things which can be easily explained as coincidence or random chance.
God sure doesn't seem to be trying too hard, or care too much if people like myself and other doubters have any faith. Why give people common sense, and then ask them to believe something which contradicts logic and evidence?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And, once again, we seem to be confusing God with Gandalf.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:We're talking about God, an all-powerful being, and he won't actually perform any believable miracles. What's the deal?
No bible verses appear in 50 mile high letters on the moon. No healing powers for the Pope or other religious leaders. No clearly answered prayers. It's always just things which can be easily explained as coincidence or random chance.
God sure doesn't seem to be trying too hard, or care too much if people like myself and other doubters have any faith. Why give people common sense, and then ask them to believe something which contradicts logic and evidence?
Faith, in secular terms:
Faith is picking up a guitar for the first time and not being able to play it at all, but practicing it day after day after day, believing that eventually you will be able to play it like a master. You can't see the end result, you can't prove it will be there, but you practice anyway. That's faith.
Why can't we all be guitar masters to begin with, instead of having to slog it out without clear guarantee of the results? Because what we gain along the way is just as valuable as what we're able to do at the end of the road. Now our faith is stronger in the fact that constant practice yields the results we want.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Gandalf's not God!?!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've seen some pretty big miracles. But I've found that if you don't want to believe in miracles, it's very easy to refute the fact that they exist. So I don't try to convince people any more; the fact that I have seen them is enough.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Gandalf's not God!?!
No. Illuvatar is God. Gandalf is a Maiar.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well spoken.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Pfft! Demigod, God, or Undergod. Same dif.
(ETA: I agknowledge that the above is an attempt to hide a severe and burning sense of shame with bluster and ego)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And, once again, we seem to be confusing God with Gandalf.
Again I point you to the plain words of Matthew. Your god actually promises to be Gandalf. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but how many ways can you interpret "All that you ask"?
quote:A good Christian will always preface their requests with, "If it be thy will." They should then have full confidence that their requests will be answered if they have faith.
But they aren't, that's my point. Also, Matthew is not making any such restrictions.
quote:KOM: I'm not weaseling, you're taking an extremely literalist view of Matthew's words in that instance. You are not taking it in light of other things that Jesus has commanded men to do.
Well, that's just it: Neither is Jesus, as his words are reported by Matthew. Presumably, if he meant to put restrictions on his promises, he'd say so. And in any case, if such plain, testable words as "All that you ask" require this amount of interpretation, then what use is it to believe in the much more nebulous promises of an afterlife? For all you know, Jesus actually promises a good afterlife only to people who can lick their own elbows, but unfortunately the specification was lost somewhere in the Apocrypha and so you're not considering the rest of his words in the correct light.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, and touching your miraculous healings: How many of those were amputations? And what percentage of the ones who weren't prayed for also recovered? Was this percentage higher or lower than in those who were prayed for?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
According to the Bible, God used to perform miracles, through holy people, which were clearly miracles to all present. Why doesn't that happen any more?
I suppose a more pointed question is, why are all the "miracles" we see in the present days not really miracles at all?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
"I'm going to have to use the only decisional apparatus I have, to wit, my own brain."
I'm assuming this is the same brain that told you to turn Pooka's happy thread into a debate thread. Got it.
"Then there is that group where when something bad happens to another (generally despised) group it is 'Praise the Lord they are getting their just rewards'"
These people are brought up a lot in religious debates. I'm still waiting to meet one in real life though.
"Neither is Jesus, as his words are reported by Matthew. Presumably, if he meant to put restrictions on his promises, he'd say so."
So, Jesus should quote the entire Bible before each time he gives any commandments or encouragements. I see your point.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Is there a thread on this forum that has not turned into a debate?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: According to the Bible, God used to perform miracles, through holy people, which were clearly miracles to all present. Why doesn't that happen any more?
I suppose a more pointed question is, why are all the "miracles" we see in the present days not really miracles at all?
Many who saw the miracles that Jesus preformed, or that God performed for the Jews in the Old Testament, did not count them as miracles, or so I have always understood. While there were a very few that you would think almost anyone would view as miracles (water into wine, parting of the Red Sea, raising the dead), I know from experience that those who choose to dismiss these miracles or not believe them find ample reason to do so.
I have seen miracles that everyone present, including those not of my faith, counted as miracles. But I am sure that there are those who would dismiss them as nature taking its course, or as psychological manifestations of belief on the part of the person for whom the miracle was performed, or something else. So I don't really see much of a difference between those healings and miracles and the healings and miracles Jesus performed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm assuming this is the same brain that told you to turn Pooka's happy thread into a debate thread. Got it.
What's with the personal attack? If you don't want to debate, then don't. There is no need to go around implying that those of us who do want to debate something are stupid. Especially when you apparently do, in fact, want to debate, but can't come up with anything better than a snarky little ad hom.
quote:So, Jesus should quote the entire Bible before each time he gives any commandments or encouragements. I see your point.
Some pointing out of the relevant qualifiers would be nice, yes. How about "All that you ask, if it be God's will, you shall receive?" That would make a lot of sense, no?
quote:These people are brought up a lot in religious debates. I'm still waiting to meet one in real life though.
That's not me you're quoting, but go take a look at a fundie forum or two and check out what they think caused AIDS.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have seen miracles that everyone present, including those not of my faith, counted as miracles. But I am sure that there are those who would dismiss them as nature taking its course, or as psychological manifestations of belief on the part of the person for whom the miracle was performed, or something else. So I don't really see much of a difference between those healings and miracles and the healings and miracles Jesus performed.
I have given you an example of a miracle I would accept as such: An amputated limb restored by prayer. No doubt there are others as well. So again, why does your god only perform the ones that can be explained in other ways? And, at that, it does so with no statistical significance. Those prayed for and those not prayed for survive at the same rates. What use your miracles, then? And one more time: All that you ask.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Some pointing out of the relevant qualifiers would be nice, yes. How about "All that you ask, if it be God's will, you shall receive?" That would make a lot of sense, no?
Ooh, I've got that one!
quote:And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. 3 Nephi 18:20
Of course not all Christians use that one, but I do like the qualifier. As KoM said, it makes a lot more sense.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
KoM, when I experience a miracle, it is of use to ME.
And this is why I have learned to let it go at this point. I am not going to agree with you, and you are not going to agree with me. At least not on this.
Perhaps I will go talk about food on your other thread, that is something we can probably agree about, at least about some parts of it. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Whatever you experience in your life that's good, is clearly of use to you, yes. But in what way is it useful to explain it as a miracle? Why not just accept it as a good thing that happened? You would not consider it a miracle if you got a particularly good hand at bridge; why should important things be any different?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I might consider a good hand a miracle, depending on the process by which I got it.
It benefits me to praise God and recognize His hand in my life, because, among other reasons, I feel good when I do so. It may not benefit you to do the same, which is why I am not demanding you do so. But it benefits me, perhaps in a way you don't empathize with, but it benefits me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So you are asserting "X is a miracle" based on it feeling good? Don't you see that that's wrong?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Is there a thread on this forum that has not turned into a debate?
Quite a few.
Pretty sure none featured posts by KoM.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I'm assuming this is the same brain that told you to turn Pooka's happy thread into a debate thread. Got it.
What's with the personal attack? If you don't want to debate, then don't. There is no need to go around implying that those of us who do want to debate something are stupid.
Not stupid. Unable to deal with simple social cues, like appropriateness of timing and location, quite possibly. I wonder if it's a physicist thing. My father freely admits he had similar difficulties when he was young.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So you are asserting "X is a miracle" based on it feeling good? Don't you see that that's wrong?
That's not what I said, and I'm a little annoyed at the question. X is a miracle because it is miraculous. I choose to praise God for the miracle because it is right, because it feels good, for many other reasons. I was giving you an example of what I get out of it, since you said that the miracles were no use. So anyway, X is a miracle, period. People can choose to recognize it as such or not. Their choice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And how do you know it's a miracle? We know that religious people die at the same rate as atheists. We know that prayers have no measurable effect. What's your basis for calling things miracles, then? Mere unlikeliness does not a miracle make.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:We know that prayers have no measurable effect.
I don't think this claim is supported. Praysrs do have measurable effects.
But you know what? I've said twice that I don't want to get into an argument about this. I'm going to leave the thread now. Have fun.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe God gets to take credit for whatever He likes. When my GF and I make dinner together, I like to take credit if it's delicious, and say that she did most of the work if it's not so good Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't think this claim is supported. Praysrs do have measurable effects.
I find this fantastically interesting. Please link to that study.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
from advice for robots :
quote:Faith, in secular terms:
Faith is picking up a guitar for the first time and not being able to play it at all, but practicing it day after day after day, believing that eventually you will be able to play it like a master. You can't see the end result, you can't prove it will be there, but you practice anyway. That's faith.
I wanted to respond to this to make a distinction between "faith" in things that have scientifically observable causes and effects--and faith in a God who claims an afterlife which is unknowable by everyone. I can explain exactly how I get better at my instrument by detailing what kind of practice I put into it. Because I can see the observable effects of practice (in my teachers), and they tell me exactly what needs to be done in order to achieve something, it's no longer "faith" driving me to practice, but a knowledge of the probability that by doing A, B will be achieved.
Does anyone see what I'm saying here?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Yeah, you beat me to it actually. Very well said.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
While I agree that logically it is nigh impossible to support a belief in the supernal, well, logically it's impossible to accept the fact that I'm alive. The fact that I can taste something is strange indeed. So while it may be an opiate, my superstitious tendencies make life more comfortable, and why should I deprive myself of that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are using the word 'logically' in a very strange way, indeed, if you think it hard to accept that you're alive. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lw, I believe you are misunderstanding afr's point. His analogy was to explain the WHY of faith, not the how.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
By small things...
I am glad you made it, pooka. I've been sending up a lot of prayers recently involving my gas needle and the attention span of local cops since my front license plate disappeared.
Hooray for downhills with green lights!
Edit: A meatspace friend that had recently joined hatrack was expressing satisfaction at how great a forum this was, but asked if I was familiar with somebody named "King of Men" or some such that was kind of a jerk. I wasn't. Now I am. There _is_ an ignore function, and I'm turning it on right now. Personal attack? Perhaps. Immature? Maybe. Am I perfectly okay with that? Claro, claro que sí.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
But regardless of what he was attempting to explain, he said "Faith is..." when his example is most certainly NOT faith.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Good for you pooka!
King of Men, do you have to attack all discussion of religion even if has nothing to do with you? What is your motivation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If it comes to that, pooka's gas tank has nothing to do with you, either, but I don't see you staying out of the thread. If we were to limit posts only to those subjects that involved us personally, this would be a dead little forum, indeed.
Incidentally, what is your objection to using mathematics on a subject which basically is mathematics? Can you really not admit that someone else might know a subject a little better than you do?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But regardless of what he was attempting to explain, he said "Faith is..." when his example is most certainly NOT faith.
You're simply misinterpreting his use of the word "is." Don't be so literal.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If it comes to that, pooka's gas tank has nothing to do with you, either, but I don't see you staying out of the thread. If we were to limit posts only to those subjects that involved us personally, this would be a dead little forum, indeed.
Incidentally, what is your objection to using mathematics on a subject which basically is mathematics? Can you really not admit that someone else might know a subject a little better than you do?
This is a public forum. I saw the title, I'm glad for pooka and said so. That's all.
I'm not saying only go to threads that you are involved with personally, nor did anything I said imply that. My question had to do with attacking religion, not reading and posting in threads about it. My question still stands. Why are you drawn to attacking religion?
I have nothing to add to the other discussion you and I were having. Are you better than math than me? Probably, though if you read my posts better you would see that I said that in the other thread, lets not hijack this thread too, please.
[ May 30, 2007, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But regardless of what he was attempting to explain, he said "Faith is..." when his example is most certainly NOT faith.
You're simply misinterpreting his use of the word "is." Don't be so literal.
But...then what exactly is his use of the word? I didn't take his statement literally. I interpreted it as an explanation or description of faith by analogy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So you are asserting "X is a miracle" based on it feeling good? Don't you see that that's wrong?
Umm...why?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I would add: "You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."
I think KoM's statement here as well as other threads violates this part of the user agreement here at Hatrack.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because you can assert anything based on its feeling good. "Being at the center of the Universe makes me feel good, therefore geocentrism!" "Being a self-righteous jerk feels good, therefore Christians are stupid!" "Other humans in pain makes me feel good, therefore eternal hellfire!" "Being a member of a tolerant group makes me feel good, therefore your study is mistaken!"
[ May 30, 2007, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
No need for such harsh language buddy...
And it seems you didn't understand my argument on the other thread at all, but I guess you'll believe what you want to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I understood your argument, I just didn't agree with it. One more time: If sample sizes of 2000 people do not work, then how do polls predict election results? I've given up on theory, here, since you seem to feel I am trying to bludgeon you with it; this is experiment. We know that polls do, by and large - not perfectly, by any means - correctly predict the outcome of elections. We know that they use samples sizes of a few thousand at most. If a few thousand is not enough, then how can they be correct?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:We know that polls do, by and large - not perfectly, by any means - correctly predict the outcome of elections.
Exceedingly imperfectly. And that's with a simple question: Who did you (or will you) vote for?
Polls on complex issues are absolutely notorious for their inaccuracy.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Then disagree and move on. Grow up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, if you don't think it at all important that I agree with your post, if in fact you utterly do not care about the discussion, why did you post in the first place? I must say I feel it should be permitted to care about finding the truth about a subject, and achieving a consensus, without being told to 'grow up and move on'. If I didn't care, why would I post?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I stopped caring when I saw the discussion wasn't going anywhere productive for either of us, apparently you didn't. This one isn't either. Seeya.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I felt that at least one of us was going to learn some math. That would have been highly productive, especially if the learner was me.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Had to get the last potshot huh? I was arguing logic, not math, and we disagreed. Simple. Now drop it.
Posted by papastebu (Member # 10496) on :
I agree that you are blessed. As to certain knowledge of the efficacy of prayer, what does it matter? It does not hurt, therefore, why not exercise what fiction writers strive to inspire in their readers, which is suspension of disbelief? For you, King of Men, to say that someone is wrong for believing in something is incorrect. Reality is subjective, and therefore, as you stated, a person only has his own perceptions and the interpretations of such to use in determining said reality. You don't know that your view of God--or His non-existence--is correct, just as I don't know that my acceptance of Jesus as my savior is correct. We each, however, have to travel according to our own lights. Faith, btw, is not about knowledge or logic, but about proof that seems to be true. It is subjective, too, because it is a certainty that something is true without actual knowledge that it is so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Had to get the last potshot huh? I was arguing logic, not math, and we disagreed. Simple. Now drop it.
What you were arguing has nothing to do with logic. Logic is a much more restricted field than most people seem to think; it deals in syllogisms, axioms, and what kinds of conclusions are reasonable. It does not deal with sample sizes in sociological studies; that is the domain of statistics. The word you are looking for is perhaps "common sense", and your common sense in this instance is wrong. Where intuition and mathematics disagree, intuition is going to have to give way.
quote:For you, King of Men, to say that someone is wrong for believing in something is incorrect. Reality is subjective, and therefore, as you stated, a person only has his own perceptions and the interpretations of such to use in determining said reality.
Excuse me. If it is incorrect for me to say someone is wrong, because reality is subjective, then how can it be right for you to say I am incorrect? My reality is just as good as yours. Clearly, you don't believe your own assertion. I would urge you to consider this example: "This thread has six hundred and forty-eight pages". Is this assertion correct, or not correct?
quote:As to certain knowledge of the efficacy of prayer, what does it matter?
Of course it matters! If we knew we could cure cancer by prayer, how can you say that would not matter? If we knew there was some effect to saying words in a certain form, how could that possibly be uninteresting? Quite apart from the religious implications, it would be the greatest scientific discovery of the age, or any age!
quote:You don't know that your view of God--or His non-existence--is correct, just as I don't know that my acceptance of Jesus as my savior is correct.
No, but there's such a thing as requiring reasonable evidence.
quote:Faith, btw, is not about knowledge or logic, but about proof that seems to be true. It is subjective, too, because it is a certainty that something is true without actual knowledge that it is so.
I think "subjective" is not the word you want, there. And how dare you be certain of what you cannot show? How do you have the gall to say "I have no evidence for this, but I'm sure it's true"? Don't you see that this is wrong? Not merely mistaken, but actually evil?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Oh quit trolling already.
My logic logically tells me your definition of logic is logically incorrect. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If you'd quit telling him to stop replying, he'd have nothing to reply to, no?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you really feel I am trolling, take it up with a moderator. I don't take orders from you.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
See?
Posted by papastebu (Member # 10496) on :
It seemed that how you meant "wrong" was exactly as you confirmed it to be. You told someone that they had no proof that miracles were real, and therefore, they were "wrong". I am not saying that you are "wrong". What I am saying is that what you are doing in telling someone that their beliefs are "wrong" is incorrect, in that it is akin to asking someone their favorite color and then assigning them a color when they tell you. You are unable to know that anything you touch, see, feel, hear, taste, or sense is exactly as you percieve it to be, and therefore must accept that the color they told you is the one they like the most, or attempt to convince them otherwise. Logically, you can't know that miracles do not exist, though, according to your perceptions, that is most assuredly so. Neither can the person against whom you spoke know that they are real, yet that is obviosly what they believe. As to the morality of a given belief or action, that, too must be taken as you find it. All of this that I am saying is filtered through my perceptions, and therefore has to be subject to them. For example, it seems to me that you are angry and unhappy, and that you blame God for that, and have decided to punish Him by denying Him your belief, but I might be incorrect.
Clearly, YOU do not believe in my assertion, and therefore you attempt to reach into my mind and make my eyes see as yours seem to. This is what you attempted to pooka, who was, afaik, attempting to share something that made her feel good with the others here.
I have no idea how many pages the thread has, other than to say that I only see two. Whether you believe it has 648 pages or not is anybody's guess. I might just as easily say, "If I were to trip while walking, my body would never reach the floor, because logic tells me that each individual object is always halfway between one point and some other point."
Perhaps I should have stated that I have enough personal proof to believe in the efficacy of prayer, but the faith of others is subjective, and something I have no desire to control. I also believe in free will, which is about as subjective as a person can get. The reason that I said it doesn't matter is because you say you don't believe in the power of prayer. The part of my statement that you seem to have neglected is something along the lines of, "What does it hurt, so why not do it anyway?" You seem to be taking prayer as some sort of ritual or spell that will do whatever you want it to, right then. This is not the case. If you pretend for a moment that you think that God exists, are you going to say to the creator of you, your mom, and everything else, "Listen, Lord, your servant speaks," or are you going to pray, "Speak, Lord, your servant listens."? You cannot set aside faith in a power greater than yourself and still pray. Unless you pray to yourself, of course, but let me know how THAT comes off, OK? Religion, however, has very little to do with it. There are prescribed ways of praying, but this activity, like everything else, is subjective.
You can only REQUIRE evidence from yourself. How will you prove your own existence? By denying God's? God doesn't even require anything from you, so far as I can tell. But again, that's just how I see it.
"Subjective" is exactly the word that I want. As a matter of fact, I want ALL of the words, even the bad ones. "How dare you... ?" The answer to this is simple. I don't require for you to believe what I do. I do not need to show you what I am certain of in order to continue believing it. It requires no "gall" to say it, because my faith exists regardless of whether you share it, can see it, or even acknowledge it. Evil, as I see it, is an act that tries to impose one person's will, beliefs, or dogmatic assumptions on another person, or attempts direct or indirect physical, emotional, or spiritual harm on another. By my understanding, and in holding with your own statement that a person has nothing to go on but his own brain, I am not wrong, mistaken, or evil.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by papastebu: It seemed that how you meant "wrong" was exactly as you confirmed it to be. You told someone that they had no proof that miracles were real, and therefore, they were "wrong". I am not saying that you are "wrong". What I am saying is that what you are doing in telling someone that their beliefs are "wrong" is incorrect, in that it is akin to asking someone their favorite color and then assigning them a color when they tell you.
This analogy doesn't really work. The statement "miracles are real" is a statement of fact. Any time you assert that something is factual, there is always the possibility that you are wrong. Asking someone their favorite color isn't asking them to state an objective fact about the world. Unless they are lying in their answer, they can't be wrong. A better analogy is to ask someone what they said was their favorite color last year. In this case, the question calls for a statement of fact, which can certainly be wrong. (ie, if they had claimed their favorite color was blue, but when asked they now thing they had responded with red at the time).
quote: You are unable to know that anything you touch, see, feel, hear, taste, or sense is exactly as you percieve it to be, and therefore must accept that the color they told you is the one they like the most, or attempt to convince them otherwise. Logically, you can't know that miracles do not exist, though, according to your perceptions, that is most assuredly so.
True, but either we can make conclusions about the way the world works using our perceptions or we can't. If we can't then there is no world view that we can accept. Even the most religious view requires this to be the case. Whether it is the feeling you get praying or in church, or simply trusting that the words you read in the bible are correct, you are completely dependent on your perceptions to know any "truth" about the world.
quote: Perhaps I should have stated that I have enough personal proof to believe in the efficacy of prayer, but the faith of others is subjective, and something I have no desire to control. I also believe in free will, which is about as subjective as a person can get.
If prayer is effective, then it isn't really a subjective matter. If it does produce a consistent effect, then it should be possible to study it and see objective results.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Believing something is a miracle isn't really the same as having a favorite color. Having a favorite color is a personal preference. A miracle occurring is a physical manifestation of a supernatural power acting on the world.
If you tell me that your favorite color is red, I can't tell you that it's not. If, on the other hand, you tell me that all cars are actually red, because you believe it to be so, I certainly can disagree. In fact, it makes perfect sense for me to do so, since to myself and many others see lots of non-red cars.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am not going to argue with a factual relativist. If we don't agree on some kind of terms of reference, then there can be no dialogue. If you genuinely believe that the thread may have 648 pages even though we both see that there are two, then there is no value in talking to you. Goodnight.
Posted by papastebu (Member # 10496) on :
The analogy works fine, because belief is, by definition, subjective. So is a choice of a favorite color. I wasn't talking about absolutes as observable. I was talking about KoM's telling someone that their belief, which is by definition subjective, is wrong. THIS statement of his is incorrect, except in his world-view. It's fine for him to think that he is right, though. I am not looking for proof, but rather stating what I observed. If I were, however, that WOULD be a better way to phrase it.
For your second observation/statement, I have already answered it, mostly, and you can see that we agree. As I said earlier, we can only travel by our own lights. The discussion of what we observe is what brings the consensus we seek. Certain schools of thought see truth as an indivisible thing. I submit that there is a subjective and an objective truth, sometimes in the same situation.
As to the third point, if the effects of prayer are observable, then yes, that would be an objective truth. However, there are no consistent, observable effects, because prayer's effectiveness stems from the praying person's faith, not only overall, but at a given time. I have observed my own prayers and the prayers of others being answered. Also, as I said, faith itself is a subjective thing. I will give you an example, and you take from it what you will. When my mother-in-law died, my wife, as expected, was devastated. Acting totally out of character, I procured the Bible from the flower arrangement for her funeral, and began to flip through it. We came home, eventually, and my wife sat on the couch and wept. I set the Bible on the table, and tried to comfort her, but she was inconsolable. Nothing I said or did seemed to reach her. I don't recall if I was praying or not, but I definitely was thinking very hard that I needed to find some way to help her. I have read the Bible, or much of it, but I couldn't so much as tell you which gospel account comes first. But something compelled me to stand up, go to the dining room table, and open that book. I have no idea what passage I turned to, but I handed it to my grieving wife and told her to read it. She did, and she was soothed. To this day, I can't find a single thing in that book without asking someone to help me, and yet this thing happened when it was most needed. THAT'S what I meant by personal proof. To my mind, heart, and spirit, God and Jesus are very real, and several occasions of this sort are why. Just like I told KoM, I don't care what he thinks about me or my beliefs, because I'm not even sure he's real.
Posted by papastebu (Member # 10496) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Believing something is a miracle isn't really the same as having a favorite color. Having a favorite color is a personal preference. A miracle occurring is a physical manifestation of a supernatural power acting on the world.
If you tell me that your favorite color is red, I can't tell you that it's not. If, on the other hand, you tell me that all cars are actually red, because you believe it to be so, I certainly can disagree. In fact, it makes perfect sense for me to do so, since to myself and many others see lots of non-red cars.
I wasn't saying that they were the same thing. In fact, I agree about favorite colors being a personal preference. I also agree with you about observation. That's exactly what I'm on about. What KoM said was that it was wrong to believe that miracles happen. If he says that, he might as well say that a person's favorite color isn't what THEY told HIM, but what HE told THEM: that they are wrong about a personal choice or natural preference. It is part of MY beliefs that miracles occur, not his, so who is he to say that I, or the person he actually attacked, am wrong? Who is he to say that my favorite color is red when I know it to be green? Posted by papastebu (Member # 10496) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am not going to argue with a factual relativist. If we don't agree on some kind of terms of reference, then there can be no dialogue. If you genuinely believe that the thread may have 648 pages even though we both see that there are two, then there is no value in talking to you. Goodnight.
IS IT? Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Because, papastebu, miracles are not a favorite color. If you want to say, "I prayed that the cop wouldn't pull me over for speeding, and he didn't, so I was happy", that's your feeling, and I can't tell you otherwise.
If, on the other hand, you says, "I prayed that the cop wouldn't pull me over for speeding, and a supernatural power took an active role in my life, physically changing the world in such a way that I was not pulled over", a responsible person could very well ask you why you believe that. A person who cares about the welfare of his fellow human might want you to consider the implications of that idea, and question if there is any real evidence for it being true.
One reason being, that if people live their lives based on unsubstantiated beliefs, which they accept as fact, it muddies what "facts" are, what "real" means, and how everyone interacts. It also opens the door for teaching Intelligent Design in public school. It also unifies one group of people against another group of people because they hold different, equally unsubstantiated beliefs.
It gives self-appointed authority figures the power to influence huge groups of people to their own ends, because the people are conditioned not to ask questions, or demand proof, or accept the validity of opposing views, regardless of their merit.
These things, which I consider negative on the whole, are not guaranteed, but it seems to me that they tend to follow more easily. Why wouldn't I want to help prevent negative actions from occurring?
If someone tells me their favorite color is green, it doesn't make much difference one way or another. If they tell me that because their favorite color is green they never need to go to the doctor, it would be socially and morally irresponsible for me not to question that belief, and suggest that they reconsider it, or at least show me why I should reconsider my opposing view.
Posted by papastebu (Member # 10496) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Because, papastebu, miracles are not a favorite color. If you want to say, "I prayed that the cop wouldn't pull me over for speeding, and he didn't, so I was happy", that's your feeling, and I can't tell you otherwise.
If, on the other hand, you says, "I prayed that the cop wouldn't pull me over for speeding, and a supernatural power took an active role in my life, physically changing the world in such a way that I was not pulled over", a responsible person could very well ask you why you believe that. A person who cares about the welfare of his fellow human might want you to consider the implications of that idea, and question if there is any real evidence for it being true.
One reason being, that if people live their lives based on unsubstantiated beliefs, which they accept as fact, it muddies what "facts" are, what "real" means, and how everyone interacts. It also opens the door for teaching Intelligent Design in public school. It also unifies one group of people against another group of people because they hold different, equally unsubstantiated beliefs.
It gives self-appointed authority figures the power to influence huge groups of people to their own ends, because the people are conditioned not to ask questions, or demand proof, or accept the validity of opposing views, regardless of their merit.
These things, which I consider negative on the whole, are not guaranteed, but it seems to me that they tend to follow more easily. Why wouldn't I want to help prevent negative actions from occurring?
If someone tells me their favorite color is green, it doesn't make much difference one way or another. If they tell me that because their favorite color is green they never need to go to the doctor, it would be socially and morally irresponsible for me not to question that belief, and suggest that they reconsider it, or at least show me why I should reconsider my opposing view.
You are speaking in extremes. I was using an imaginary example of a person trampling on another's right to believe whatever they choose as an illustration of the same thing happening here in this thread. Your point, while a bit over-the-top, is understood, and I even agree that there has to be some sort of a meeting of the minds for society to work. I think it was Ben Franklin--correct me if I'm "wrong", it may have been Winston Churchhill--who said that "Democracy is the worst form of government that there is, except for every other form of government." That being said, "unsubstantiated" is also a relative term. There would not be any point in praying for a cop not to stop you, because the cop can do as he pleases. He has free will, just like you do when you decide to do whatever you did that made you worry. You might pray that he wouldn't notice it, though, and might get a "Yes". But that could be seen as just plain ol' coincidence, couldn't it? That's why you can't prove that prayers work. Sometimes the answer is "No". Sometimes the answer is "Yes, but wait awhile." Sometimes you don't really know what you're praying for, and you get what you need, instead. Sometimes, you get what you asked for, exactly, and it's not what you thought it would be. You might want to question the verity of any statement made that claims unseen powers are at work in the world. But it is a person's right to think or believe or feel anything that he does, and THAT unseen truth is immutable. To take an example from literature, Bartleby the scrivener decided that he just didn't want to do anything that he didn't want to do. He eventually died in an asylum, from what I remember. People put him there because he was mucking up the works. That is an example of the extreme case that you describe, but it was a fictional man. It sounds like you think that people who choose to believe in the power of prayer are delusional. If so, does their delusion harm you? If they are not crazy, and it works, shouldn't they be allowed to continue? All I am saying is this. An individual is himself/herself. No-one else has the right to yank around their ideologies to make the picture fit what the OTHER person sees as right. This is true of red versus green or atheist versus Christian. It is, I think, every human's duty to help others as the siuation warrants and the individual's abilities allow. So, yes, you should want to help prevent negative occurrences. BUT... how do you tell when something negative is happening, barring obvious emergencies? Is it about how you feel? Is it about what you believe? How do you make the choice of when to interfere--positive or negative, that is what would be happening--and when to live and let live, walk away? Another thing, it is more likely that self-appointed rulers are going to take over if a lot of people's faith gets out of whack than if it doesn't. A person's sense of self doesn't come just from what he knows, but from his gut reactions and his beliefs. Whatever a person's beliefs are, taking them away or trying to change them weakens that person, if just for a time. If something someone says actually sinks in on its own and the person takes something away from the conversation that changes him, it might do the same thing, but it is natural, then.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
So whenever something contradicts your reasoning, you simply consider it "extreme".
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't think that people who choose to believe in the power of prayer are delusional (although some may be self-destructive or dangerous, for example if they refuse to take their sick children to the doctor). At the same time, I would suggest that they consider their beliefs, and if they find, as you pointed out, that you can't prove that prayers work, because the answer appears to be random, they may want to consider the positive and negative implications of that belief or any particular case on their lives.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I've gotten a few whistles on this thread, but I won't have time to review it until later this afternoon, so it's getting at least a temporary lock. I'll either unlock later or edit in my reasons here for its remaining locked.
--PJ
[Edit for status: My current state of mind isn't such that I think I can give this an unbiased reading right now, so I'm going to revisit it a bit later. I'm leaning toward keeping the lock, but I don't like squelching the actual conversation that may be happening between the fight posts.]
[ May 31, 2007, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)