posted
So you are asserting "X is a miracle" based on it feeling good? Don't you see that that's wrong?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lw, I believe you are misunderstanding afr's point. His analogy was to explain the WHY of faith, not the how.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But regardless of what he was attempting to explain, he said "Faith is..." when his example is most certainly NOT faith.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
King of Men, do you have to attack all discussion of religion even if has nothing to do with you? What is your motivation?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Had to get the last potshot huh? I was arguing logic, not math, and we disagreed. Simple. Now drop it.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.]
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
