Hey Jak,
Let's remember that you opened this exchange with the claim that people who pray do so for their own benefit. That is all that I am disputing. But lets parry anyway.
In the above post, you objected to my prayer example but refused to provide one of your own. That objection and time-waste was exactly why I asked you to submit a prayer that might be made in modern times. You refused then. This makes communication difficult. To shorten response words, I’ll just let you refer to your post above for some of this.
I don't pray in the way you've described so I don't know what to do here.
Since we have fully half the human population out of 7 billion people at or near the starvation level, your statement is an interpretation, your interpretation that only some are “blessed to have food” presumably by God.
This is untrue. But, your point remains.
Hence, that refutes other religious claims that God is a loving, forgiving God. In fact it makes this God notion one of an evil God who demonstrates favoritism (a very human quality).
For you to make that evaluation, you have to first tell us what evil is. Good luck. That question has been befuddling us for ages. But within your comment, I suspect, is the idea that a loving God would not let these people suffer. Fine. Now what would you have Him do?
It is to invent God in the nature of man himself.
I dispute this. Where is your evidence of man's nature to begin with? Let alone that what you describe is inherent to this? And if you are willing to stipulate that man has a nature, then you are well on your way to seeing prayer for what it is.
Man is demonstrates favoritism and is quite willing to bring even death and destruction to other humans with whom they have disagreement including WAR which always kills innocent people.
I'll agree.
Since the prayer you submitted for analysis was not written by you, you INTERPRET as you please the words which are not yours.
Except my interpretation is not unique. That's a part of faith, we learn from each other.
The prayer you submitted has man saying: “GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.” It’s either a command or a fearful petition to the presumed God. Not ALL had “the opportunity to be nourished.” Only some did. Otherwise there would be no need for prayer to a God for what EVERYONE had…”daily bread” or in general food “the opportunity to be nourished.” “OPPORTUNITY” afforded to only a select few.
True. However, let's assume for a moment that at the time this prayer was recorded, every human being was adequately fed and had no reason to believe he/she would not be again tomorrow. That doesn't change the fact that Christians pray to recognize the sovereignty of God. This idea would be expressed using another vehicle.
In the interest of word conservation, throughout your response you attach your spin, your interpretation on words which were not yours or presented as a typical prayer of today. While this is typical of what religious believers do, it’s the precisely kind of spin (on ancient scripts) which has resulted in the hundreds and hundreds of Protestant Christians following the Protestant Reformation (1517 A.D.).
Even if I agree... so? Why is this bad?
Hoops stated: We pray for protection, yes.We have already established that you acknowledge those who pray to a God attempt to manipulate God to satisfy their wishes (whether it be for themselves or another person or persons).
Okay, in part, ok. But part of that prayer is that our wishes are for the greater good. Or the good of another. And I've noted that, as usual with atheists/agonstics/humanists you've chosen to represent prayer in the worst possible light. I suppose one can call it a plea to God as manipulation and I don't have the rhetorical muscle to dispute it. I would say, simply, that we pray for the benefit of others. Call it manipulation if you will
You assert refutation but don’t provide it.
JAK: Since there is NO EVIDENCE to support a claim of a God, “God notions are irrelevant”. There is no evidence for a God, hence there is no relevance for prayer. With no evidence for any god or a God, there is no rationale to consider that God does anything with regard to prayer petitions. Your last statement is correct --- “Not much of a God then.”
There is no evidence that you accept. There's plenty of evidence, it just doesn't meet your impossible standard. So the premise of assertions is flawed. I'm sure we'll get back to this. Nevertheless, this is not the question. The question is if there is some Deity what purpose does prayer serve.
That’s correct. People pray for a variety of things. When they get what they pray for, they, in wishful thinking, like to believe God made it happen. But, people pray for lots of things that do not happen. I gave examples of that and you have not responded to them. (I’m not reading ahead in response here. So I’m open to what you say next.)
But you're assuming that the purpose of prayer is to "get" things, behaviours we approve of by God, whatever. We believe that prayer is effective and that sometimes what we've prayed for comes about - to the extent that we can understand it.
I don’t want to repeat, but it seems necessary. Those few individuals who jumped from high places with the prayer to God that God would give them ability to fly were doomed. They did not fly. Their prayer to God was irrelevant. Just because some get what which they pray for does not mean God did it. God is not established. This is a critical concept and position of an agnostic/atheist.
As I've mentioned before, prayer is not a laundry list of things we want in life, so your example has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In fact, prayer is the one thing that a atheist/agnostic/humanist is most afraid of in that prayer is the soul communicating with God. And prayer manifests in all different ways some are formal and meant for the congregation, others are more off the cuff (like mine, usually). Still, the intent is the same - to open the window between this naturalism and other states.
You ASSUME an entity God. You further assume the characteristics and the behavior and conduct and wishes of that God. Those assumptions which you make or any other believer with quite different beliefs than yours makes are irrelevant. God assumptions are without merit.
Shoot! My earnest prayer is that He is nothing like me!!
Kidding aside, your tossing out facts not in evidence. I can say the same. You assume there is no God, and yet, you recognize the characteristics in yourself and can not answer where they came from.
JAK: The question is for “atheists” in this topic originated by Ceeboo. The evolution of religion was from many gods to few gods to one God. Any religion which claims one God claims that for which there is no established evidence. To illustrate, you live in a time, this time, when the notion of multiple gods is not accepted by many if any (certainly in the Western World). The invention, INVENTION, of one God occurred in human evolution thousands of years ago. It is religious dogma which perpetuates this invention to the present.
AGain, you're asserting things not yet proved. Essentially, you're asserting that since religion has evolved then the conclusions it draws can not be true. I dispute that. It could just as easily be asserted that religion evolved to monotheism because monotheism is true.
My comment is entirely relevant to this discussion. Claims of a God are lacking in evidence to support them. That is the case for any religion which claims one God.
I've answered this above.
Beyond that, other believers in one God configure their own notions and interpretations of the power or lack of power, the influence or lack of influence of that God which they (and apparently you) assume.
I will grant you that we are left with our own experiences by which we interpret the next experience. I'm not sure how that disproves God or prayer.
I am not “stipulating the existence” of any god, Christian, Muslim, or other. On the contrary, absent credible evidence for a God, such a notion should be rejected.
Agreed. If true.
JAK: Then why would people pray to a God if not “to manipulate that God to intervene”? Your statement is an assumption with no evidential support as you stated: “The implied assumption is that God works in the affairs of men as we work in the affairs of God. That's a relationship, not quid pro quo.
We believe it is spiritually healthy to explore, or become a part of, our existence beyond naturalism. That's what prayer is. It's communication of our soul with the author or creator of that soul.
That’s your assumption. Who are “WE” in your statement?
Christians.
Muslims believe that they “work in the affairs of God.”
They do indeed. We have a different view of God, that's significant. They both can't be true.
I've been here often.
Christians have a wide variety of beliefs about “the affairs of God.” Did you examine that website? Christianity is a most fractured religion with more than 1,000 groups – all of which assert that their interpretation is in some way superior to the interpretation of other Christian groups. All the various denominations, sects, and cults which claim Christianity or some version of it each believe that their notions of religion are the correct ones, the right ones, the true ones.
Total bull. Often, Methodists are Methodist because their parents are. Often, Methodists are Methodist because that's where they find the best expression of their faith. I have yet to find one from a different denomination than mine who asserts that Methodism is exclusively correct, more right, or more true.
Please look at that lengthy list. Religious groups which emerged and splintered from other groups after 1517 AD are part of the Protestant Reformation. You will find in that list: “Families of Christian Denominations.” One of those “families” is Latter-day Saints Family. It is ONE of many Christian families. These families have different views and different beliefs (assumptions about God, assumptions about human conduct, assumptions about a wide variety of truisms).
what are you proposing this supports?
To your statement above, indeed prayer IS a “transaction.” People who pray WANT something. They believe that by praying, they can achieve access to the God which they address in their prayers. Otherwise, why would they pray? To whom are they speaking with a salutation: Dear God…? They perceive that they are talking to or with God. Absent an establishment of any gods or a God, the “relationship” is in the mind of the one who makes assumptions about some deity. There is only assertion in their stated claims, not fact.
I'll grant you that some use prayer as a transaction with God. But you will have to, in turn, agree that we are counciled against this. I can only defend what prayer should be, what we wish it to be, what it often is. Not what it sometimes is.
For some, prayer and their conduct is indeed a “quid pro quo.” They BELIEVE that if they act in certain ways, give unquestioning deference to their notion of God’s wishes or commands, that they will be benefited – if not in this life, in another life. None of this has CREDIBILITY in fact. People can believe contrary to fact and do.
And this is unchristian.
For the agnostic/atheist information, evidence, demonstrable fact, any religious invention is irrelevant.
For a naturalist, that's reasonable. My question is why should you be?
There is no evidence that prayer influences any god, not the gods of earlier times, nor a God in today’s monotheistic age of religious nomenclature.
What evidence do you want?
The “relationship” to which you refer is emotional.
You can define it as that. But as one who is immediately and enthusiastically wary of emotionalism as a part of religious expression, I would disagree.
It’s incumbent on those who assert God to assume the burden of proof for that assertion.
I agree.
Religion(s) do not do that. Rather, they substitute assertion, doctrine, and dogma.
Veering off topic, but I would submit that what has been offered does not meet your standard. That's fine. It's your standard to do with what you will. Others have found the evidence compelling. That fact does not make you any more reasonable than the next guy.
I’ll stop here. I am far over Ceeboo’s admonition to limit my comments to 300 words or less.
Well, it's Ceeboo. He's generally a most gracious dude.