Question for the Atheist

[_JAK]

Continuing THIS POST Part 2. This is addressing the topic line. It’s not a new subject. It is also addressing Hoops’ remarks allowed to stand on this thread.

Hoops stated: “While we pray for another's health, for that one to recover, we also pray because He is worthyto be prayed to. Same with your "Thank God". Yes, we thank God that what we've prayed for has come to fruition (as best we can understand), but our intent is to recognize yet again that He is God and we are not. That is the point of prayer, not to manipulate God.”

JAK: You (and others as you) are making assumptions of some God existence. It’s not established. What do people (or you but this is not intended to be an attack of you) say when that for which they prayed to their particular notion(s) of God do NOT “come to fruition”?

For many their God gets credit when things “come to fruition,” yet that same God, seen as “sovereign,” does not get blame when the desired goal, the prayer to that God does not happen. The answer is that God is irrelevant. People work themselves to make a desired event or situation become reality for them. Few would stand in front of a speeding truck on an interstate and at the same time pray that God would protect them from harm. So what protects them from harm? It’s staying out of the way of a speeding truck. It’s a rational response to what we know.

I previously asked you to construct a typical prayer. Now I read the following regarding that:

Hoops stated: “No, thanks.”

JAK: Why not? What’s the problem in that?

Hoops stated: “You might get some of our higher church friends on this board to do so, but that's not my game.”

JAK: There is no refutation to the observation that prayer is an attempt to manipulate God to comply with the desire of the one who implores that God do act in his/her or someone’s behalf. It is not merely a statement that, “He is worthy to be prayed to.” I would argue that belief in the gods which evolved into the organized religions which claim one God grew out of earlier superstition that developed more formal construction in the form of mythologies.

There is a wealth of evidence to support the evolution of religious perspectives which claim God. Today, there are more than a thousand groups which claim Christianity. This link over 1,500 Christian faith groups in North America: shows many included in this group. I post it because the notion of God is not singular, and the various mythologies surrounding doctrines and dogmas is a large number.

This is the case because there is no evidence to support any single God claim. So, we have many God claims. You may (or appear to) support one or more of these claims.

Religious groups tend to shroud their claims in considerable mystery and attempt to hide them from the scrutiny of intellectually honest evaluation. By keeping them mysterious, most (if not all) attempt to protect them from intellectual inquiry.

You will recall my light switch example. No one prays about that. They KNOW about that. Even if they know little about electricity (scientifically), they know how to work a light switch, and they know it’s reliable. (Of course it could fail, and they understand that as well.) They have evidence of its reliability.

Religious myths have no such confidence. It’s a major reason that religious dogmas must be REPEATED daily and taught from cradle up in order to be protected from scrutiny.

Hoops stated: “I will, however, tell you of prayers in my life that I found particularly significant. I once had a person in my life who caused me great harm. As it turned out, irreperable harm. Significant, life changing harm. I had very, very strong feelings for this person and I found myself descending into hatred for this person and I didn't want that. So I decided I would pray for that person every day for a year. I had no more interaction with this person during this year - and I was still in a position that what this person had done effected me greatly. Whatever blessings this person gained, I knew nothing about, but I prayed anyway. The effect on me was profound - and completely unexpected.”

JAK: I accept your story here. People tend to believe what they wish to believe. They also tend to believe the indoctrination they received from childhood. They tend to believe their own emotions. “Tend” is an important concept here. That is, some, especially the inventive and intellectually inquiring (such as early scientists) have another tendency. That is, they challenge and test claims against more objective data.

The Wright Brothers were thought by most to be crazy to think that they could fly. Even when they demonstrated their first flying machine, they were ridiculed by many and even condemned by religious groups which argued: If God had intended man to fly, He would have given him wings like a bird.

In just 100 years of our recent past (compared with hundreds of thousands of years in human evolution) we humans have had the privilege to witness the many flying machines that have been invented, refined, and tested.

This is directly related to the question at hand Question for the Atheist in case someone thinks it’s not on topic. The Wright Brothers did NOT rely on religious mythology. In fact they discredited it. They demonstrated that God claims were irrelevant and were scientists in their own right.

Agnostics/atheists not only want, but insist upon evidence and do not seek to hide from scrutiny.

You, Hoops, are unwilling to write out a coherent prayer of your own or one you regard as typical today for analysis. Why? I think it’s because deep down, you know it will not stand up to the inquisition of questions about meaning and validity.

Of course when people get what they pray for, they regard that their God answered their prayer. Yet there is no evidence for their claim. Why? It’s because prayer is unreliable. People do things or avoid things to make a result they want. No one stands in front of a speeding truck and prays they will not be harmed.

So I accept that you are emotionally attached to the story you relate here.

Hoops stated: “Prayer is not talking to God, it is communion with God. Still, point taken. I know lot's of people who pray a lot during the day. I don't, but I know those who do. Their prayers are often along the lines of "God, help that baby feel better," "God, bless that person over there who might be feeling down," things along those lines. I won't say that I NEVER say these kinds of prayers, I often do. But I also wouldn't say these are a habit. I can't see how one can represent these as being in one's self interest.”

JAK: This is a semantic issue and a distinction without a difference. What does “communion with God” mean? Exactly, what?

Prayers often begin with a lengthy praise God opening as if to curry favor before asking a favor.

Example: Great God, Master of the universe, creator of all that live and breathe, we humbly seek Thy great presence to be among us now in this time of grave need! That kind of salutation is generally followed by a request, an intervention, an action by this God to whom such generous praise is expressed.

Here, I’m speaking of a verbal prayer made with many people hearing it. Few private individuals alone in their own home would speak in such a manner. But it is the stuff of public, religious expression.

I’m disappointed that you refused to write a prayer. But, I also recognize that doing such a thing might be very threatening to you, if, as it appears, you subscribe to one or more God myths which are extended into the present time from past development of such a myth or myths.

JAK

[_Hoops]

Yes.

[_JAK]

Oh, and Jak.....?

How about the Lord's prayer? I didn't write it but it seems like a good one to me.

Hoops,

While this example is clearly not a modern prayer, it demonstrates precisely the points I have articulated. It begins with profuse praise, a verbal bowing down to the assumed God in the context of a very different time.

It asserts NO OPPOSITION or challenge toward the assumed God but is verbally on bended knee as it declares “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done…”

Following the elaborate opening: “Give us this day our daily bread…”

Now, “daily bread” was no easy acquisition at the time this prayer was constructed. There was much hunger and starvation. (There is much hunger today and starvation in fully half of the six billion humans on the planet.)

So that plea to God was a serious imploring for God’s intervention. “Give us this day…” That could certainly be repeated often in a time and place where food was not so easily acquired as a trip to WalMart. And "this day" was every day. Hence, that prayer could be repeated daily always elevating their perception of God and in being submissive.

“…and forgive us our debts…” That was also a most important plea given that life was hard for those early believers in a single God to whom appeal for favor could be made.

“Lead us not into temptation…” is asking in a negative way for an affirmative lead. “…deliver us from evil…” The message to God is "lead us." It asks God to act in their behalf.

There is no problem demonstrating that early Christians had a strong belief in “evil.” But, then (more than today) it was perceived as an absolute and something to be avoided absolutely.

I addressed “evil” in an earlier post assuming it’s still on the board. You didn’t have a rejoinder to that. I observed there that certainly today we recognize that “evil” is relative to time, place, situation, etc. There are some religious groups which still maintain a dogma that all evil is equal. With all the modern communication access we have, such a view worked far better a thousand years ago than it does today.

A thousand years ago, most humans lived their entire lives in a relatively small space. Their world was very small – and was still flat. Their God was UP. Of course we KNOW about the universe much more than they did. (That's an understatement.)

The Lord’s Prayer closes with a further statement of submission and elevation of their perspective of God as to further cement the request for intervention in their own lives. And in their lives “daily bread” and favor from God were paramount.

In that prayer “Thy will be done…” included meeting the need for food. People then did not all have food and those who did weren’t privileged to three “square meals a day.” There were no restaurants. I’m not being facetious in that. Access to adequate food was of the highest priority. So this prayer to which you referred was not constructed in our modern time. (I don't mean to state the obvious, but it's the only prayer you would offer for consideration.)

Had you given your example of a prayer, I could have responded more in terms which relate to our time. But, I have no objection to analysis of this example.

There are other examples of petitions to God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament which are prayers and examples of individuals talking to God. There is much more to say regarding this.

JAK

[_sock puppet]

Hello people,

I just returned home from a delicious evening out that involved the gorgeous bride, a rather large T-Bone, a few cold Heineken's, and the enjoyable company of three other couples. (We have all been friends for some time)

Among the many things that were discussed, the topic of Atheism came up (Of the 8 of us that were there, 3 are Atheist)

As we all offered our thoughts on the subject of Atheism, it became clear that we couldn't even agree on what the word (Atheism) means (Perhaps what was most baffling to me was that the 3 who were Atheist didn't/couldn't seem to agree on the most simple explanation of what the word represents)

Soooo, I thought I would ask my Atheist friends here:

How would you describe what it means to be an Atheist?

for what it's worth, I have long understood (Perhaps wrong?) that an Atheist lacks the belief in a God/Creator.

What say you?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

Thanks for asking this. It has made me ponder your questions, and my own thinking.

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 find the notion that our maker, our father (if you prefer) would reward us more for making non-evidentiary decisions and acting on them than for only making evidence-based decisions and acting on those nonsense. Faith is not a sound epistemological justification. If god is a being of logic and makes sense, then god would not prefer those that act without justification to those that act upon justifying evidence.

Faith in, or hope for, something better is an essential element for psychological well being. But I find it unhealthy to think that you must wait until death for that something better, and to rely on some being outside yourself for that betterment as a reward. I think it is much healthier to hope for something obtainable in the relatively near future in this lifetime, to plot a course of action to achieve it and then to work that plan of action toward that better situation. I suspect that some of the posters here, Jason Bourne and Tchild to name just a couple, do just that, regardless of what they may hope for after this life is over.

[_JAK]

sock puppet,

You have an interesting rejoinder to Creeboo’s statement.

Generally, evidence (science) is in opposition to religious pronouncements. Gravity works regardless of whether an individual or a group of individuals believe gravity works. So, when a few individuals jumped from a high cliff with the belief that they could fly and/or that God would protect them, the result was death as they fell hundreds of feet to a hard surface. No matter what their plea to their God, the result was that which gravity produces on a person who jumps from a high cliff (or from a high building – the Empire State Building). In the 1950s there were no high fences on that building. People could go to the observation deck and look out over New York City with only a four-foot high banister. After some individuals committed suicide by jumping from the building, the high fence was erected to prevent such conduct.

It has been little more than a hundred years since accumulation of knowledge has been linked by large numbers of people to reliable conclusion. As I’m sure you know, early scientists (who were not yet recognized as such) confronted religious myths with EVIDENCE. Religious myths do not generally receive EVIDENCE kindly. Even so, many institutions of higher education (today) have thriving science departments and embrace discovery of the undiscovered.

As you correctly observed: “Faith is not a sound epistemological justification.” The replacement of irrational belief by rational considerations is clearly an evolving process in human evolution.

In the USA today, conservative politicians are equivocal on various issues which have religious dogmas and a significant number of people supporting the irrational. They want to be elected. They need the vote of the religiously irrational conservatives. At the same time, they must have some intellectuals who do not subscribe to ancient religious dogma. (I recognize this last comment may seem marginal to “Question for the Atheist.”)

In a practical sense, US politicians walk a rather narrow line as they must appeal the religiously irrational people and to the high income corporate types who don’t care in the least about religion.

For atheists/agnostics they must swallow hard on religious statements to vote for a politician who appears to be anti science and pro business.

JAK

[_Hoops]

While this example is clearly not a modern prayer, it demonstrates precisely the points I have articulated. It begins with profuse praise, a verbal bowing down to the assumed God in the context of a very different time.

Of course it does. I wouldn't think much of a prayer that doesn't.

It asserts NO OPPOSITION or challenge toward the assumed God but is verbally on bended knee as it declares “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done…”

Yes, His kingdom. And His will.

Following the elaborate opening: “Give us this day our daily bread…”

Now, “daily bread” was no easy acquisition at the time this prayer was constructed. There was much hunger and starvation. (There is much hunger today and starvation in fully half of the six billion humans on the planet.)

But much more than that. Jesus is also the bread of life. I would think He knew that when He offered this as a way to pray.

So that plea to God was a serious imploring for God’s intervention. “Give us this day…” That could certainly be repeated often in a time and place where food was not so easily acquired as a trip to WalMart. And "this day" was every day. Hence, that prayer could be repeated daily always elevating their perception of God and in being submissive.

Nobody has denied that we pray for God's intervention. Your position, as I understood it, was that we are asking for God's intervention for our own benefit, to the excusions, of one degree or another, of someone else's benefit. Of course we pray for God's intervention. Why shoudn't we?

I addressed “evil” in an earlier post assuming it’s still on the board. You didn’t have a rejoinder to that.

I don't know that anyone could have a rejoinder to such long posts. I guess I'm just not smart enough for that kind of committment.

I observed there that certainly today we recognize that “evil” is relative to time, place, situation, etc. There are some religious groups which still maintain a dogma that all evil is equal. With all the modern communication access we have, such a view worked far better a thousand years ago than it does today.

I'm not sure what your point here is.

The Lord’s Prayer closes with a further statement of submission and elevation of their perspective of God as to further cement the request for intervention in their own lives. And in their lives “daily bread” and favor from God were paramount.

It seems just the opposite to me. "Thy will be done" would seem that where His will is in opposition to ours, His should reign.

In that prayer “Thy will be done…” included meeting the need for food.

No, it didn't. It's a simple statement. That God's will is paramount. It certainly CAN include meeting those and other needs, but it doesn't have to.

Had you given your example of a prayer, I could have responded more in terms which relate to our time. But, I have no objection to analysis of this example.

I gave you an example from my own prayer life. Not the exact words, as they changed from morning to morning. Why not deal with that?

There are other examples of petitions to God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament which are prayers and examples of individuals talking to God. There is much more to say regarding this.

Agreed.

[_JAK]

Response to this post – part 1

Hoops,

More in ancient times than today, people had much to fear from their surroundings. They lacked heated and cooled homes and stores with food (assuming they have some money).

Again, I asked you for a prayer of today in order to be more current.

“Give us this day our daily bread” says nothing about “bread of life” which occurs in a different place. So you’re bringing into this example extraneous material. The analysis was of the words you submitted which were ONLY those of the Lord’s prayer. To introduce “Jesus is also the bread of life” is to depart the original PRAYER, THE ONLY PRAYER which you were willing to submit. It is not relevant to the discussion of the PRAYER which you submitted for analysis.

You’re making further assumptions and assertions beyond the words you submitted for analysis.

In addition, you have no rebuttal here regarding my analysis of the prayer you submitted.

Hoops stated: “Nobody has denied that we pray for God's intervention.”

JAK: Yes, that was your position, that people were NOT trying to manipulate God. It was my analysis that prayer is intended to obtain intervention and intended to manipulate God to comply with the one who prays. Re-read the posts. That was exactly what my point was regarding prayer.

Hoops Stated: “Your position, as I understood it, was that we are asking for God's intervention for our own benefit, to the excusions, of one degree or another, of someone else's benefit. Of course we pray for God's intervention. Why shoudn't we?”

JAK: The prayer which states “Give us our daily bread” is not a request for someone else. It’s for “us.”
I said nothing about “excusions” (exclusions) in my analysis. “Deliver us from evil" refers in this example to those who are doing the praying.

You confirm my points, Hoops. There are numerous places in the times of this prayer when people prayed to God to destroy their enemies. That’s not in the prayer you offered, but it was the mentality of those who sought to curry "God's" favor. In this prayer, “deliver us from evil” is ambiguous as “evil” is ambiguous. It could mean delivery from other humans who threatened them. But, this is expansion on the prayer you submitted.

Hoops Stated: “Why shoudn’t we?” (Why shouldn’t we?)

JAK: I made no comment regarding what people should or should not do. Rather I addressed what people do and what their intentions are. By introducing “we” here, you pull out of context and ancient time the Lord’s prayer. WE was exactly my point asking you to construct a prayer of TODAY for analysis. “WE” live 2,000 years (roughly) from the time credited to this particular prayer. You’re defending something which I never addressed.

Of course there are many versions of the Lord’s prayer as we can see in these multiple translations. Hence, each version can be analyzed for nuance and possible meaning in the context of that time. Each version can also be interpreted in the context of the present. Such interpretations are clearly going to be different. Why all the translations? It’s because different groups or individuals decided an earlier version needed revision.

There would be no need for different versions if the meaning were clear for all time. It’s not. Nor is the Bible clear in meaning. We recognize biblical contradictions are numerous. While that is more broad than simply this single group of words, it’s relevant in recognizing that God as described biblically is contradictory.

Scroll down to this section to see some organization of biblical contradictions and specific references to biblical scripts. Click on as many as you like. It will take only a short time to observe internal contradictions and perceptions of God and perceptions regarding how God operates. This includes the intentions of those who assume they can manipulate God to a goal they desire. It might be to help others. It might be to help themselves. It might be both.

The point is the intention of prayer generally is to control, to manipulate, God for some purpose those who pray want as a result.

JAK previously:

I observed there that certainly today we recognize that “evil” is relative to time, place, situation, etc. There are some religious groups which still maintain a dogma that all evil is equal. With all the modern communication access we have, such a view worked far better a thousand years ago than it does today.

Hoop’s responded: “I’m not sure what your point here is.”

JAK: The prayer uses the word “evil” in a particular context. My point is that “evil’ is not viewed the same way in all situation. What constitutes “evil” is often a matter of opinion. In the Bible, God is described as purposely killing individuals as well as entire groups of people. If killing people is “evil,” that makes God evil.

Certainly in the Bible God favors some and not others. Christians then and Christians today generally regard themselves as the favored people. Yet Christians don’t much like others who also call themselves “Christian.” Some regard the Roman Catholic Church as “evil.” The Protestant Reformation did not succeed in reforming the RCC. As a result from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation (1517 A.D.), hundreds and hundreds of groups have formed and have regarded themselves as the MOST TRUE of the Christians. So “evil” is quite open for debate. The prayer asks God to act by – “deliver us from evil.”

This is enough for one post.

JAK

[_JAK]

Response to this post – part 2

JAK previously:

The Lord’s Prayer closes with a further statement of submission and elevation of their perspective of God as to further cement the request for intervention in their own lives. And in their lives “daily bread” and favor from God were paramount.

Hoops responded: “It seems just the opposite to me. "Thy will be done" would seem that where His will is in opposition to ours, His should reign.”

JAK: You’re offering your interpretation. The words don’t say what you construct here. Even if we were to assume (for the sake of argument) that your interpretation is correct, just how would those people 2,000 years ago have been able to distinguish what they wanted from some entity God? Prayers throughout the Bible are attempts to motivate or manipulate God to act in a way those who claim to speak to God want. How would they distinguish God’s will from their own?

But the prayer here does not state what you interpret. It’s your view.

“…Lead us…” “…Deliver us…” are verbs for which the subject is who? It’s a kind of plea if not command or fearful request for ACTION by God for what they want.

JAK previously: “In that prayer, 'Thy will be done…' included meeting the need for food.”

Hoops responded: “No, it didn't. It's a simple statement. That God's will is paramount. It certainly CAN include meeting those and other needs, but it doesn't have to.”

JAK: It’s part of the same prayer in which the words include “Give us this day our daily bread.” There is nothing to suggest: But God if you don’t want us to have bread by all means don’t let us have it…let us go hungry and even starve.

That was NOT the intent of the prayer you submitted. The fact is the people wanted what they wanted, and they prayed to God to petition that God to provide for THEM.

The people subscribing to the prayer want to be favored not disfavored. Why would they pray to an entity a God which they wanted to hurt them?

Hoops (restating): “It certainly CAN include meeting those and other needs, but it doesn't have to.” Hence, no matter what happens, people (those people of ancient time) can claim anything they please. But they continue to pray for favorable treatment.

Or are you arguing that God can be as cruel or kind as God pleases and willy nilly disregard those who worship this God (By the way, biblical "God" reference perceives God as MALE. Christianity, historically, is a sexist religion favoring male over female generally.) Sorry for the tangent reference.

Hoops stated: “I gave you an example from my own prayer life. Not the exact words, as they changed from morning to morning. Why not deal with that?”

JAK: It’s a vague reference and not actually a prayer. Inherent in your reference to that originally was an emotional attachment to mercurial ideas. It was my intention to address exact wording and explore intended meaning of a prayer which you would regard as typical today.

You have made no refutation to the point that prayer is an attempt to manipulate the God to whom it is addressed.

In fact you agreed to that and stated: “Of course we pray for God's intervention. Why shoudn't we?”

What would you speculate is the case when one group of Christians pray to God and want in that prayer the opposite or something very different than another group of Christians?

To expand that, Muslims pray to God and what they want is something different than what Christians want. Hence, God has a dilemma. Granting favorable answer to one prayer is to guarantee unfavorable answer to another prayer. Yet various groups who claim God pray for quite different things.

You do understand that prior to the development of language in the evolution of the human species, there was no religion or religious perception. It emerged as intelligence and accumulation of information began. Early in human evolution, there was what we regard today as superstition. But that gave way to the invention of the gods.. And, over time, that gave rise to the invention of a God.

Today, of course, that invention a God is a speculation upon which there is great disagreement. The reality of this slow emergence has resulted in a large number of Christian groups. Each group tends to regard itself as the most correct. Some regard all other groups as false. And, this is just Christianity. There are multiple religions which claim God, and they do not agree on much.

JAK

[_JAK]

Response to This Post – part 3

From the perspective of most agnostics/atheists, prayer is an emotionally charged idea. As Hoops pointed out, people often pray for others. A good example of this is from religious parents who have an 18 year-old over seas in a war. They pray for the safety and survival of that person. Without question, such prayer tends to be intense. They see the pictures on the news of people with no arms or no legs or with severe brain injury, yet who are technically alive. But, their life will never be normal in the same sense as one who has all body parts in working order from age 18 to 78 or whenever they experience diminished function due to aging or disease.

That emotional charge, however, is relative. High school football players (who are religious) sometimes pray to win the game. Never mind that some may think this a foolish prayer, it’s a prayer. And religious, committed players make such prayers. Some simply pray that God will help them to do their best. If their team wins, they may say, “Thank you God.”

Hence, when prayer deals with matters of life and death or permanent, life altering injury, the emotional intensity is great by comparison with the athlete.

Hoops, it was not my intent that you submit a prayer to which you were personally emotionally connected. I would have preferred the opposite.

If a person has an appendicitis, medical intervention is what is required in our modern time. Prayer is irrelevant. Medical science is relevant. In the case of parents praying for their young service men and women, prayer is irrelevant.

From the agnostic/atheist perspective, what happens in battle totally beyond the control of parents half a world away, prayer for God to protect or intervene is irrelevant. Praying may make the one who prays feel that he/she has done all that he/she can do. They may feel emotionally satisfied, but no evidence supports that their prayer caused any divine intervention SELECTIVELY for their child.

If that could be established, it would make God a very cruel, discriminatory God.. The mother next door also PRAYED for her child and her child was KILLED or severely maimed in the face of the SAME PRAYER for the safety of her child. Such a perspective supports the invention of a very cruel, mean God favoring some over others.

Of course, this latter is quite biblical. That is, the God of Christianity as well as Islam is perceived as FAVORING one person or one group of people over another person or another group of people.

That invented God (which has evolved over time) is inherent in Christianity and Islam.

Please review A List of Biblical Contradictions. If you prefer, you can just begin with Contradictions.

From the agnostic/atheist perspective, it’s important to understand that these contradictions are in large measure the stuff which makes for the many, many divisions we observe today in Christianity.

People hang on to one or the other. Or, they mix and match trying to make their Christianity seem as if it’s a rational religion. It’s not a rational religion (nor is any other religion which relies on assertion as substitute for information).

Popular today is the feel good religion. People socialize in their religious groups. They have fun. That makes them feel (emotionally) good about their religion. However, that does not make the religion valid, accurate, or more correct than a countervailing Christianity of other groups or any other group.

JAK

[_JAK]

Response to This Post – part 4

In the prayer you offered (the Lord’s prayer) ambiguity abounds.

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done” is ambiguous. The presumption at the time of this prayer’s construction was a God but further that man (now humans) don’t have a clue as to just what that means. Hence, it’s a prayer for nothing which can be assessed. It a wishful thought attributed to a God likely out of fear.

After all, there were earthquakes, floods, death/starvation, droughts, volcanoes. These were things over which man had no control. So what is this God like to which they pray? Certainly the entity is not friendly. There was plenty of reason for fear at the time this prayer was first constructed. That fear is reflected in the prayer. Sacrifice was configured to appease a God. So this prayer is long on praise with no hint of criticism.

Yet the notion that this God was the CREATOR OF ALL left man to figure out just what “Thy will” was. They did not know. (Of course no evidence for their God invention actually existed.) The invention of an early Christian God was, from the start, a work in progress. Christianity was once a new cult. It was once made up of a very few people who had most limited and primitive ways to communicate.

“Deliver us from evil” was also ambiguous. What is “evil”? Whatever it is, the prayer asks God to act and to deliver “us” (the people praying) from whatever “evil” is.

Here is another dilemma in the prayer’s construction. “Thine is the power and the glory forever….” So be it we humans say. The dilemma is how to explain “evil.” Their God CREATED everything. That had to include floods, famine, earthquakes (which brought down their weakly constructed structures on them).

So “deliver us from evil” is to all regarded as “us” to escape the very evil things that this assumed God created and orchestrated in the first place.

Hoops, there is nothing in this prayer about a “Satan” or a “Devil,” and we are looking at the prayer you submitted for analysis. In order to make their God good, they invented a counter God in the invention of a Devil. However, this introduced additional problems with their notion that God is sovereign and the creator of ALL THAT EXISTED. Hence, who created the Devil?

My digression here is not to introduce a new topic from the “Lord’s prayer.” It is to demonstrate the ambiguity of the “Lord’s prayer” itself.

An agnostic/atheist would ask questions out of the box so to speak. That is to say, question the rationale for the God assumptions inherent in the “Lord’s prayer.”

The notion of a good God is self-contradictory. 2,000 years ago, people understood suffering and witnessed what we would call natural disasters. But their God is the creator of ALL. Perhaps they thought by worshiping their notion of this God, they could escape some of the suffering caused by things their God did. It might explain the profuse praise and elevation in word for their God.

Again, this is sufficient for one response to your post.

Since I have seen no rejoinders, I assume you are again unable or unwilling to respond, Hoops.

There is much more to be said by way of analysis on the prayer you selected. Because it’s so dated and encompasses so much early superstition and fear of 2,000 years ago, it’s not necessarily very representative of prayers constructed today. I recently deleted an e-mail that was sent out by a religious person which would have been good to submit just as it was written.

I wanted to avoid doing the construction of a prayer. It would have been easy to shift attack to me for the construction if I had done so. At the same time, it was not my intention to make any personal attack on you for a prayer you constructed or that was one from modern time.

Rather, it was to take the words presented and address them directly just as you presented them.

If you respond to any of these follow-up posts, I’d be happy to address questions you have or considerations.

This all still addresses the central topic: “Question for the Atheist.”

JAK