The Power of Prayer

[eriador]

Well, I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that human consciousness is a completely biological phenomenon, that stops completely on death. So nick was not wrong in making an assumption, but his evidence may still be lacking to some degree.

[Guest]

Well, I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that human consciousness is a completely biological phenomenon, that stops completely on death. So nick was not wrong in making an assumption, but his evidence may still be lacking to some degree.

I haven't seen any evidence that human consciousness is a soley biological phenomena. If you like, thisdebate between two opposing sides (believing in and believing against the concept of afterlife) is really enlightening.

The Great Afterlife Debate:
Michael Shermer v. Deepak Chopra
The following debate between Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer came about after the widely read and referenced debate the two had last year on the virtues and value of skepticism. Deepak has a new book out on the subject, Life After Death: The Burden of Proof (Harmony, 2006 ISBN 0307345785), and Michael has written extensively about claims of evidence for the afterlife, so the two of them thought it would be stimulating to have a debate on the topic. Michael read Deepak’s book and goes first in the debate, offering his assessment of the “proofs” presented in Deepak’s book, then Deepak responds. Shorter blog-length versions are published on www.HuffingtonPost.com, with the longer versions presented here and on www.intentBlog.com.

[jotabe]

Can you give me any example of any phenomenon whose explanation isn't completely physical (what would include biology)?
There are either phenomena we can explain physically or phenomena we can't explain. And along human history, there was a great number of phenomena that couldn't be explained, and eventually were explained physically.

Do you want to deviate from the principle of induction? Then the burden of proof is on you.

I have never seen a green dog. You have never seen a green dog. One day you come and say "there is a green dog". Well, show me.

[Guest]

Watch "Spun" if you don't believe in green dogs!

[Fish Tank]

God has, in that case, answered her prayer and said, "I'm sorry, but I will take one of your children to be with me." Now it's up to the woman to accept this and, while she most certainly is allowed to be deeply hurt to lose a child, rejoice in the life of the other child. I'm not saying that is an easy thing to do, but the most painful experiences can also be the ones in which we grow the most.

He is still choosing who lives and who dies. You can try to make it prettier but it's still the same thing.

[Sibyl]

God is god, and I am not.

[Rei]

I never tried to say that God isn't choosing who lives and who dies. You claimed He did not answer her prayer and I challenged that as well as gave some logic for why He may choose to answer her in that way.

[Fish Tank]

You cannot know that. You say he is saying no to her prayer. I am saying he ignored it.

I love talking about my cat. So if I ask my cat to get me a new pair of shoes and he doesn't do it; he is saying no?

The more likely thing is that the child survived by chance and my cat ignored my question.

[Rei]

So let me get this straight, you're trying to prove there's a God and that He doesn't care about us? Because I'm seeing a running theme in your posts that you assume there is a God, and that you assume He is either cruel or apathetic.

[Fish Tank]

No I am an atheist.

In my posts I usually don't say it because then it becomes a war about proving whether or not there is a God. And the discussion becomes very pointless.

I assume there is a God for the sake of argument.

[Rei]

And you do a shoddy job of it. At least you realise that it doesn't do any good to get into an argument over whether God exists or not as neither will convince the other, although discussing WHY one believes one way or the other may be productive. Probably it'd be more productive than assuming the Christian God exists and then trying to tell us He isn't anything like what we believe Him to be.

[Eaquae Legit]

Your comparison of a cat to God makes your arguments ridiculous. You don't believe your cat is able to answer your prayers. Neither do the Christians you are arguing with. Why should they care that the cat didn't grant your request? They're sitting at their computer screens thinking Duh? A cat isn't God.

Christians believe that there is a God, that God hears prayers, and that God is able to answer them. The only one of these three that can be applied to your cat is that it exists.

*sigh* When you want to come up with an original argument, we can have a real debate. Meanwhile, I think there's an invisible pink unicorn who is angry over your cat-worship.

[Fish Tank]

Your comparison of a cat to God makes your arguments ridiculous. You don't believe your cat is able to answer your prayers. Neither do the Christians you are arguing with. Why should they care that the cat didn't grant your request? They're sitting at their computer screens thinking Duh? A cat isn't God.

Christians believe that there is a God, that God hears prayers, and that God is able to answer them. The only one of these three that can be applied to your cat is that it exists.

*sigh* When you want to come up with an original argument, we can have a real debate. Meanwhile, I think there's an invisible pink unicorn who is angry over your cat-worship.

Do other God's answer prayers then? Forget about my cat. If I pray to Vishnu and my prayer is answered does that mean he exists? Therefore proving that the Christian God is not the only God that may or may not exist?

[Fish Tank]

And you do a shoddy job of it. At least you realise that it doesn't do any good to get into an argument over whether God exists or not as neither will convince the other, although discussing WHY one believes one way or the other may be productive. Probably it'd be more productive than assuming the Christian God exists and then trying to tell us He isn't anything like what we believe Him to be.

Christians believe in their own version of their God and not the God that is told to us through the Bible.

[Eaquae Legit]

It would seem to indicate that someone is listening, yes. As a Christian I hold my own opinion on who exactly it is, but that is a different question.

Oh, and how patronising, to say that we do not know our own God. Tell me, does that apply to Jews as well?

[Fish Tank]

But that someone can only be your god?

No one can know God. And cannot expect to know God.

I am saying that the version of God in the Bible and the version of God Christians believe in are not the same God.

And yes it applies to Jewish people as well. Judaism doesn't view God as he is depicted in the Bible. God punishes the bad and rewards the good. Thats a Jewish view of God. Very contrary to the Bible.

[Eaquae Legit]

As a matter of friendly and not-quite-modly advice, I suggest you go re-read the sticky at the top of the forum. Particularly the bit that reads: "*If you are not a member of a particular faith or belief system, do not set yourself up as an authority as to what that faith or belief system believes. Because you're probably wrong."

I believe as a Christian that there is only one God. If a Vaishnavite scholar came to me and told me that Vishnu is the only God, we'd have a nice discussion, and hopefully part ways amiably and more educated.

[Dr. Mobius]

IPU

[Fish Tank]

I am a Catholic and Baptized as such. I attended Catholic Schools and still do go to Catholic church.

I am a member of the Catholic church whether I believe in God or not.

[Dr. Mobius]

I am a Catholic and Baptized as such. I attended Catholic Schools and still do go to Catholic church.

I am a member of the Catholic church whether I believe in God or not.

So am I, what's your point?

[Eaquae Legit]

[Mod-EL]

You have said elsewhere that you are an atheist. For the purposes of board rules, what is relevant is your personal belief, not technicalities of religious initiation ceremonies.

You, despite baptism and continued attendance at a religious-based school, have stated your rejection of theism, Christianity, and Catholicism. I'm not very concerned with what your parents say you are, I'm concerned with what YOU say you are.

[/Mod-EL]

[Fish Tank]

I am a member of the Catholic faith and belief system. My priest considers me a member of the Church, regardless of whether or not I believe in God. I don't reject Christianity or Catholicism. Otherwise I wouldn't go to Church.

[Eaquae Legit]

Well then we have no idea who or what you are, since you claim to hold two incompatible beliefs. Forgive me if I stop bothering to debate with you when I have no idea why you're saying what you do.

[Fish Tank]

Rejecting Christianity and rejecting God are not the same thing. Believe it or not Christianity teaches more than just believing in God.

[Dr. Mobius]

And I thought I was indecisive...

You can't have it both ways, Fishy. You may be a card carrying member of the Church, but unless you're a believer, you're not a true Christian of any denomination.

[Fish Tank]

OK then I'm not a "true Christian". I'm an atheist who goes to church and follows many of the teachings of Catholicism.

[Guest]

[Eaquae Legit]

ALL threads on the intertubes are serious.

[Guest]

Is it just me, or has FT brought the brain level of this site to an all-time low?

[Eaquae Legit]

Don't ever ask mods questions like that.

[Guest]

It was rhetorical. Obviously, I already know the answer to the question.

Did you forget that this is Serious Thread?

[Eaquae Legit]

Oops. Sorry.

*glowers*

[eriador]

Well then we have no idea who or what you are, since you claim to hold two incompatible beliefs. Forgive me if I stop bothering to debate with you when I have no idea why you're saying what you do.

I don't think that they're incompatible at all. You have to keep in mind what's being said in the organized religion thread: that organized religion is a highly social institution, whereas spirituality, though involved in organized religion, is much more personal.

P.S. It's none of my business, but your mass characterization of all Christians as believing in God could be offensive to people, and if I were in FT's situation, I would feel like I was being told that my beliefs were "wrong." You might want to watch that, but it's totally not my place to say that.

[Guest]

Well, why aren't his beliefs wrong? I mean, the word "Christian" has a pretty obvious name in it - Christ. You know - the (alleged) Son of God? I.e., "Christian" explicitly implies there is a "Christ" - and therefore, a Godhead, of which Christ is a part. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about an individual, personal spiritual form, or an organized, collective religious concept. If for some reason, you believe in the teachings of Christ (as a moral/spiritual guide), but don't believe in God, you are not a Christian. I mean, he said himself that He was God. The two are mutually inclusive. EL is in every right to say that FT's statements are ludicrous, and based wholly on faulty supposition and unwarranted conclusions. He may not like it. You may not like it. But I haven't seen any thing (from either of you) to refute the fact that his contradictory beliefs are anything but hypocritical.

[Fish Tank]

Is it just me, or has FT brought the brain level of this site to an all-time low?

If that isn't ridicule I don't know what is.


My beliefs are my beliefs. As I said before the teachings of Christianity and specifically, Catholicism, are more than just believing and God and going to heaven.

I believe Jesus Christ was a man who taught a better way how to live. Not that he was the Son of God.