I'm sorry. I don't write prayers and I never have. I'm not going to offer one up now, after never having written one, so that you can score rhetorical points. I gave you a prayer that Christians believe is a good way to pray. Do with it what you will.JAK: Had you written a prayer, I would have taken YOUR example.
I have. You opened with your assertion that people pray in an attempt to benefit his/herself. I dispute that.I wrote with considerable detail about prayer. Your first sentence is not detailed nor does it restate with clarity what I articulated. Please re-read previous posts.
The is different than what you began with. I cited it.Prayer is an attempt to manipulate and control a perceived God for the purposes expressed in a prayer by an individual or by an individual for a group or for a single individual.
And I say it isn't. You're asserting one thing, I'm asserting its contrary. I have the advantage of being one who prays, am around those who do, talk with those who do about prayer, and am taught by others how and why we do so. I suppose you will have show evidence that my experience is not normative.The PURPOSE is to manipulate/control the behavior of a perceived God in compliance with what is in the prayer.
Unreliable for what? You may have established that people do not always "get what he/she wants", but you have yet to establish that this outcome is prayer's intent.JAK: People are free to believe anything they wish. However, that does not make the belief valid. I have previously established that prayer is unreliable.
I've pretentiously taken on the mantle of standard Christian thought. I recognize I am no spokesperson for anyone or anything but me.I don’t know who “We” are in your above statement.
Simply wrong. I do not use prayer to control God. I used the word "effective" because I am more interested in prayers effect, which is what I find most beneficial about prayer.I assume it’s a group. You use an interesting word in “effective.” It demonstrates that you accept my analysis that prayer is an attempt to manipulate or control a God.
How could you possibly know this?Suppose you did not pray and ACTED in a way that would facilitate what you want. How would the result be different? To restate: Prayer to the gods or to a God is irrelevant. To the extent that people engage in a kind of self-delusion, they may feel better in some way.
Of course.Often in Christian groups, members of that group are asked to pray for someone in the group. The person for whom the prayer is made is informed that many are praying for him/her. As a part of the group, such a person may feel more comfortable or happy.
For which you have no evidence. For you to provide actual evidence, you will have to agree that God exists, that He works in the affairs of men, and that in this particular instance God chose to act in a particular way for a particular intent contrary to explicit prayer. I doubt you can do this.However, that emotional feeling was induced by the knowledge that others were asking the assumed God to intervene. It’s not an indicator that there was intervention by a God.
That's fine. Again, we don't pray to get recognition from others. We pray as communion with God. And we don't believe we need to know the genuine position of the person for whom we are praying.Most agnostic/atheist people would likely say, “Thank you” to a religious person who said he/she was praying for that person. That especially would be true if the agnostic/atheist person knew that the religious person had no idea what his/her genuine position was.
Yes, I do. And the immediate and impactful difference is in ME. I stipulated that if you want to say that we pray for our own benefit in the sense that we gain more/better/different communion with God, then I will readily support you.You appear to BELIEVE that prayer will make a difference.
I really don't know what you want here.Since you give no real sample prayer, you abdicate a responsibility to put up for consideration a real example of what a prayer is.
Of course, excepting the event itself. But if God works in the affairs of men, why should He be confined to answering prayer in the way you proscribe? Hence, the very point I'm making.If something happens for which you pray, there is no evidence that it was the prayer alone that caused something to be as you prayed it would be. What are OTHER FACTORS that might have brought about the result for which you prayed?
I've tried to be clear.Absent an example, I cannot address your prayer. I do not read minds, but I can infer from your comments.
I don't know where I made up a story. What I've offered are real examples. But to answer your question: we pray for someone to recover from an illness. That person recovers. We give God the Glory because it is by His creation that the person recovered. Through medicine or doctors or whatever.JAK: What does “to the extent that we can understand” mean? If you just make up a story or a belief, that’s not understanding. It’s make-believe, it’s fictionalized fantacy.
Nope. Certainly can not.You cannot conclude that absent prayer the effect or the RESULT would not have been.
No, there isn't. Should there be?There is no test here for your statement.
Verifiable, repeatable evidence, yes.While you may CLAIM that the prayer altered the behavior of a God, it remains a claim absent supporting evidence.
No, God answering prayer remains an assumption. Yes, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claims.A God remains an assumption absent evidence open to all and open to testing of whatever God claims accompany the assertion. Burden of Proof lies with the one making the claims.
Well, we believe in the will of God. And we understand that His will is sovereign. If God were toWhen things don’t turn out as prayed for, it’s a cop-out when people offer the excuse: It just was not God’s will that X be the result.
Of course, I disagree. But we're talking about prayer here.That is as meaningless as saying, “Thank God” when things DO turn out as prayed for. Again Hoops, there is no reliable, quantifiable evidence for any God claim.
True.Nor is there any reliable way to quantify or verify that any prayer manipulated an non-established entity.
I wonder what wouldhappen if I tried to be funny?JAK: You are humorous without intention (I think).
I've stated previously what prayer is, and here stated what it is not. That seems pretty clear to me.Here you state with categorical certainty what “prayer is not…” while refusing to provide that example of a two or three paragraph prayer. You’re making an assertion of a negative in the statement.
Sure. I thought claiming what other people know was what we are doing here. You claim to know the intent of people who pray so I was following suit.JAK: What is your EVIDENCE for this assertion about “atheist/agnostic/humanist”? I’m going to insist on evidence for such a broad, sweeping conclusion. To claim that you KNOW what people in any of these groups “is most afraid of” is to claim the absurd.
AGAIN, there is evidence for God. Creation for one. What else are you looking for? And how does this relate to your assertion that Christians pray for their own benefit?Now you introduce “the soul.” There is not a scintilla of evidence for such a noun. Now you argue in support of THREE nouns for which no evidence has been presented: “God,” “prayer,” and “soul.”
AGAIN, what evidence do you want? You confine the parameters knowing that what I claim is outside those boundaries then throw up your hands in disgust. Why is the evidence you demand any more efficacious than mine? Why is human reason the best, the only, way to comprehend reality? You've constantly made this assertion but you've provided no reason why I should accept your premise?I think you have demonstrated that it is YOU who are afraid. You won’t present that prayer. Rather, you just go from one claim/assertion to another. He/she who asserts has the burden of proof. Assertions ABSENT any credible evidence for claims, should be rejected.
JAK: Since these groups do not accept claims for “prayer, soul, or God,” your statement is a fantasy. It may make you feel good, but it’s not a reflection of the perspective of those you identify.
That's the point. a prayerful person is willing to go beyond the limits you have set for yourself. You're not.
And\ youi have yet address my initial criticism, one I \thought I had made inan \earlier post - why is rationalism the only way to investigate reality?JAK: Fantasy! You’re now defending that for which you fail to present evidence for claim. You can go on like this ad infinitum. You can just pile one claim on top of another with each ASSUMING the previous claim is valid/true/correct.
Cedrtainly. Who's claiming otherwise?You’re playing a word game here, Hoops. A Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or Hindu can do the same thing within his/her religion.
I'm willing to pursue reality wherever it is. You are content to stop when that pursuit violates your rationalism. You offer nothing as well. You have no evidence whatsoever that rationalism, your dogmatic assertions that that which is "proved" by the scientific method indeed is real.JAK: Ah a new fantasy! Just what do you mean by “other states”? You (and your group’s dogma) are making this up as you go. You offer NOTHING to establish “other states.” Just what are the “other states”?
It’s delusional to consider that this kind of stuff presents anything fearful to the agnostic/atheist.
Then why do they consistently get so excorsized by it?
It's equally delusional to believe that what you rely on represents what is real.It’s delusional as well to believe that for which no supporting evidence establishes.