Question for the Atheist

[_JAK]

Response to This Post 2

Hoops,
I’ll begin where my previous post in response to you ended. I also understand that my comments can/may be removed from the board. If they are, you won’t be able to read this Post 2.

JAK previously: There is no evidence in these examples that those who pray such prayers are NOT attempting to acquire God’s intervention. It's not mere recognition of "sovereignty."

”Hoops stated: What kind of evidence do youwant?”

JAK: The context of my comment is located in this post to you.

Prior to this, I wrote (previously):
“There is no refutation in your comment above but rather an assertion as to what “…these prayers are not…” This prayer and others assume God. People have prayed for safe journey and been unsafe or killed. God notions are irrelevant. God is not established any more than the gods were established when ancient people appealed to them. Praying to God for protection prior to a dangerous encounter has the intent to manipulate that God to intervene. The implied assumption is that safety is more likely if God is petitioned than if God is not petitioned and elevated and even worshiped.”


“Hoops, what went before and follows a sentence is relevant in context to the subject at hand. It does not seem to me as if you are really reading with understanding the entirety of my statements. I appreciate direct quotations, but with all the posts here, it would be useful to know where you read a particular line.”

JAK: Evidence inherently involves the burden of proof.
Rather than attempting to write this, see the link I provided regarding evidence. Briefly, that is “providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion.” (From the source above) There is much more which constitute reason for the link, Hoops.

The evidence that such prayers work would be require some test with resulting data that everyone could observe (not just people who believe it or want to believe it). The point I was addressing was that because people only sometimes get what they pray to get from their God do they actually get it.

Even religious people do not pray for something that they regard as a certainty. Remember the “light switch” in that discussion? There is EVIDENCE that light switches work. Appeal to God is not generally employed. Why? Because the evidence supports the conclusion that the light switch works. The agnostic/atheist would not appeal to a God even about something that was unlikely. Rather he would do testing and study the results. He would explore possibilities – rational possibilities.

Since there is no evidence for a God there is no evidence that prayers to that assumed entity are relevant. That someone might feel better emotionally after having prayed for a particular intervention of a God is not an indicator that a God exists or has acted.

The first burden of proof is to establish a God claim. That is, if people pray to a non-existent entity, the prayer is irrelevant. That they may feel better or happier is an emotional response.

(Consider a reverse example: A teenager who believes he can drive a hundred miles an hour feels, confident, powerful, and in control. If he hits another car and is killed, he tells no story about how confident he felt. But, his confidence is an emotional high NOT based on the reality of his situation.)

The question here is the one the agnostic/atheist asks: What is the evidence for a given God claim. Thus, the burden of proof lies with the one who claims an affirmative for God, who claims God exists.

Hoops stated: As I said, you may have to appeal to my higher church friens. My prayers are not generated by pen and paper. Here's the last one I prayed: "God, help that kid feel better." What exactly are you looking for from me.

JAK: You assume God. If “that kid” feels better, it is no evidence for God. The prayer is irrelevant (since no God is established). Why does “the kid” feel better? Was he sick? If so, what was the illness? When “the kid” feels better it has no demonstrable connection with your prayer or with any assumptions you make regarding a God. If he had a cold or a stomach upset, (not something that was going to kill him such as terminal cancer), he will eventually “feel better.” Prayer is irrelevant.

I stated earlier what I was looking for from you. I accept your example here as a typical prayer that someone might make. And, my point is that the prayer is irrelevant to the outcome. In addition, since you are praying to God, you believe that you can or may be able to manipulate God for your own purposes. In this case, you want God to intervene for “that kid.”

My analysis is from the agnostic/atheist perspective as in “Question for the Atheist.”

Hoops stated: Because a man's natural tendency is to forget that he is sovereign, not God.

We don’t “remind” ourselves by word or conscious thinking about how to open doors, start cars, go to a particular store, return to our homes, etc. under normal circumstances.

JAK: Your first sentence, you may want to reconstruct. I think you are attempting to argue that God is sovereign and that man tends to forget that God is sovereign. It’s not what you said. Re-read your sentence above.

Let me assume you intended my restatement. I am redundant in my statement God is not established. That is, there is no agreed upon and universally accepted notion of God or agreement that such an entity exists or agreement on the characteristics of the assumed entity. Religious people don’t pray about what they regard as a certainty (the light switch). Agnostic/atheists don’t either. We all assume the light switch will work. To pray that the light switch WILL NOT WORK will NOT affect the light switch. God is irrelevant.

There is agreement, I think, that those who pray intend to manipulate their God to act in a way that they desire. They fear or suspect that absent their prayer things might not go their way. Thus, they appeal to their God to alter the direction of events. Not even the religious suspect the light switch will fail absent prayer to a God

You do understand that Muslims who also pray to God have a different notion of God than you do. Since there is no evidence to support any claimed God, what justification is there for assuming that one’s own notion is the correct notion of the entity which has not been established? There is no justification.

Hoops stated: Creation is evicence (evidence) of God.

JAK: Please see Evidence of common descent The accepted science with overwhelming EVIDENCE is for the EVOLUTION of all forms of life (plant and animal) on the planet earth.

Not meaning to be unkind, Hoops, there is no evidence for “Creation” as ancient people thousands of years ago imagined and then believed. They had not the slightest concept of evolving life forms. The link I gave you is extremely involved, and I don’t expect you to read all of it. That would be unreasonable on my part. The History of evolutionary thought is recent compared with the hundreds of thousands of years in the evolution of the human species.

Science understands evolution as the way in which living things emerged, changed, became extinct, and as we see them today. The dinosaur existed on this planet for 160 million years, and for that there is abundant evidence in fossil remains discovered by scientists. “The term ‘dinosaur’ was coined in 1842…” (from the website I just posted here). Please read about the emergence of the dinosaur. By modern scientific methods of dating, we have accumulated information, we have (evidence) about the dinosaur age. We also know that about 65 MILLION years ago most dinosaurs became extinct. This was long before human evolution on the earth which is roughly 4.7 BILLION years old. Here are evidences of human evolution.

No God is relevant or required for the scientific data we have regarding the evolution of living species on the planet.

When you claim “Creation is evidence of God,” you claim that for which no evidence exists. It is a religious doctrine/dogma of various religions including Christianity. But the construction of stories about “creation” were done thousands of years ago and in the absence of authentic evidence which could be studied, tested, and even challenged.

Please read at least some of the links I have provided.

I’ll close here as this post exceeds the 300 word limit requested by Ceeboo. Since your post was allowed to stand, I hope my response(s) will be allowed to stand as well.

I may continue if not prohibited by the one who owns the bb. (May is not will.)

JAK

[_JAK]

Response to This Post 3

Hoops,

JAK: We know the light switch works because of TESTING, because of EVIDENCE that it works. We can continue to test it, but the results will confirm the conclusion. Of course any switch (or light for that matter) can fail and does fail over time. But, we understand as a result of applied science how it works and why it works. God claims are irrelevant.

Likely, no one prays that a light switch will work under normal circumstances.

Hoops stated: No, we don’t. Should we?”

JAK: of course not. Prayer is irrelevant just as God is irrelevant. If the light switch fails, we, with intellect, try to figure out WHY it failed. We examine THE EVIDENCE for the failure. This was my point in illustration. We apply reason. A light bulb might be burned out. In that case, there is nothing wrong with the switch. But on first EVIDENCE, it appeared as if the switch did not work. So with our intellect, we investigate further BEFORE replacing the switch. Even religious people are unlikely to pray about this situation.

Hoops, the point is that we humans today rely on information and evidence to diagnose and solve. Ancient people had little knowledge. That’s why they relied on the gods or later on a God. God is irrelevant. There is no evidence to support that the gods or a God either exists or intervenes on a planet billions of years old.

I don’t know that you, Hoops, are ready for this level of analysis, and I do not mean that in any insulting way. You cannot change your environmental background or your indoctrination in religious myths. None of us can change our childhood and our education to the present. It’s past and is what it is.

From the perspective of science, today, we rely on evidence for what we observe. Evolution of the human species (as the evolution of all species) is well documented, and no evidence has been established for the gods of earlier times or for a God various doctrines perpetuate today. However, we should keep in mind that the God anyone perpetuates today comes out of ancient times and times when EVIDENCE as science did not exist.

While ancient scripts assert God created, there is no supporting evidence for the claim of these ancient scripts.

Hoops stated: Why would you think unshakeable confidence in God, His existence, and that He has concern for me is a part of a christian's life? Any christian's life?

JAK: Literally billions of humans have met with hunger and starvation. To think as you describe is to INVENT a dreadful, fearful God who does dreadful things to certain people while favoring other people. Scientific discovery is generally a threat to God notions. It is a threat because the assertion that God did it or God is in control is not supported by ANY evidence even in the existence of claimed God by religions pundits.

JAK previously as quoted by Hoops: “Hence we see the compelling need of religious people to address God for favor.”

Hoops stated: I don't see it. You'll have to explain it more clearly to me.

JAK: As you recognized, people don’t pray about the “light switch” (my illustration). They do pray about problems or issues they fear. They also pray for the obvious. My example was: God bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies. No one really expects that their bodies won’t be nourished if they don’t pray. This is partly tradition, partly show that the group and the one who speaks are believers in the religion.

However, prayer to a God for that which is in great doubt is out of greater desperation. You wanted “the kid” “to feel better.” I clarified the agnostic/atheist position. A medical practitioner (doctor) would run tests of a medically scientific nature. A doctor would try to find a REASON for a child’s illness or why he/she felt bad. The doctor would get specific about how and where “the kid” felt bad. Then, after applying medical science, the doctor might prescribe something even if it’s just: rest for a few days.

As I mentioned in a previous post, some Christians do not believe in medical science (or any science). In the face of illness, they pray to their God. Their view of God is that whatever happens is the will of God. They ONLY pray. Their perception and invention of God is different from the invention which embraces medical science. Some Christians accept some limited medical care and reject other medical treatment. The exclusion of a blood transfusion is an example of some Christian’s belief. They have their biblical quotes to bolster that position. It’s their God invention.

When Katrina struck, many Christians PRAYED for the victims of the hurricane. We could cite most any natural disaster and find that someone within their own religious mythology prays for the victims.

Of course they have something of a problem in believing that God created everything. That means that God is responsible for the disaster that killed many and left many more homeless. Such a belief in an all loving, all powerful God has inherent inconsistency.

Hoops stated: Unless, you mean favor for another person. I s'pose.

JAK: The point is that manipulation of God for any purpose is human effort to CONTROL their invention of God. Whether it’s for one’s own benefit directly or for the benefit of others is immaterial. Some, SOME Christians pray for their own family as well as for themselves. Some prayers are for that. Some may be for others. The notion that humans can or may control their God is a “notion” which has no basis in evidence. Because someone gets what he/she asks of his God is quite countered by someone else who does not get what he/she asks of his God. Hence God is irrelevant. Further, the existence of any such entity is not established by ancient scripts which make various claims.

How could this analysis be more clear?

Hoops stated: I can only offer the testimony of those who pray, shoul they choose to weigh in. And, yes, it is irrelevant to your point. I'm only showing that my thoughts are not unique.

JAK: Of course… People who pray and continue to do so also continue to assume their God notions are correct. And, your “thoughts” are “not unique.” However, that does not make them valid or accurate. In ancient times, people who believed in multiple gods BELIEVED that their perceptions were true. If you could talk with people who believed in multiple gods, you would have a very difficult time communicating with them. That is, if you could take your indoctrination and tell it to those who had a very different indoctrination, you would have a challenge to persuade them.

Hoops, how effective would a Jewish person be in persuading you that Judaism is the correct perspective about their God notions? I suspect they would not be persuasive to you. Hence, you must recognize that differing God notions do not agree. You have a given experience and level of informed education. A Jewish person has a different one. A Roman Catholic has yet a different one. Yet, all these different perspectives are thought by the believers of their particular view that THEIR VIEW is the correct one.

Surely, you can comprehend that concept. Since these various concepts of God are in some way or many ways at odds with one another, some, SOME are wrong. I submit NONE can be established as correct. All rely on assertion and/or rely on ancient scripts.

As I demonstrated, EVOLUTION has been established by modern science as valid in explaining how plant and animal life emerged and evolved and became extinct on this single planet. As a result of observations from the Hubble Telescope (located in space) reveal, the UNIVERSE has billions and billions of SUNS much like our own. Some are larger, some smaller, and some have extinguished what fuels them.

Your religious experience appears to ignore the findings of modern science. You believe and other believe contrary to the evidence. Your ancient scripts are NOT equipped to address the discoveries of modern science.

If we think about that reality, it’s quite understandable that some today cling to ancient scripts. They both fear and (in some cases) deny modern science in favor of ancient myths. This is most important to recognize.

JAK previously: If the religious person is praying “for the benefit of others…” they still want God’s intervention. And, they ask for it.

Hoops stated: Unless, you mean favor for another person. I s'pose.

JAK: It’s an assertion. I am most skeptical of the contention. It’s also irrelevant to the issue of your prayer example.

Hoops stated: It is indeed. I can only offer the testimony of those who pray, shoul they choose to weigh in. And, yes, it is irrelevant to your point. I'm only showing that my thoughts are not unique.

JAK previously: “’Prayer’ is ‘mystical’ primarily because it dates back many centuries in the evolution from superstitions to mythologies. It may be wishful thinking. It may be conformity to that which is/was expected in particular cultural situations. We can understand this by close examination of historical development – much to large a subject to tackle here.[/quote]Prayer is mystical because it joins the material with the ‘other’ material.”

Hoops stated: Prayer is mystical because it joins the material with the ‘other’ material.

JAK: This is nonsense. What is the “other” material? Such a statement is all conjecture based on some blind belief in some mythology. The statement is an ASSERTION absent any EVIDENCE of support.

The problem with religious myth is that it relies entirely on proof by assertion. No modern medicine, no modern invention (the computer on which you communicate with me), the system of transportation and communication relies on proof by assertion.

On the contrary, progress and innovation and invention relies on SKEPTICAL REVIEW OF THE KNOWN as that review advances to establish further knowledge and information.

Religion, all religious mythologies, rely on ancient scripts which advance information in no way. That reality is precisely the reason that religious mythologies should be rejected. That’s the case regardless of how many people you know who believe: “Prayer is mystical because it joins the material with the ‘other’ material.” Emotions are not reliable.

JAK: Without question, there is much we humans have yet to learn. We (or a few medical scientists) have solved for a disease like polio. We have solved for many medical issues and technological complications. But, BUT we humans solved by investigative research, not by reliance on ancient mythological scripts which are the basis for any religion of today.

JAK

[_Ceeboo]

In addition to a more lengthy apology that I sent to JAK via PM, I wanted to offer a brief public apology on the board.

Simply put, I not only welcome his contributions (no word limits) :), I appreciate them, have read them, and did indeed ask for them in my OP.

If this is/was not clear (I own the reason for this possibility), I hope this offers clarity.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Hoops]

In addition to a more lengthy apology that I sent to JAK via PM, I wanted to offer a brief public apology on the board.

Simply put, I not only welcome his contributions (no word limits) :), I appreciate them, have read them, and did indeed ask for them in my OP.

If this is/was not clear (I own the reason for this possibility), I hope this offers clarity.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Easy for you to say, you're not the one who has to wade through all that.

:)

[_JAK]

In addition to a more lengthy apology that I sent to JAK via PM, I wanted to offer a brief public apology on the board.

Simply put, I not only welcome his contributions (no word limits) :), I appreciate them, have read them, and did indeed ask for them in my OP.

If this is/was not clear (I own the reason for this possibility), I hope this offers clarity.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Easy for you to say, you're not the one who has to wade through all that.

:)

Hi Hoops,

Of course you are under no obligation to read or address my comments. I appreciate the extent to which you have read (and I hope understood) them. Most people dislike extensive analysis and soon attack the person writing rather than trying to digest detail.

I perceive you to be a thoughtful person but also committed to a particular religious persuasion. The latter makes understanding my comments something of a challenge.

But, again I commend you for giving it a try!

JAK

[_Hoops]

Hi Hoops,

Of course you are under no obligation to read or address my comments. I appreciate the extent to which you have read (and I hope understood) them. Most people dislike extensive analysis and soon attack the person writing rather than trying to digest detail.

I perceive you to be a thoughtful person but also committed to a particular religious persuasion. The latter makes understanding my comments something of a challenge.

But, again I commend you for giving it a try!

JAK

I'm teasing you and Ceeboo. I will try to get to your comments today, as I want to devote my full attention to them. Actually, I appreciate that you address my comments and not me, a tactic rarely used around here. I thank you for that.

(I caution you,however, that you may be assuming to much about me from my postings)

[_Tarski]

The part I find illogical is the need to find evidence to prove Gods existence vs. the lack of a need to prove how matter just *happened* from something that didn't exist. How does one weigh this need for evidence over the other when both conclusions have a foundation that cannot be proven?

Looking for evidence that X exists makes sense. This is an everyday concept.

Talking about "proving how matter just happened from something that didn't exist" is just double talk.

To say that something came from nothing is just a figure of speech associated describing a situation where matter has only existed for a finite time. The latter is not even the same thing as saying there was a time when there was no matter (think about it).

Science decribes, predicts, and tries to understand the behavior of matter and energy in spacetime. We relate conditions at one location in spacetime with conditions at other locations. We also consider the very structure of spacetime which may or may not entail that the past is finite (~15 billion years).

There just is no scientific assertion that matter came about from a philosophical absolute nothing. It don't think it even makes sense. We don't try to prove it, because we don't claim it, and it makes no sense.

The meaning of statements made by physicists like Hawking are often subtly distorted by the need to put things in ordinary terms in a natural language like English.

You may think that if the universe has only existed for a finite time then it must be that there was a time when there was nothing. This is just not true.

Related to the above comments I will add the following. The idea of this or that causing something is a notion whose original context is events and conditions in spacetime.
To use the notion outside of that context is dangerous. For example, to ask what caused the whole causal spacetime nexus is possibly as meaningless as to ask what causes cause itself.

[_Buffalo]

As others in this thread have noted, theism is a belief in god. Atheism is therefore not believing in god. And an atheist is not necessarily one who asserts that there is no god, but a nonbeliever could also be someone who does not believe due to the lack of evidence for such a belief. I fall in this latter category. I am an evidentialist. To justify a belief in god, I need evidence.

I respect this viewpoint. The part I find illogical is the need to find evidence to prove Gods existence vs. the lack of a need to prove how matter just *happened* from something that didn't exist. How does one weigh this need for evidence over the other when both conclusions have a foundation that cannot be proven?

That seems like a strawman. I think we'd all like to know, and physicists have some interesting things to say on matter popping into existence from nothing. But ignorance about the origin of matter says absolutely nothing about the existence of gods.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_Some Schmo]

I respect this viewpoint. The part I find illogical is the need to find evidence to prove Gods existence vs. the lack of a need to prove how matter just *happened* from something that didn't exist. How does one weigh this need for evidence over the other when both conclusions have a foundation that cannot be proven?

That seems like a strawman. I think we'd all like to know, and physicists have some interesting things to say on matter popping into existence from nothing. But ignorance about the origin of matter says absolutely nothing about the existence of gods.

I was watching a documentary on the big bang the other day, and they were talking about how, not only does energy come from matter, but matter comes from energy. That was part of the implications of E=mc2. The massive energy from the big bang, once it calmed down some, started to form particles of matter.

Some interesting stuff.

*braces self for a certain someone to come along and mention that energy can't come from nothing...*