# Faith for atheists?



## ambush80 (May 28, 2018)

This was a good examination of some of the thoughts that atheists might have occasionally:


----------



## Israel (May 29, 2018)

This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of _reality_. (Could we call it the "_universe_" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do _indeed know_...some _have said_) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason_ to it_, or _for_ its being)" on what place does man  then ever stand to require/adjure (even _hope for_) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?

Yet...men _do demand_ rationality...from one another. Yet, how can this be...if the whole "of everything"...has already been concluded to be without rationale?

Is (are) the question (s) not obvious? 

Is what is called reason then, _only _of man's invention? (if so then...what _particular man_ is forbidden the invention of his own?)

Is what is called reason...discovered? (Then its preexistence before discovery...remains)

Or, is reason given?

Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

Would He be the _particular one _not _allowed _to give... "his" reason?
If reason is only an invented thing...He is _no less perfect _in reason than any other. (Just _not made allowance for _...by that which claims reason is only an invention)

But if reason be not invented, but discovered...or even (and particularly) _only given _by _allowance_ (grace)...

I am very glad to report that any and all comparisons _of all _and _any other man's reason_...against Him, and by whatever form opposition may take...against that (One) Jesus Christ declaring Himself the way, the truth, and the life...will come up ridiculously and laughably short. What insults _your reason_...as He does? Your own rationality?

If it's not yet insulted perfectly...be patient.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Finding out "Jesus' reason" will make one too joyous to be bound by man's impoverished...reason. 

He comes...to save.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his Messiah, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

Here's a laughter I have heard. The name men take to themselves in preference to another Name. Homo _Sapiens_. "Wise man". Yes, men have fallen in love with that. And it is funny to watch them kiss themselves.


Be a man.
Ecce Homo.


----------



## 660griz (May 31, 2018)

Israel said:


> If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?


 No matter why something exists, its existence can necessitate and foster other things. There is no north/south/east/west without the earth and poles. There is no day/night without the sun. There is no reason without a brain to compute. Logic, and the accuracy of it, provides a means to survive. Some things make the wrong choices and are no longer with us.




> Yet...men _do demand_ rationality...from one another. Yet, how can this be...if the whole "of everything"...has already been concluded to be without rationale?


 I see what you are doing. However, it is not an accurate comparison. You don't have to know why the universe is here. You just need to live in it.




> Is what is called reason then, _only _of man's invention? (if so then...what _particular man_ is forbidden the invention of his own?)
> 
> Is what is called reason...discovered? (Then its preexistence before discovery...remains)
> 
> Or, is reason given?


 Man is not the only animal that reasons. 




> I am very glad to report that any and all comparisons _of all _and _any other man's reason_...against Him, and by whatever form opposition may take...against that (One) Jesus Christ declaring Himself the way, the truth, and the life...will come up ridiculously and laughably short. What insults _your reason_...as He does? Your own rationality?


 There are so many things about religion that insults my reason. 
I wont start a list.



> He comes...to save.


 Why? 



> Here's a laughter I have heard. The name men take to themselves in preference to another Name. Homo _Sapiens_. "Wise man". Yes, men have fallen in love with that. And it is funny to watch them kiss themselves.


 The only ones that are not extinct. Wise, reasonable, alive.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

Israel said:


> This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of _reality_. (Could we call it the "_universe_" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)
> 
> "If", as some might say (as I do _indeed know_...some _have said_) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason_ to it_, or _for_ its being)" on what place does man  then ever stand to require/adjure (even _hope for_) reason of another man?
> 
> ...





660griz said:


> No matter why something exists, its existence can necessitate and foster other things. There is no north/south/east/west without the earth and poles. There is no day/night without the sun. There is no reason without a brain to compute. Logic, and the accuracy of it, provides a means to survive. Some things make the wrong choices and are no longer with us.
> 
> 
> I see what you are doing. However, it is not an accurate comparison. You don't have to know why the universe is here. You just need to live in it.
> ...



Good job answering Isreal's post.  

To this part in particular:
_
"This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of reality. (Could we call it the "universe" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do indeed know...some have said) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason to it, or for its being)" on what place does man  then ever stand to require/adjure (even hope for) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?"_

I would add that this seems to be an old version of the new argument "How can man claim to use logic if the Universe is illogical?"  Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson also use a version of this and say that Atheists like Sam Harris use logic and reason but try to disclaim the source of all logic and reason.  The answer to Shapiro and Peterson is "The God of squares has four sides"  

Logic and reason spring from the observation of the Physical properties of nature and the application of that knowledge to survival.  We can trace the roots of abstract thoughts like philosophy, imagination and religion to lower kinds of thought.  We can see the roots of it in other primates.  We developed complicated and ingenious minds capable of deep analysis and imagination that resulted in superstitious and fanciful ideas. I challenge someone to show that ideas of modern deities didn't develop from prior animistic god(s)/goddesses.  Eventually, God was refined to be a more powerful version of us.  Logic and reason exist because we exist.  Without us there's no math and no God.  The principles exist and they would still drive the mechanical processes of the Universe.  Photosynthesis would still happen in plant cells and quasars would still operate in predictable ways but without a consciousness to observe and describe them they are undefined.  There's no "story" of them with out someone to read it.  The same with God.  

Our consciousness arose as a natural product of a complex mind and then we invented God.  Then in an odd twist we imagined that God gave us consciousness. It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides".  It's the other way around.  Saying logic and reason can't exist without God is like saying gravity can't exist without God.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Good job answering Isreal's post.
> 
> To this part in particular:
> _
> ...





> It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides".  It's the other way around.


Exactly.


----------



## Israel (May 31, 2018)

Not it at all.

But this comes closest:



> It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides". It's the other way around.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Good job answering Isreal's post.
> 
> To this part in particular:
> _
> ...





> Saying logic and reason can't exist without God is like saying gravity can't exist without God.



Exactly.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Exactly.



Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God.  At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will, in fact, subvert your belief.  It's based on a feeling.  Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

Israel said:


> Not it at all.
> 
> But this comes closest:




Did I misunderstand your point because I'm stupid or because you were unclear and otherwise difficult to understand?  Is what you were trying to express so complicated that though your language was a simple as it could be I still didn't quite grasp what you were trying to say?


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God.  At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will subvert your belief.  It's based on a feeling.  Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.



How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?



I was just thinking about that this morning. What's the sell?  Forgiveness of sin and everlasting life. Snake oil of the highest.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

What if the reward was "You get to hang out with Jesus for 15 minutes after you die and then you become nothing"?  Is that enough cheese?


----------



## 660griz (May 31, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?



Or the threat of eternal punishment. 

It really mostly comes down to who your parents are and geography. 

A real God could overcome those obstacles.

I think it boils down to we knowing we are going to die. Some need more. Please let there be more!
Ooo, a piece of candy. 
Everyone wants to go to heaven but, no one wants to die to get there.


----------



## Israel (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Did I misunderstand your point because I'm stupid or because you were unclear and otherwise difficult to understand?  Is what you were trying to express so complicated that though your language was a simple as it could be I still didn't quite grasp what you were trying to say?




Not hard at all. Not complicated at all.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God.  At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will, in fact, subvert your belief.  It's based on a feeling.  Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.



That was deep?


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> That was deep?



It was a start on my part.  Your turn.  Explain how what I said is false and then tell me why.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God.  At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will, in fact, subvert your belief.  It's based on a feeling.  Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.





ambush80 said:


> It was a start on my part.  Your turn.  Explain how what I said is false and then tell me why.



First back to your #4; if I look at it as though you are directing it to me, you are, for the most part, telling me that God has no arms or ears, I agree.  So what's your point.  Mine is that you fallaciously expand that to God in the image of man, which is, as you say, "the other way around".  IOW you seem to argue that anthropomorphism is real. (I like the further break down to include anthropopathism and anthropopraxism, but they are seldom used).

I do not accept infinite regression.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

Israel said:


> Not hard at all. Not complicated at all.



Then what is it?


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> First back to your #4; if I look at it as though you are directing it to me, you are, for the most part, telling me that God has no arms or ears, I agree.  So what's your point.  Mine is that you fallaciously expand that to God in the image of man, which is, as you say, "the other way around".  IOW you seem to argue that anthropomorphism is real. (I like the further break down to include anthropopathism and anthropopraxism, but they are seldom used).
> 
> I do not accept infinite regression.



I had to look up anthropopathism and anthropopraxism but it seems that they apply.  I was not in fact saying that God has no arms or ears.  I'm not sure where you got that. After we evolved our ideas of god(s) beyond animism they curiously started being more like people, only amped up. 

What do you mean you don't accept infinite regression?


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if the reward was "You get to hang out with Jesus for 15 minutes after you die and then you become nothing"?  Is that enough cheese?



If that was the deal we never would have heard of Jesus Christ.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I had to look up anthropopathism and anthropopraxism but it seems that they apply.


Sure makes sense to me, I can't figure out why the concepts are almost universally ignored, or lumped in with anthropomorphism.



> I was not in fact saying that God has no arms or ears.  I'm not sure where you got that.



"Eventually, God was refined to be a more powerful version of us."  I have called that "God, the Superman".
  Maybe I put too much in it when I related it to most of you causal-result chains.




> After we evolved our ideas of god(s) beyond animism they curiously started being more like people, only amped up.




In animism, didn't/don't people also have a spiritual aspect to their being?  If so, then the transition away from animism was, for the most part, one of elimination.



> What do you mean you don't accept infinite regression?




The idea of an infinite, or eternal, existence of material being, based on an infinite result-cause train, or a circular result-cause train, being based on a material logic, is, to me, self defeating.


----------



## Israel (May 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Then what is it?



It's simple.
What system can be measured with any accuracy from the inside?

You, me...any and every man makes far too great a leap to: 

#1 The assumption that "reason" does in fact _exist_. (Specifically as a thing to itself.) And if we do not at least negotiate with some form of consideration as to the nature of a thing that might be given _to exist_, and what existence _is_), we just continue in presumptions.
(We simply navigate around arbitrarily in "what can be"..."what can't be" in some strange calculus that has not even established whether numbers themselves...are real. (And again, specifically, _if they do_, their relationship to one another)

So the man who...(assuming reason to himself) states "the universe is all of indifference"...meaning to say "the all" of what can _ever be known_...has no leg to stand on to make that pronouncement...particularly because he is in, and part of that "the all" (_even in his _assumption/presumption) in which he makes such claim. He's just playing with x/y/z...thinking he (by presumption) has already established a/b/c...but it is clear...he hasn't. He remains _in the system_ pronouncing what he cannot know of the all of it..._precisely because_ he remains _in it._ And speaks...only...from there.

Make any and all decisions you want to whatever accuracy you care to determine is of use, decide what a foot is, what an inch is, what a yard is, or centimeter/millimeter/meter is...and you will never know just how big a house _is_ from the inside. All you can ever say is "the house is precisely as big as it is." Unless you can get outside of it.
Reason is _precisely_ that useful...and likewise useless (simultaneously) a tool.

Nevertheless _men do_...assume reason.

And
#2 Every man is  wholly given to _his own reason_ and its particular form to himself. (Oh, how you like to play with what you call "confirmation bias" as though it is some great discovery!) Do you really think you step "outside" your own, to observe it, or point out your observation _of it_ in another? Please.

(Must men...continually be given to embarrassing themselves?)


These things I mention make no provision nor attempt at any argument for or against a reality "beyond" the reason of man...only that "man's own" is negated completely, precisely _by its use_ to any of these things...of approving to, or disproving of the nature of reality. Unless of course that man believes he is "outside" of reality, and ready with his tape...and capable of measuring it.

What a man can say with conviction (that surely _is not_ _improved _by numbers agreeing nor made corruptible by, likewise, numerous in disagreement) is only of one of these:

To me "the all" appears indifferent (or even may appear malicious)

or  

To me "the all" does not have appearance of indifference (and may even appear beneficent) 

But man must remember, he _can only_ speak (of) these things, and will, only, if axiomatically he assumes he _has being_ to speak.


He might even "wise up" according to some word recently given of encouragement (even if it sounded somewhat, but only at the first...disparaging) and ask himself...or even if he has the slightest boldness...put it "out there"


"Can a thing act of _consistent_ indifference, can anything be seen of consistency...even to indifference...can a _thing be_..._consistently indifferent_ to a thing of perception, that can even _perceive indifference_ and _be_...so _perfectly_ so?

I don't suggest motive. I simply state it.

With the pure Thou showest Thyself pure, And with the perverse showest Thyself a wrestler, For Thou a poor people savest, And the eyes of the high causest to fall.

There's a door _to outside _given to the _perfectly_ frustrated. Just be patient...and _keep trying_...but...only _if you must._


----------



## Spotlite (May 31, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?


Ultimately, that is the reward we believe we were promised if we do believe.  


660griz said:


> Or the threat of eternal punishment.


Yup. Just like our kids. Some clean up to make their parents happy out of obedience, some grudgingly do it to keep from getting the belt. 

Happens in every scenario of life.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2018)

Eternal Life: The High Price Of A Believer's Love

Look it up on youtube. He is spot on.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 1, 2018)

are we finally reaching a point where the atheist recognizes that atheism is a religion unto itself?

That it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe that the universe exists because of nothing as it does to believe in a being who can speak and it appears?

These same persons postulate over intelligent life planting mankind here eons ago, yet can't accept a simple explanation given centuries ago.

perhaps that simple explanation is as plausible as any other, and that is the choking point?


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Eternal Life: The High Price Of A Believer's Love
> 
> Look it up on youtube. He is spot on.




If you don't know the high price of love, how will you then know_ anything _of life?

When you say "he is spot on"...what are you telling me anymore than someone has your _full endorsement in a thing?_ 

But...how _right_ is he? 

Would you..._invest_ with him? Trust him to know  where the fish are? Give your children to him, for his care? Tell him about _that time_...you...(well..._you know_)? 

What will you...what do you...in your declaration of his "spot on-ness" withhold from him? Do you care for him, really at all...beyond being a useful...tool? A tool? Is he a tool? 

Were he to show up at your house at 2 am, would you say "I have no need of you right now...But...I may trot you out tomorrow at 10 am...after I have had a good night's sleep"? (And see how this forum is doing)

But now...because _to me_ you are not to remain _a tool_, I will go listen to him. I will visit a "friend of a friend", with no more reason than _at your word_, you have said he has something to say.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Eternal Life: The High Price Of A Believer's Love
> 
> Look it up on youtube. He is spot on.



Hey!
Thanks!
He was every bit worth listening to! But, I must ask you this. (And now that I see how friendly you are in recommending him)

His stance (by example and analogy) negates every bit of the "indifferent" universe contention...or did I hear him so completely _different_ly? (I think I heard a man that even contends the universe _bears_ insult through the "reasoning" of what he calls _religious people_)

There are a few things (several actually) I find could bear some further investigation, but at this point, apart from asking him directly, for me to bring them up apart from his presence, would broach gossiping.
So, maybe I'll just invite him to participate, if I am able.


(Oops, looks like a thing called "Google" wants something from me I am not willing to give to communicate with him, perhaps you could invite him? If you already have those privileges. I tried going through IE, thinking to avoid the "Google" gatekeeper, yet it still opens. Or better...blocks by making demand)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> are we finally reaching a point where the atheist recognizes that atheism is a religion unto itself?
> 
> That it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe that the universe exists because of nothing as it does to believe in a being who can speak and it appears?
> 
> ...



You are asserting that atheists believe that the Universe exists because of nothing.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Eternal Life: The High Price Of A Believer's Love
> 
> Look it up on youtube. He is spot on.



After remaining awake till "work hour" after watching your friend's video in whatever thoughts might occupy the mind to wakefulness... 
this:

There can be no despising _anything_ that reveals with how little love, care, and attention a man may regard God.
If this is hard for the "unbeliever" to grasp, understand it is no less so to what may call itself a believer. 

Rightly is the Spirit of God called the Spirit of truth, for He cuts both ways, sparing nothing of illusion. 
This is not me crying "ouch", but me growing in an appreciation of you, for there is a comfort there, in not     "_having to_" behold you as enemy. As only...opposer.

I find I share some common ground with "that man".

Open rebuke is better than love kept secret.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 1, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> are we finally reaching a point where the atheist recognizes that atheism is a religion unto itself?
> 
> That it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe that the universe exists because of nothing as it does to believe in a being who can speak and it appears?
> 
> ...





> re·li·gion
> [rÉ™ËˆlijÉ™n]
> NOUN
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> ...





> faith to believe that the universe exists because of nothing


Note the definition of religion.
Note what you describe Atheists believe.
Note the difference.
Square peg. Round hole.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 1, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You are asserting that atheists believe that the Universe exists because of nothing.


And if you ask for some facts to back up that assertion, well.......

I just don't get how someone takes -
A lack of belief in gods.
And turns it into -


> believe that the universe exists because of nothing


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> This was a good examination of some of the thoughts that atheists might have occasionally:



Haven’t ever heard Peterson on religion so I guess I can’t comment on that. About the video what are you left with if you strip out the superstition and myth in religion? A little philosophy perhaps? I see commonality between stoic philosophy and buddhism for example. But if that is all you are left with then you’ve moved into the realm of rationality so why continue to refer to it as religion?

“My life has meaning because something larger than myself is behind it.”

Wouldn’t that apply to all life?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 1, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> This was a good examination of some of the thoughts that atheists might have occasionally:


So at the end there where he is doubting Atheism because "there might be something out there bigger than myself", leads me to a question -
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
Man has defined what "gods" are.
Why cant an Atheist believe there might be something out there that is bigger than himself and also not believe in gods?
Seems to me he is limiting that "something" to what we would call a "god" or it wouldn't make him doubt his Atheism.
That something could be something we haven't or cant even imagine at this point never mind would fall into what we would call a god.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So at the end there where he is doubting Atheism because "there might be something out there bigger than myself", leads me to a question -
> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
> Man has defined what "gods" are.
> Why cant an Atheist believe there might be something out there that is bigger than himself and also not believe in gods?
> ...





> Seems to me he is limiting that "something" to what we would call a "god" or it wouldn't make him doubt his Atheism.



Just call it something else to keep your atheist in good standing card. One guy recently calls it "the universe".

But why would there be any care as to losing it in doubt?

LOL...everyone terrified of losing their ID?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So at the end there where he is doubting Atheism because "there might be something out there bigger than myself", leads me to a question -
> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
> Man has defined what "gods" are.
> Why cant an Atheist believe there might be something out there that is bigger than himself and also not believe in gods?
> ...



“There is something bigger than us”

^This is easily observable.

“That something is a mind”

^It’s possible. I have yet to see a convincing case made based on facts to conclude it a true statement.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> “There is something bigger than us”
> 
> ^This is easily observable.
> 
> ...



Don't backslide now...just when you were on a roll.



"The universe's existence is pretty much the equivalent of someone fishing us out of the river of non-existence...but rather than giving us our life back, giving us our whole life from the very beginning..."


Isn't this the same fellow you just said is "spot on!"?
C'mon dude...don't be so fickle. 

We only find contention against the truth for one reason...if we are not even barely consistent in truth to the things we say...who (on God's green earth) imagines they will be trusted with more?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 1, 2018)

Israel said:


> Just call it something else to keep your atheist in good standing card. One guy recently calls it "the universe".
> 
> But why would there be any care as to losing it in doubt?
> 
> LOL...everyone terrified of losing their ID?


I cant really relate to that. That signifies some kind of emotional investment. Its emotional investments that muddy the waters.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I cant really relate to that. That signifies some kind of emotional investment. Its emotional investments that muddy the waters.



Yes!

I don't mind at all gettin' all gooey eyed about Jesus, I don't mind weeping at all...sometimes I'll choke up at a thing, or a word...some reminder "I will never leave you nor forsake you". After all, those are Jesus' words.

The thing that happens when I hear this, though...feels very different:


But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be _weeping_ and gnashing of teeth.

Because I have presumed God gives me enough time to be:

1 A smart a**
2 Believe it's safe to deport myself with as much a superior attitude as I so often feel.
3 Pay no heed to my words, cause after all..."I'm the saved!"
4 Think anyone is answerable to me...

Well see, they're all the words of Jesus...they do both show He is with me (even when I may think not...to a self indulgence)...and they both do surely cause weeping.

So, yeah...I think I understand you when you talk about emotional investment muddying things up...cause as much as I may "like" to think of myself as one way...(LOL...talk about "confirmation bias"!) finding out the truth in the words of Jesus Christ doesn't come with an "indulgence".

And...should I try to pull one of those..."but Lord...think of all the years _I have_...blah blah blah..."   

"Many will come to me in that day saying Lord, Lord...have we not..."

And maybe you know how those words are completed.


So yeah...we may be allowed some sense of how we prefer to see ourselves...but falling for that image is a real bummer.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I cant really relate to that. That signifies some kind of emotional investment. Its emotional investments that muddy the waters.



As was just demonstrated.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> As was just demonstrated.



I am not sure if you are just pi**ed to see that your "spot on" fellow hews as closely to the universe manifesting some sort of mind as possible...or you are just naturally snarky.

But then...maybe it's me that's snarky...and I just gotta meet myself in as many places as possible.

Are you snarky? Too?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And if you ask for some facts to back up that assertion, well.......
> 
> I just don't get how someone takes -
> A lack of belief in gods.
> And turns it into -



And, the fact that "the something from nothing" discussion has taken place in here numerous times in which the person making the assertion can not only look up but may have taken part in at least one of threads, it is still asserted as if it is fact.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why cant an Atheist believe there might be something out there that is bigger than himself and also not believe in gods?



I don't see why you could not. Having a belief in something bigger than yourself does not require that something to be a god, in my opinion. 

But, the lack of supporting evidence that a god exist is usually the reason given that an atheist does not believe a god exist. 

Seems that it would fundamentally question the position that you took on the disbelief in a god, unless the evidence supports that something..


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I don't see why you could not. Having a belief in something bigger than yourself does not require that something to be a god, in my opinion.
> 
> But, the lack of supporting evidence that a god exist is usually the reason given that an atheist does not believe a god exist.
> 
> Seems that it would fundamentally question the position that you took on the disbelief in a god, unless the evidence supports that something..



Think along the lines of energy or the universe as a whole.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Note the definition of religion.
> Note what you describe Atheists believe.
> Note the difference.
> Square peg. Round hole.



here ya go square peg.  We have already beat this dead horse once.  Might as well do it again..

re·li·gion
rÉ™ËˆlijÉ™n/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:	faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 1, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And if you ask for some facts to back up that assertion, well.......
> 
> I just don't get how someone takes -
> A lack of belief in gods.
> And turns it into -




Then how do you believe the Universe got here?

I thought the prevailing anti-God thought process was the Big Bang,  which basically says , first there was nothing that all got together in one tiny little space, exploded, and  created everything.


----------



## Israel (Jun 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So at the end there where he is doubting Atheism because "there might be something out there bigger than myself", leads me to a question -
> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
> Man has defined what "gods" are.
> Why cant an Atheist believe there might be something out there that is bigger than himself and also not believe in gods?
> ...



That's kind of a conundrum. Right? I mean at least _practically _speaking, no?
Whose gunna tell the truth about it?
I share an affinity for your struggles. You appear honest in them.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Then how do you believe the Universe got here?
> 
> I thought the prevailing anti-God thought process was the Big Bang,  which basically says , first there was nothing that all got together in one tiny little space, exploded, and  created everything.


Is that REALLY the definition of the Big Bang?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Then how do you believe the Universe got here?
> 
> I thought the prevailing anti-God thought process was the Big Bang,  which basically says , first there was nothing that all got together in one tiny little space, exploded, and  created everything.


That thought process exists in the minds of believers in gods. You need to tell yourself that non believers think that way in order to doctor the jigsaw pieces so they fit your way.
The accepted Big Bang Theory does not state that something cane from nothing. Non believers, especially the ones in here, do not think that anything came from "nothing". We have said that over and over and you still assert that I,we,they do.
It is a problem on your end.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> That thought process exists in the minds of believers in gods. You need to tell yourself that non believers think that way in order to doctor the jigsaw pieces so they fit your way.
> The accepted Big Bang Theory does not state that something cane from nothing. Non believers, especially the ones in here, do not think that anything came from "nothing". We have said that over and over and you still assert that I,we,they do.
> It is a problem on your end.



Good response.  It tells everyone exactly how you believe the universe got here.  

Just saying it is my problem doesn't do anything. You really don't have a clue how any of this got here, and you are afraid to examine the facts. 

Go ahead.  Admit it.  It will only sting for a little while.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> here ya go square peg.  We have already beat this dead horse once.  Might as well do it again..
> 
> re·li·gion
> rÉ™ËˆlijÉ™n/Submit
> ...


Look up system.
Look up faith
Look up worship.
Tell us how those apply to a lack of belief in gods. Not what you think happens AFTER a lack of belief in gods. That's not Atheism. Atheism is simply a lack in belief in gods.
Go for it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Look up system.
> Look up faith
> Look up worship.
> Tell us how those apply to a lack of belief in gods. Not what you think happens AFTER a lack of belief in gods. That's not Atheism. Atheism is simply a lack in belief in gods.
> Go for it.



everybody worships something Walt.  Maybe for you it isn't a God, who you can't see. Maybe for you it is time with your family.  Or $$$$.  Or time on that yak.  There are a multitude of things that people turn into gods.  

Most atheist I know worship at the alter of humanism.  They believe that humans are the highest evolved animal form, and should therefore have rights other life forms don't get.  I am not saying that is a wrong assumption.  I don't believe other animals should be treated as humans.  All I am saying is that we all hold something up as a valuable item, and put it on a pedestal.

What it that item for you?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Then how do you believe the Universe got here?
> 
> I thought the prevailing anti-God thought process was the Big Bang,  which basically says , first there was nothing that all got together in one tiny little space, exploded, and  created everything.


So you believe Atheists think that "nothing all got together".
I'm guessing your average grade school kid would giggle and say "nothing cant all get together".
Any chance you've got the "basics" of the BBT wrong?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> everybody worships something Walt.  Maybe for you it isn't a God, who you can't see. Maybe for you it is time with your family.  Or $$$$.  Or time on that yak.  There are a multitude of things that people turn into gods.
> 
> Most atheist I know worship at the alter of humanism.  They believe that humans are the highest evolved animal form, and should therefore have rights other life forms don't get.  I am not saying that is a wrong assumption.  I don't believe other animals should be treated as humans.  All I am saying is that we all hold something up as a valuable item, and put it on a pedestal.
> 
> What it that item for you?


Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
Worshipping money or a yak or family or drugs or fishing or....... has absolutely zero to do with Atheism.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if the reward was "You get to hang out with Jesus for 15 minutes after you die and then you become nothing"?  Is that enough cheese?



not really - I hate those celebrity "meet & greet" affairs. I always clam up because I'm nervous, then when I get home I think of something cool I should have asked.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 5, 2018)

it doesn't take faith to believe that the universe came from "nothing" because the universe exists, we exist, etc. because every living (or non living) part of it can experience it. People of every religion & culture (or lack of religion & culture) can hold a brick in their hand and accept that brick for what it is without question. Thus the creation of the universe can be assumed to be natural not supernatural. "Something out of nothing" AKA "we don't yet know the answer" isn't subject to any religion's creation story. There are hundreds of creation stories and the bible version is just one of them. Each religion says their version is the right version, but our current universe could only be created once - everyone can't be right. There has to be one true story, not hundreds. That said my position is nobody alive today knows the exact mechanism for creating the universe but considering it's still being created to a degree (it's spreading outward, new planets are being created as we speak, new things about what space contains are being discovered, and older elements and energies are the simpler elements then complexity kicks in as time goes on) it makes sense that the universe came from something very dense & powerful at some point in time. Either every religion's creation story gets it wrong or every religion's creation story gets it right. 
I will choose door # 3 being nobody can say for sure yet, but why not keep trying to find out?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> it doesn't take faith to believe that the universe came from "nothing" because the universe exists, we exist, etc. because every living (or non living) part of it can experience it. People of every religion & culture (or lack of religion & culture) can hold a brick in their hand and accept that brick for what it is without question. Thus the creation of the universe can be assumed to be natural not supernatural. "Something out of nothing" AKA "we don't yet know the answer" isn't subject to any religion's creation story. There are hundreds of creation stories and the bible version is just one of them. Each religion says their version is the right version, but our current universe could only be created once - everyone can't be right. There has to be one true story, not hundreds. That said my position is nobody alive today knows the exact mechanism for creating the universe but considering it's still being created to a degree (it's spreading outward, new planets are being created as we speak, new things about what space contains are being discovered, and older elements and energies are the simpler elements then complexity kicks in as time goes on) it makes sense that the universe came from something very dense & powerful at some point in time. Either every religion's creation story gets it wrong or every religion's creation story gets it right.
> I will choose door # 3 being nobody can say for sure yet, but why not keep trying to find out?





> new planets are being created as we speak,


That's a pretty interesting factoid isn't it


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Think along the lines of energy or the universe as a whole.



Ok, I see where you are coming from.............for the source of the noise that I hear in the woods...............I can believe that something is out there without knowing exactly what it is and it will not question my lack of belief in Bigfoot. 

As Walt mentions below, as a Christian, I am limiting that something else that is bigger than us to be God. 



WaltL1 said:


> Why cant an Atheist believe there might be something out there that is bigger than himself and also not believe in gods?
> he is limiting that "something" to what we would call a "god"


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ok, I see where you are coming from.............for the source of the noise that I hear in the woods...............I can believe that something is out there without knowing exactly what it is and it will not question my lack of belief in Bigfoot.
> 
> As Walt mentions below, as a Christian, I am limiting that something else that is bigger than us to be God.



Not just god but a particular god.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Not just god but a particular god.


For me, yes. I am limiting that source to be God.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 5, 2018)

"The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the *universe* started, and then made the stars and galaxies we see today. The *universe* began as a very hot, small, and dense superforce (the mix of the four fundamental forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). "

How can anything exist if it doesn't have, or is not made up of atoms?
Just what is this dense 'superforce', and how can you have four fundamental forces if you don't have mass?  If you had mass, how can that exist without atoms?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> "The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the *universe* started, and then made the stars and galaxies we see today. The *universe* began as a very hot, small, and dense superforce (the mix of the four fundamental forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). "
> 
> How can anything exist if it doesn't have, or is not made up of atoms?
> Just what is this dense 'superforce', and how can you have four fundamental forces if you don't have mass?  If you had mass, how can that exist without atoms?



m=e/c(2)
Is there energy in empty space? Yes. Vacuum.
Can matter be created from energy? Yes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> "The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the *universe* started, and then made the stars and galaxies we see today. The *universe* began as a very hot, small, and dense superforce (the mix of the four fundamental forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). "
> 
> How can anything exist if it doesn't have, or is not made up of atoms?
> Just what is this dense 'superforce', and how can you have four fundamental forces if you don't have mass?  If you had mass, how can that exist without atoms?


I would contend that believing a super force that is made up of a mix of 4 fundemental forces is NOT the same as believing "nothing all got together" which was your assèrtion.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would contend that believing a super force that is made up of a mix of 4 fundemental forces is NOT the same as believing "nothing all got together" which was your assèrtion.



but you haven't told me what can exist without atoms.  Why?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> but you haven't told me what can exist without atoms.  Why?


Why?
Because your assertion was that Atheists believe "nothing all got together".
Are we really going to debate whether force is something or nothing?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> Because your assertion was that Atheists believe "nothing all got together".
> Are we really going to debate whether force is something or nothing?



my point is that nothing can exist without atoms.  no matter can, anyway.

Sure, I was being simplistic when I said 'nothing'.  You are a sure fire black/white kinda guy, aren't you?  My son is that way


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Good response.  It tells everyone exactly how you believe the universe got here.
> 
> Just saying it is my problem doesn't do anything. You really don't have a clue how any of this got here, and you are afraid to examine the facts.
> 
> Go ahead.  Admit it.  It will only sting for a little while.


That is impressive because even I admit that I have no idea about how the Universe got here.
Would you please tell me what you think I believe?

Again,and I'll ask nicely, Please give me whatever facts that you assert I have failed to examine and I will gladly take a look or another look at them.

I freely admit what I do not know. I do not make up my own definitions to fit. Would you please tell me how you keep coming up with the "something from nothing" claim despite (at least in here) you constantly being told otherwise? Let me know where you got your Big Bang definition from also.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2018)

The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing.


----------



## Israel (Jun 6, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would contend that believing a super force that is made up of a mix of 4 fundemental forces is NOT the same as believing "nothing all got together" which was your assèrtion.


Is that what you meant when you said an atheist may believe in something "bigger than himself"?
This super force you describe as being made up of  4 fundamental forces?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Then how do you believe the Universe got here?
> 
> I thought the prevailing anti-God thought process was the Big Bang,  which basically says , first there was nothing that all got together in one tiny little space, exploded, and  created everything.



To say there was nothing is to make the assumption that there universe is all there is. Does anyone know that?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 7, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> To say there was nothing is to make the assumption that there universe is all there is. Does anyone know that?




As surely as an atheist 'knows' there is no god,


----------



## Israel (Jun 7, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> To say there was nothing is to make the assumption that there universe is all there is. Does anyone know that?


That's kinda thinking "outside the box", it serves us well to not assume all we may see, all we may have ever seen...is all there is.

I ain't no physicist, not even theoretically, but I recently read a brief article that referred to "sterile neutrinos".  And I ain't got anything against physicists  of any stripe, nor do I hold science in contempt. I'm just aware, like everything in the creation, as a _thing_, it has limits assigned.

But it seems it's got (what _may_ be the discovery of these sterile neutrinos) a bunch of folks astir. To previous thinking it appears "they were _not supposed_ to exist". For now it may be just another thing standing something on its head, that thought its head contained already what "_may _and _may not_ be".

Even the guy who mused "To be or not to be" told his friend  "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies". Each _thing_ has a place in order assigned, even among created things, and it may be that even in the study of created things man is set to find no end to what may contradict his thinking.

It's not that _things_ of themselves serve no use, and contradiction itself may be their best seat of occupation to man. Kinda like a path laid to an invitation of escape the knowing of only frustration.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> As surely as an atheist 'knows' there is no god,



There is a difference in that we know from observation that at least one universe exists. There was a time when only one galaxy was thought to exist because that was as far as observation had extended. Gods fall into a separate category of things for which there is no observable evidence. The propostion that fairies exist was never on equal footing with the proposition that more than one galaxy might exist.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> As surely as an atheist 'knows' there is no god,


The atheist and believer share equal knowledge about Gods. One just needs the comfort less.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2018)

Israel said:


> Is that what you meant when you said an atheist may believe in something "bigger than himself"?
> This super force you describe as being made up of  4 fundamental forces?


Maybe?
It seems to me that an Atheist's ONLY personal thought limitation would be that they can't believe/think/imagine "how we got here" is credited to what we have defined as a god.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
NOT gods, energy, forces, anything else imaginable or unimaginable........
There is no Atheist Rule Book that says you must believe the Big Bang or a version there of, is the answer. You just cant believe in gods.
And of course if they present what they think/believe as fact, the ball is in their court to prove it.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Jun 7, 2018)

Sure are a bunch of confused folks in here..


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> As surely as an atheist 'knows' there is no god,


I'm curious -
Do you see these 2 things as different or the same? -
1. An Atheist knows there is no God.
2. An Atheist knows that no god/God has been proven to exist.
If you think they are different, how?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2018)

Browning Slayer said:


> Sure are a bunch of confused folks in here..


Agreed. Any specifics on who you are talking about?


----------



## Israel (Jun 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe?
> It seems to me that an Atheist's ONLY personal thought limitation would be that they can't believe/think/imagine "how we got here" is credited to what we have defined as a god.
> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
> NOT gods, energy, forces, anything else imaginable or unimaginable........
> ...





WaltL1 said:


> Maybe?
> It seems to me that an Atheist's ONLY personal thought limitation would be that they can't believe/think/imagine "how we got here" is credited to what we have defined as a god.
> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
> NOT gods, energy, forces, anything else imaginable or unimaginable........
> ...



That makes for an interesting statement.



> It seems to me that an Atheist's ONLY personal thought limitation would be that they can't believe/think/imagine "how we got here" is credited to what we have defined as a god.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 7, 2018)

Just to clear up one misconception cropping up here. The big bang theory does not try to explain how the 'singularity' that the universe expanded from came to exist. We simply do not know. All the big bang theory describes is that the observable universe dispersed from a central point, similar to how you could observe that shrapnel flying in all directions originated from a single point such as a grenade.



> "In in a lecture on the no-boundary proposal, Hawking wrote: "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."
> 
> source: https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 13, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> As surely as an atheist 'knows' there is no god,



 There are no honest Atheists. Agnostics? Sure, but not atheists.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 13, 2018)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Just to clear up one misconception cropping up here. The big bang theory does not try to explain how the 'singularity' that the universe expanded from came to exist. We simply do not know. All the big bang theory describes is that the observable universe dispersed from a central point, similar to how you could observe that shrapnel flying in all directions originated from a single point such as a grenade.



Just to clear up a misconception about the supposed clearing of a misconception: The broader story of The Big Bang Theory does in fact attempt to answer that very thing.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious -
> Do you see these 2 things as different or the same? -
> 1. An Atheist knows there is no God.
> 2. An Atheist knows that no god/God has been proven to exist.
> If you think they are different, how?



Please forgive me if I'm intruding, but of course they're different.

1.) Makes an Atheist.
2.) Makes an Agnostic who has a non-scientific appreciation for what "proven" means.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Please forgive me if I'm intruding, but of course they're different.
> 
> 1.) Makes an Atheist.
> 2.) Makes an Agnostic who has a non-scientific appreciation for what "proven" means.


Intrude any time. If nobody intruded we wouldn't have half the discussions that we do 
If an Atheist knows -


> no god/God has been proven to exist.


Isnt it reasonable for him to say he -


> knows there is no God.



Even "might exist or "could exist" = does not exist to our knowledge.
Ive wrestled with this subject a lot in trying to determine if I should label myself as Agnostic or Atheist.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 13, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Just to clear up a misconception about the supposed clearing of a misconception: The broader story of The Big Bang Theory does in fact attempt to answer that very thing.



Have a source for what you mean by that? My understanding is the big bang theory does not make claims about what happened 'before' the big bang, or how such a singularity came to exist.

Sure there is conjecture out there, but the theory does not include anything not supported by the evidence for it.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 13, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Please forgive me if I'm intruding, but of course they're different.
> 
> 1.) Makes an Atheist.
> 2.) Makes an Agnostic who has a non-scientific appreciation for what "proven" means.



You are mistaken on this. Atheism and Agnosticism are ideas on two separate axes.

Atheist - "Personal BELIEF that there are no gods."
Theist - "Personal BELIEF that there are god(s)."

Agnostic - "Can not be 100% certain"
Gnostic - "Can be 100% certain"

Thus I think most atheists would consider themselves agnostic atheists.
Most religious people are Gnostic Theists. Agnostic Theists may be considered spiritual or something similar..

Perhaps others who consider themselves Gnostic Atheists here could explain what that means, but I cannot.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> There are no honest Atheists. Agnostics? Sure, but not atheists.


Anyone can claim and assert anything. If you have any proof to back up what you say now would be a good time to include it.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Intrude any time. If nobody intruded we wouldn't have half the discussions that we do
> If an Atheist knows -
> 
> Isnt it reasonable for him to say he -
> ...



Very good... I will intrude further, then 

Here's how I classify. Tell me if I don't understand.

1.) From my frame of reference, Atheists/agnostics claim a scientific world-view. Some believers do as well but I don't believe that can be done and maintain honesty in one's faith.
2.) Mathematics is a paradigmatic example of a science and nothing is considered "proven" unless decomposed to its smallest components and rigorously tested for all possible parameters. Math is the only science with this level of intelligibility.
3.) A world-view claiming to be scientific would, to my mind, have to undergo the same rigor to form any weight. It's little more than faith otherwise.
The tenant of Atheism seems to be "I _know _there is no God." This is an absolute. Perhaps some have lent evidence enough that they are utterly convinced within themselves to the truth of that statement, but science is not one to deal personally. 2 + 2 = 4 irrespective of one's own persuasions. If something is to be promoted as scientific it should have to follow this same path. God must not exist for all Atheists for invariant reasons between all Atheists. Otherwise, the claim is not scientific and is based on individual faith
All that said, much of science is based on faith anyway, so... carry on, I suppose 



bullethead said:


> Anyone can claim and assert anything. If you have any proof to back up what you say now would be a good time to include it.



See above.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 13, 2018)

MiGGeLLo said:


> You are mistaken on this. Atheism and Agnosticism are ideas on two separate axes.


 Correct. That is what I said.



MiGGeLLo said:


> Atheist - "Personal BELIEF that there are no gods."
> Theist - "Personal BELIEF that there are god(s)."
> 
> Agnostic - "Can not be 100% certain"
> Gnostic - "Can be 100% certain"


No problems here.



MiGGeLLo said:


> Thus I think most atheists would consider themselves agnostic atheists.
> Most religious people are Gnostic Theists. Agnostic Theists may be considered spiritual or something similar..


This seems like unnecessary quibbling in terms. It has no real meaning. Semantics are like that. One either knows or does not. An Agnostic Atheist is nothing more than an agnostic save the cool buzz-word.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 13, 2018)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Have a source for what you mean by that? My understanding is the big bang theory does not make claims about what happened 'before' the big bang, or how such a singularity came to exist.
> 
> Sure there is conjecture out there, but the theory does not include anything not supported by the evidence for it.


Einstein's Field Equations lay the basis for the Post Big Bang stuff. So far as know there is no separate mathematical Theory for The Big Bang but it's a result of other Theories and Observations. A part of those theories include "what was before?", Parallel Universes, and all that jazz.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Very good... I will intrude further, then
> 
> Here's how I classify. Tell me if I don't understand.
> 
> ...





> From my frame of reference, Atheists/agnostics claim a scientific world-view.


I think I agree however its not an Atheist "rule". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That pretty much only leaves science. 
Can an Atheist believe a squash is responsible for creation? Its not a god. Its also not scientific.


> The tenant of Atheism seems to be "I _know _there is no God." This is an absolute.


Name something that in fact exists that hasn't been proven to exist.
Up to this point God, in fact, has not been proven to exist.
If it hasn't been proven to exist, to our knowledge, it doesn't.
Again... could be, might be, its not impossible etc..... still reflect that there isn't right now and makes "I know there isn't" true/factual.


> 2 + 2 = 4 irrespective of one's own persuasions.


Agreed.
Can we agree that to our knowledge something doesn't exist until its been proven to exist irrespective of ones own persuasions?


> If something is to be promoted as scientific it should have to follow this same path.


Again Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. The end. Nothing else promoted. However yes, if an Atheist is going to promote science, the science should follow that path.


> God must not exist for all Atheists for invariant reasons between all Atheists.


No an Atheist must not believe gods(God) exists. God could be proven to exist today and there could still be Atheists tomorrow. They would just be Atheists in denial.


> All that said, much of science is based on faith anyway


Sure in the sense that a scientist may say if I mix this with that, I have faith I will get X. But they don't leave it that. They move forward to prove themselves right or wrong. Once they've done that faith is discarded.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Very good... I will intrude further, then
> 
> Here's how I classify. Tell me if I don't understand.
> 
> ...


The tenets of Atheism is "I do not believe any gods exist, therefore I do not believe in any gods".


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2018)

Bassman, unless you’re talking about someone whose landlord is named Atheism, tenant is not the word you are looking for.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Correct. That is what I said.
> 
> 
> No problems here.
> ...



On the contrary, it is entirely possible to be an agnostic who is not an atheist. The 'Agnostic' bit only clarifies the type of atheist. 'Agnostic' used alone is pretty meaningless outside of some context.

It's kind of like saying "I'm a brown" and meaning "I'm a brown woodpecker". The shortcuts can be useful sure, but if everyone doesn't know that you are a woodpecker from the outset, just saying you are brown doesn't really get the point across.

The moral of the story is: getting a brown woodpecker mixed up with a brown bear because you insist on calling brown things only brown is dangerous to your health.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Bassman, unless you’re talking about someone whose landlord is named Atheism, tenant is not the word you are looking for.



good catch. missed that one. it wont be the last, I'm sure.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think I agree however its not an Atheist "rule". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That pretty much only leaves science.
> Can an Atheist believe a squash is responsible for creation? Its not a god. Its also not scientific.
> 
> Name something that in fact exists that hasn't been proven to exist.
> ...



Time would be an important distinction to make, I think. Of course you can't know more than you now know. That's reasonable, but to say something doesn't exist because you're unfamiliar to it seems a step too far. It affects the subject such that further inquiry is not needed or wanted. That's very different than saying "I don't know." There's an implied "yet."

What causes an electron to maintain its course? What causes and constitutes a memory? What was before the Big Bang? We don't know these things beyond advanced speculation. Would this mean that mechanisms aren't in place for these things? Is our understanding incomplete? Apparently, since we don't know what mechanisms exist (precisely), they don't, yes?

I simply don't understand the idea "I don't know, therefore it doesn't exist." Forgive me. I'm slow.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Time would be an important distinction to make, I think. Of course you can't know more than you now know. That's reasonable, but to say something doesn't exist because you're unfamiliar to it seems a step too far. It affects the subject such that further inquiry is not needed or wanted. That's very different than saying "I don't know." There's an implied "yet."
> 
> What causes an electron to maintain its course? What causes and constitutes a memory? What was before the Big Bang? We don't know these things beyond advanced speculation. Would this mean that mechanisms aren't in place for these things? Is our understanding incomplete? Apparently, since we don't know what mechanisms exist (precisely), they don't, yes?
> 
> I simply don't understand the idea "I don't know, therefore it doesn't exist." Forgive me. I'm slow.


"It's possible" only goes so far also.

Leprechauns,  bigfoot, unicorns, fairys, werewolves,  vampires, flying spaghetti monster, etc etc etc.

Where do you draw the line from exists, possible, improbable, No way??

"I don't know" doesn't mean it does not exist. But, "I don't know" along with all available evidence(or lack of) points to "it is more likely that it does not exist, and I will go with that until new information says differently".


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Time would be an important distinction to make, I think. Of course you can't know more than you now know. That's reasonable, but to say something doesn't exist because you're unfamiliar to it seems a step too far. It affects the subject such that further inquiry is not needed or wanted. That's very different than saying "I don't know." There's an implied "yet."
> 
> What causes an electron to maintain its course? What causes and constitutes a memory? What was before the Big Bang? We don't know these things beyond advanced speculation. Would this mean that mechanisms aren't in place for these things? Is our understanding incomplete? Apparently, since we don't know what mechanisms exist (precisely), they don't, yes?
> 
> I simply don't understand the idea "I don't know, therefore it doesn't exist." Forgive me. I'm slow.






bullethead said:


> "It's possible" only goes so far also.
> 
> Leprechauns,  bigfoot, unicorns, fairys, werewolves,  vampires, flying spaghetti monster, etc etc etc.
> 
> ...



Excellent analysis.  

Perhaps Bassman hasn't heard the explanation in regards to the term Atheist given by Sam Harris.  He isn't a fan of the term atheist.  He thinks it's as useless as a term like "A-unicornist" or "A-werewolfist" or "A-astrologist".  If you ask people if they believe in unicorns they will say no.  They won't say "Well, maybe somewhere in the Universe there are unicorns".  There's no need for a distinction between A-uniciornists and Agnostic Unicornists.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

That Sam....and his making sense nonsense...


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> "It's possible" only goes so far also.
> 
> Leprechauns,  bigfoot, unicorns, fairys, werewolves,  vampires, flying spaghetti monster, etc etc etc.
> 
> ...



If most of the people on the planet say there is a type of Unicorn somewhere, I would be much more inclined to, though I might not believe it's true, stop short of saying "it cannot be so, 'cuz reasons."

Straw-men are good for scaring off crows, but that's about it.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Excellent analysis.
> 
> Perhaps Bassman hasn't heard the explanation in regards to the term Atheist given by Sam Harris.  He isn't a fan of the term atheist.  He thinks it's as useless as a term like "A-unicornist" or "A-werewolfist" or "A-astrologist".  If you ask people if they believe in unicorns they will say no.  They won't say "Well, maybe somewhere in the Universe there are unicorns".  There's no need for a distinction between A-uniciornists and Agnostic Unicornists.



I've read some of Sam's stuff, but not all of it. I question that he made this comparison given its obvious shortcomings.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> If most of the people on the planet say there is a type of Unicorn somewhere, I would be much more inclined to, though I might not believe it's true, stop short of saying "it cannot be so, 'cuz reasons."
> 
> Straw-men are good for scaring off crows, but that's about it.


By that logic you must believe that all the gods that are worshipped by large amounts of people must also exist. In actuality "most" of the people on the planet do not worship Jesus.
What is the number where you leap from maybe to it has got to be true because ______ people believe it?


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> By that logic you must believe that all the gods that are worshipped by large amounts of people must also exist. In actuality "most" of the people on the planet do not worship Jesus.
> What is the number where you leap from maybe to it has got to be true because ______ people believe it?




As I said: Faith claims no logical basis. Atheism/Agnosticism/Whatever does.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> As I said: Faith claims no logical basis. Atheism/Agnosticism/Whatever does.


So you would be more inclined to believe in unicorns because most of the people on the planet say so, but not a god....


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Intrude any time. If nobody intruded we wouldn't have half the discussions that we do
> If an Atheist knows -
> 
> Isnt it reasonable for him to say he -
> ...



anyone who is honest with the definitions of the two would have to come down on the side of being agnostic.  There is no way that anyone can be absolutely sure that God does not exist.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So you would be more inclined to believe in unicorns because most of the people on the planet say so, but not a god....



Would you not? Why so?
I did not bring up the comparison. I agree that it's a poor analogy.

If given that many people in the world say they have had personal experience with unicorns, then I would, at least, not rule it out. I would be agnostic.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> anyone who is honest with the definitions of the two would have to come down on the side of being agnostic.  There is no way that anyone can be absolutely sure that God does not exist.


Or any of the 10,000+ gods. Just no way for anybody...to be sure they all do not exit, right?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Would you not? Why so?
> I did not bring up the comparison. I agree that it's a poor analogy.
> 
> If given that many people in the world say they have had personal experience with unicorns, then I would, at least, not rule it out. I would be agnostic.


I would not for the same reasons that I do not believe the Christians and Muslims,and Jews and Satanists, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Wiccans, and every other religion that claims personal relationships with gods.

I am an agnostic.
I do not know what may or may not be out there. I am as certain as I can possibly be that if there is something it is not anything close to whatever man has made up in these religous books.

Using your rules, since millions, hundreds of millions and over a billion people that are part of different religions that worship others gods have people within those religions that claim they have had personal experiences with those other gods....Do you acknowledge that those other gods must be as legitimate as yours?

If not, Why?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Excellent analysis.
> 
> Perhaps Bassman hasn't heard the explanation in regards to the term Atheist given by Sam Harris.  He isn't a fan of the term atheist.  He thinks it's as useless as a term like "A-unicornist" or "A-werewolfist" or "A-astrologist".  If you ask people if they believe in unicorns they will say no.  They won't say "Well, maybe somewhere in the Universe there are unicorns".  There's no need for a distinction between A-uniciornists and Agnostic Unicornists.



They will say, “Of course there are unicorns. I read about them in the Bible.”


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I would not for the same reasons that I do not believe the Christians and Muslims,and Jews and Satanists, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Wiccans, and every other religion that claims personal relationships with gods.
> 
> I am an agnostic.
> I do not know what may or may not be out there. I am as certsin as I can possibly be that if there is something it is not anything close to whatever man has made up in these religous books.
> ...



No. Strait gates, narrow ways, and all that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> No. Strait gates, narrow ways, and all that.


Forgive me but I do not understand the explanation after "no".
Matthew passage?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Would you not? Why so?
> I did not bring up the comparison. I agree that it's a poor analogy.
> 
> If given that many people in the world say they have had personal experience with unicorns, then I would, at least, not rule it out. I would be agnostic.



What if they made demonstrably false claims about unicorns? Would that perhaps make you question their credibility?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> No. Strait gates, narrow ways, and all that.


Your book says that you can't believe the other books while the other books say that yours is false.

You dismiss all those other gods for the same reasons they dismiss yours.
Some of us take it one god further than you do.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Forgive me but I do not understand the explanation after "no".



I was referring to a bible verse that says few will find the path to life in response to your last paragraph.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Your book says that you can't believe the other books while the other books say that yours is false.
> 
> You dismiss all those other gods for the same reasons they dismiss yours.
> Some of us take it one god further than you do.



That's an understandable thing to say. I agree that the outcome is similar but the methods differ vastly.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> What if they made *possibly* false claims about unicorns? Would that perhaps make you question their credibility?



I _*fixed*_ it for you.  I could question their credibility irrespective of their claims. But, yes. If they said something obviously false like "unicorns can fly" I'd let their opinion some weight in my final judgement. Everyone knows unicorns don't fly.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> I _*fixed*_ it for you.  I could question their credibility irrespective of their claims. But, yes. If they said something obviously false like "unicorns can fly" I'd let their opinion some weight in my final judgement. Everyone knows unicorns don't fly.



Nope. Prayer has been tested in controlled studies and shown it doesn’t work. The Bible says it will. Not that it might. That it will. But it doesn’t.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Nope. Prayer has been tested in controlled studies and shown it doesn’t work. The Bible says it will. Not that it might. That it will. But it doesn’t.



There are stipulations to it; conditions. It may or may not work depending on how one meets them. It's up to the Prayee.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> There are stipulations to it; conditions. It may or may not work depending on how one meets them. It's up to the Prayee.



Source? Scripture? Can you demonstrate on a consistent basis that prayer to Yahweh is any more effective than prayer to a milk jug?


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Source? Scripture? Can you demonstrate on a consistent basis that prayer to Yahweh is any more effective than prayer to a milk jug?



Regarding iniquity in the heart removes one from praying ground. There's also the whole thing of "nevertheless, Thy will be done"; usually not an issue since things converge as they rise to meet at a single point. These are both scriptural but I don't remember their exact address. A Google search should turn them up in short order.

So far as empirical evidence, I have none except my own experience and that of friends and family. Percentages are not needed or appropriate.


EDIT: There's also the idea of actually believing what you ask of God will come to pass.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Regarding iniquity in the heart removes one from praying ground. There's also the whole thing of "nevertheless, Thy will be done"; usually not an issue since things converge as they rise to meet at a single point. These are both scriptural but I don't remember their exact address. A Google search should turn them up in short order.
> 
> So far as empirical evidence, I have none except my own experience and that of friends and family. Percentages are not needed or appropriate.



Ah but they are. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice for claims which are so testable. The Bible assures us that prayer in his name will be effective. If that is true it should be easy to demonstrate. Why should a believer shy away from that?


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Ah but they are. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice for claims which are so testable. The Bible assures us that prayer in his name will be effective. If that is true it should be easy to demonstrate. Why should a believer shy away from that?



I don't see anyone, myself included, shying away from the consistency of prayer. I have full confidence that, given someone who meets all criteria without failure, all things asked of God would come to pass. This is a certainty.

Find a perfect person and test to your heart's content.  God will be found faithful.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> I don't see anyone, myself included, shying away from the consistency of prayer. I have full confidence that, given someone who meets all criteria without failure, all things asked of God would come to pass. This is a certainty.
> 
> Find a perfect person and test to your heart's content.  God will be found faithful.



It only works for perfect people? What scripture did you get that from? Doesn’t say that in these.

*Matthew 21:22 New International Version (NIV)*
22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

*Mark 11:24 New International Version (NIV)*
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

That’s a very convenient out. Since there are no perfect people it’s a pointless claim. To the extent that it has any effectiveness at all it would be demonstrable. But it’s not.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

Also step back for a second and look at the implications of what you just said. If someone prays for a child with cancer and they have dotted every i and crossed every t then god will intervene on behalf of the child. If they haven’t then he will refuse to help the child and allow it to continue in illness. Believe that if you wish but why anyone would want to worship such a monster is beyond me.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> It only works for perfect people? What scripture did you get that from? Doesn’t say that in these.
> 
> *Matthew 21:22 New International Version (NIV)*
> 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
> ...



Straw men belong in a field. 

Never said one had to be perfect to get a prayer answered. It wouldn't hurt, though.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Also step back for a second and look at the implications of what you just said. If someone prays for a child with cancer and they have dotted every i and crossed every t then god will intervene on behalf of the child. If they haven’t then he will refuse to help the child and allow it to continue in illness. Believe that if you wish but why anyone would want to worship such a monster is beyond me.



This would not happen. There's a difference in not answering a properly structured prayer and not answering the want that precipitated it in the first place.

Jesus wanted the cup to pass, _were it possible_. It wasn't, thankfully.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> Straw men belong in a field.
> 
> Never said one had to be perfect to get a prayer answered. It wouldn't hurt, though.



Then why did you suggest I find a perfect person? Those are your words. Look this is really simple. Prayer either changes the probability of outcomes in a verifiable ie measurable way or it doesn’t. All these contingencies are on the believer to deal with. If someone says their lucky rabbits foot works and it fails when put to the test I’m really not interested in the excuses. Get back to me when you’ve got a claim that isn’t falsified when tested.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> This would not happen. There's a difference in not answering a properly structured prayer and not answering the want that precipitated it in the first place.
> 
> Jesus wanted the cup to pass, _were it possible_. It wasn't, thankfully.



Happens all the time actually.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Then why did you suggest I find a perfect person? Those are your words. Look this is really simple. Prayer either changes the probability of outcomes in a verifiable ie measurable way or it doesn’t. All these contingencies are on the believer to deal with. If someone says their lucky rabbits foot works and it fails when put to the test I’m really not interested in the excuses. Get back to me when you’ve got a claim that isn’t falsified when tested.



I responded to your idea of measuring the effectiveness of prayer. For that, you'd need a perfect person if you wanted to trust the outcome of the experiments to anything more than chance. Who can know the heart? Not you or I.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Happens all the time actually.


 I am sorry for your loss. Truly, I am.
(Forgive me if I've misinterpreted)


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> I responded to your idea of measuring the effectiveness of prayer. For that, you'd need a perfect person if you wanted to trust the outcome of the experiments to anything more than chance. Who can know the heart? Not you or I.



Nope. Let’s say someone less than perfect gets it right only 10 or 20 percent of the time. That would show up in the results. Doesn’t have to be supernatural intervention 100% of the time to be statistically significant. And the Bible verses I quoted don’t say what you ask in his name believing may or may not be done on occasion and so on like some lawyers disclaimer. It says it WILL be done. Period. So right off we know those are false. Demonstrably false.

What is your success rate with prayer? Is it any better than what one could expect from praying to Odin? If it is can you demonstrate it?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> I am sorry for your loss. Truly, I am.
> (Forgive me if I've misinterpreted)



Why did you say it if you know it not to be true? You’re aware people of all ages die of cancer all the time in spite of the literally millions of prayers said on their behalf. You believe in a god who is aware of this but does not heal them yes? You believe if the right propitiations were made on their behalf he would answer the prayer and heal them?

This is what is frustrating about believers or at least people who claim to believe. They aren’t shocked when their claims don’t hold true. They know perfectly well that the claims don’t hold true. But they will look for any way they can to deny it. I believe when I walk out my front door that gravity is going to keep my feet on the ground. If that belief proved wrong and I lifted off the ground like Superman I would be completely shocked by that. It would certainly have me seeking answers as to why it didn’t work. And I wouldn’t have any problem demonstrating to someone gravity works. I know I can count on it. Christians know they can’t count on prayer like that but they will swear on a stack of bibles they can.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Nope. Let’s say someone less than perfect gets it right only 10 or 20 percent of the time. *That would show up in the results.* Doesn’t have to be supernatural intervention 100% of the time to be statistically significant. And the Bible verses I quoted don’t say what you ask in his name believing may or may not be done on occasion and so on like some lawyers disclaimer. It says it WILL be done. Period. So right off we know those are false. Demonstrably false.
> 
> What is your success rate with prayer? Is it any better than what one could expect from praying to Odin? If it is can you demonstrate it?



*No*. That a percentage would show in results is obvious, but it's impossible to say what the percentage is for. There's no guarantee that the times the prayer was "answered" wasn't a fluke. You cannot say anything significant about experimental result without knowing the variables in play and their values. This is not knowable.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Why did you say it if you know it not to be true? You’re aware people of all ages die of cancer all the time in spite of the literally millions of prayers said on their behalf. You believe in a god who is aware of this but does not heal them yes? You believe if the right propitiations were made on their behalf he would answer the prayer and heal them?
> 
> This is what is frustrating about believers or at least people who claim to believe. They aren’t shocked when their claims don’t hold true. They know perfectly well that the claims don’t hold true. But they will look for any way they can to deny it. I believe when I walk out my front door that gravity is going to keep my feet on the ground. If that belief proved wrong and I lifted off the ground like Superman I would be completely shocked by that. It would certainly have me seeking answers as to why it didn’t work. And I wouldn’t have any problem demonstrating to someone gravity works. I know I can count on it. Christians know they can’t count on prayer like that but they will swear on a stack of bibles they can.


 
I did not say it was not true. It is. I only said I was moved by your loss, were that behind your post.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> *No*. That a percentage would show in results is obvious, but it's impossible to say what the percentage is for. There's no guarantee that the times the prayer was "answered wasn't a fluke." You cannot say anything significant about experimental result without knowing the variables in play and their values. This is not knowable.



That’s why you repeat the experiment. We aren’t talking about a one time test here. The more reliable the results the more confidence we can have in them. If prayer to Zeus yielded zero difference in probability from no prayer but prayer to Yahweh consistently gave 20% better results then that would be significant.

So again... what is your success rate with prayer? Is it discernibly any better than prayer to a milk jug? Can you demonstrate that it is? Not one off anecdotes counting the hits and ignoring the misses but repeatable measurable results.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> I did not say it was not true. It is. I only said I was moved by your loss, were that behind your post.



You said it would not happen. But you know it does because people pray for sick loved ones in vain all the time. So it does happen. If they don’t get answered because they weren’t doing it right then that proves my point. Why would you worship something like that?


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> That’s why you repeat the experiment. We aren’t talking about a one time test here. The more reliable the results the more confidence we can have in them. If prayer to Zeus yielded zero difference in probability from no prayer but prayer to Yahweh consistently gave 20% better results then *that would be significant*_*.*_


*Would it?* How many tests? With how many different people? What constraints?



atlashunter said:


> So again... what is your success rate with prayer? Is it discernibly any better than prayer to a milk jug? Can you demonstrate that it is? Not one off anecdotes counting the hits and ignoring the misses but repeatable measurable results.



35.245% +/- 0.093 furlongs.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> *Would it?* How many tests? With how many different people? What constraints?
> 
> 
> 
> 35.245% +/- 0.093 furlongs.



The more the better.

Something like this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16569567/

When believers are shown a study like this they aren’t surprised. They don’t say how to actually get better prayer results and ask to run the test again. They have no interest in seeing tests like this. That’s say it all really. Anyone that genuinely believed prayer worked would be surprised by this study. They would want it run again. They would be trying to figure out why it didn’t go as expected. Not Christians. Because they know you can’t count on prayer. Not really. When they get sick they are going to the doctor for some good old man made healthcare. They will say a prayer just for good measure because after all it doesn’t cost them anything. But they sure won’t bet their well being or their life on it.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The more the better.
> 
> Something like this.
> 
> ...



So basically proving everything I've been saying. very good.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> So basically proving everything I've been saying. very good.



If you’ve been saying prayer doesn’t work, then yes.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 14, 2018)

BassMan31 said:


> I've read some of Sam's stuff, but not all of it. I question that he made this comparison given its obvious shortcomings.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 15, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> If you’ve been saying prayer doesn’t work, then yes.



My position is that it generally should not be expected to work.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I'll watch the rest later but the first 2 minutes had enough logical fallacies to give me an idea of how the rest will go. Sam has good points on some things. This is not one of those things. It is clearly a world-view to approach life without racist ideology. It is clearly a world-view to approach things from the perspective of critic. It is obvious that many people, Sam included, have had to identify themselves as "Non-racists" given the present climate. Everything is rhetoric.

The argument that atheism isn't an "ideology" or "world-view" stems from the patently false claim that humans are trained to be religious and atheism simply removes that indoctrination leaving only "truth." It assumes itself the only source of clarity in a world of mist. This is not necessarily bad. Everyone should stand for something, but let's not delude the subject by claiming this is not true.


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2018)

I saw recently that Sam had written a book "Waking Up"...a _guide_ to spirituality without religion.

I wondered if the pull of being a high priest also came to be too much for him. 

Lotsa messiah's around...can't tell the players without a scorecard.


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2018)

Praying ...  "to see whether it will work" ...

Praying because there is "nothing left...to do..."

Praying...because you have been convinced the only intercourse of necessity is also the _only_ intercourse of consequence.

All praying...and none despised.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Or any of the 10,000+ gods. Just no way for anybody...to be sure they all do not exit, right?


We don’t have to know that they don’t exist by believing that they don’t. Where is the logic in “I can’t find it = it doesn’t exist” . It only means you can’t find it. 

Even if you don’t find it 500 times out of 500 times, you can still only believe it doesn’t exist. You and 5,000 more can try 10,000 more times and not find it, it still only means you didn’t find it. If you’re going to use most likely, then more people found it then not. And you can still believe it doesn’t exist.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 15, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The more the better.
> 
> Something like this.
> 
> ...


Because it’s in vain. We’ve went down this road with that study. So you think you can get a group of of volunteers to go out with a mission to prove God? People you know nothing about other than “they say they’re”

Go get all of the scriptures concerning getting prayers answered and then revisit and prove every praying person aligns with it. 

I will Help you get started, 1 Peter 3:7


----------



## Israel (Jun 16, 2018)

Prayer is not a mechanism. Prayer is what actually delivers the machine from its _mechanics._ Its mechanical ways, its mechanical responses, its mechanical view.

Prayer through Christ can never have a quantitative measure...for it is all qualitative.

This cannot be explained to what believes itself to be _only_ a machine.

We understand such knowing of the reality of spiritual truth, specifically how that what has been made the very weakest of all functions of man, his words, (through lies) can be made "mighty through God" to an ordained purpose.

This is far more than mere amplification, although it does bear some similitude. But neither is God a machine, nor a "_thing_" into which if proper form is presented, a measurable or certifiable result is achieved by His manufacture.

When one approaches God...in anything, thoughts, meditations...uttered prayer, one is in exchange and intercourse with (for want of a better term) _the _person, of all _personhood._

_How a man is tried there!_

He discovers what he believes...about persons, about personhood (if you will), about relationship and intercourse (in _all_ approach) as he seeks this stepping into light by steps. If he endures (as Christ was/is always single to encourage) he is appointed to learning.

Yet, even if he folds (as _is_ so much of experience) he may find God is not willing to abandon him in, and to his own apparent failure. This, is grace. God is ever teaching through Christ the way of Christ, even through man's failing.

God's full success in and through Christ is completely above and beyond man's shortcomings and ability to diminish. God endures, man flags. Patience is a gift of Christ, as is His endurance. And just as these are discussed as _things of, and by definition, _their true meaning is only seen in Christ, understood in Christ.

God_ is _patient. This is found completely vexing to what does not yet see Him as He is, and is only slightly less so, to even what may. So even (specifically) the disciple is told by reminder and directly to consider this very patience of God...as salvation itself. God is patient in his forming of man "true to himself" and no less then, likewise, true to Himself.

Man is forever seeking to "hang" Christ by His own word, taking as it were "a part" to condemn the whole. But Christ is all, and cannot be divided, even though He suffer it for a time...and that, in great patience. The Sanhedrin are _always_ calling their councils together, muttering in the gallery, stepping up to find one thing of condemnation with which to point, never knowing it is all _their own hope _they are seeking to put to death.

They strive at, and to, that singleness of offense, that "one part" of the meal served that is so offensive to their (imagined) refined taste, that little do they know they have now placed themselves as _rejecters _of the whole of the feast. And it may well be all, taken from them.

Yet, even hunger, when allowed its perfect work to such a _direness _not previously imaginable, can have salubrious result. Man can be, and will be reduced...to true heart's cry.

For this is where God lives, from the heart in all things, in all matters; never frivolous, never flattering nor cajoling, never double tongued...even bearing _patiently_ the accusation that He is so.

Man has, does, and may yet often say "God does not mean what He says"...until such a man may learn...no...it is the gift of Christ that has helped me see where that fault has always lain, and that such_ projection of accusation_ (projection of sin) is the result of that thing that, in truth, cannot bear its true knowing of place.

Satan has sought a seat, he could not have it in Heaven, so he took it...in man. The accuser. But as he could no more bear the light of Heaven, he can no more bear its same light...in man. He has no longer, _any place_ of reign manifest to him by this same light that drives him to torment.

The wrestling a man may experience "in prayer" is a good and Godly exercise; for in that calling for mercy, and help,  there is one who knows such does not come apart from the call for the very fire and light of God of which, and in which, he cannot stay seated. And so He rises in fury. To discover his seat...taken. And so may man. Discover ..."this seat is taken". And, it is never without the greatest of joy.

So...men are told..."pray without ceasing" for in this is manifest that unseating...and a man may be true...to his very core. This we learn...in degrees. But Jesus walked there, walks there, without contradiction in Himself and as one who remained totally unfit to an occupation by anything less than all of light...and fire.

And Satan, who has used the very strongest of the things "given man"...Word...(by which man gives himself "out" into the world, and no less to God) and turned them to a corruption_ through lies_ to such an appalling and all but unrecognizable _now weakness, finds _that by Word itself his own unseating is made complete. Yet...for whatever time allowed, in God's patience, he (that evil one) is allowed to appear in his usurper role_ to a purpose. _And that is his manifest defeat to be made known among men through God's Christ, Jesus the Messiah.

Satan knows how to use pressure. He knows how pressure can get a man to distance himself, from himself and all that would be of help to him there...if he can get him to utter _the lie. Inject_ that dissonance. Cause that fissure between man and his spirit, which is God's. That gulf, of guilt.
He surely tried it with Jesus. To his manifest defeat.

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

I know your works, and where you dwell, even where Satan's seat is: and you hold fast my name, and have not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwells.

So do not throw away your confidence; it holds a great reward. You need to persevere, so that after you have done God’s will, you will receive what He has promised...

And while I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.

This thing made to be of almost all of weakness, a man's word, in this world where they are so cheaply bought and sold, must be redirected.

and not according as we expected, but themselves _they did give first_ to the Lord, and to us, through the will of God...

Who is giving what, and to Whom...first, is being made clear.

Pray for your enemies...

Jesus did.

Forgive them Father, they know not what they do. (No bitterness of vinegar/whine there!_ Pure_ wine!)

And _through_ God...Jesus is given many friends.

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Because it’s in vain. We’ve went down this road with that study. So you think you can get a group of of volunteers to go out with a mission to prove God? People you know nothing about other than “they say they’re”
> 
> Go get all of the scriptures concerning getting prayers answered and then revisit and prove every praying person aligns with it.
> 
> I will Help you get started, 1 Peter 3:7



You guys make it sound nearly impossible to find a Christian that can do it right (whatever that entails) well enough to get results. Yet there is no shortage of Christians who pray and claim it works for them. How do you explain that disparity?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

Israel said:


> Prayer through Christ can never have a quantitative measure


Bingo!


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Bingo!



The only way that can be true is if prayer is as ineffective as I have been saying. If it really does change physical outcomes for people as in healing that can be quantitatively measured.


----------



## Israel (Jun 16, 2018)

Praying is what one man may see, and/or show to another.

Prayer though, is made for no man's beholding.

It is not made to please man nor for display to man.

Men who, even in themselves, know when they are being grandstanded, may yet imagine God is less sensate than themselves. This is, in all, foolishness. And a fool may be answered...according to his folly.

But even a fool, may be reproved and rebuked into a wholesomeness.

When entering into intercourse with the Knower of all, a man may have his own cleverness exposed, his hiding places showered with light...and come out...into light.

Jesus prayed for a man very given to a grandiose view of himself, such a boaster he thought himself better than his brothers in devotion, endurance, and faithfulness...to even boasting "I will go to prison and die for you...even if they will not"...such a man had no right understanding of truth, at all, nor even of how his own exceeding weakness was made manifestly plain in such self appraisal, and boast. Jesus went into all that darkness in that man, all that unseeing and blindness, (where isolation is the only thing invited) and there, through prayer and His deliverance of light into that very darkest of places, where Satan demanded (_by right_) right to sift him as wheat...rescued him. That his faith not fail...through Jesus' prayer for him.
I am that man.

Hear something.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walks through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none.
Then he said, I will return into my house from where I came out; and when he is come, he finds it empty, swept, and garnished.
Then goes he, and takes with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

I had to learn of what a wicked generation I am of. My boast of cleanliness, of purity, my grandstanding as a lover of truth...showed only one thing, _played to only one thing, _an invitation.

I cannot boast of my faith...but only of His faithfulness in all things.

Someone _did precisely _as He has said. "I _will show you_ whom you should fear..."

Yes, I once feared...how I appeared...even to myself. So lies were easier.

"Knowing the terror of the Lord" a far wiser brother said, "we persuade men".


Men say and exhort one another to what resists them with "give 'em he11"

God forbid.

I have done that.
How much yet remains worthy of rebuke, _I do not know_.
But I trust I will, even as I am known.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You guys make it sound nearly impossible to find a Christian that can do it right (whatever that entails) well enough to get results. Yet there is no shortage of Christians who pray and claim it works for them. How do you explain that disparity?


All I’m saying is that to have an effective survey, you have to establish certain elements. This survey didn’t do that, or at least didn’t provide that information. While they can say that prayer doesn’t work, they have no way to evaluate and validate their results. 

Instead of meeting with a percentage of different church leaders to establish what is commonly believed across the board concerning faith healing and prayer hindering, and then ensuring that those volunteers fell somewhere within that, they asked for volunteers just assigned the groups themselves. 

If they wanted to be effective, they would have used one group that had the highest percentage of those that were the most certain that faith healing works to pray for a group that the highest percentage of those are certain it works.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The only way that can be true is if prayer is as ineffective as I have been saying. If it really does change physical outcomes for people as in healing that can be quantitatively measured.


No because all doctors can say is they have no medical explanation. Do you really believe that if 75% of those in that survey recovered that science would agree that God healed them? Or would they continue to say that the body heals itself? That’s why the survey is in vain.


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> All I’m saying is that to have an effective survey, you have to establish certain elements. This survey didn’t do that, or at least didn’t provide that information. While they can say that prayer doesn’t work, they have no way to evaluate and validate their results.
> 
> Instead of meeting with a percentage of different church leaders to establish what is commonly believed across the board concerning faith healing and prayer hindering, and then ensuring that those volunteers fell somewhere within that, they asked for volunteers just assigned the groups themselves.
> 
> If they wanted to be effective, they would have used one group that had the highest percentage of those that were the most certain that faith healing works to pray for a group that the highest percentage of those are certain it works.



I read the synopsis of that survey and laughed several times. That anyone would consider that a "well structured" experiment is not thinking clearly.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> All I’m saying is that to have an effective survey, you have to establish certain elements. This survey didn’t do that, or at least didn’t provide that information. While they can say that prayer doesn’t work, they have no way to evaluate and validate their results.
> 
> Instead of meeting with a percentage of different church leaders to establish what is commonly believed across the board concerning faith healing and prayer hindering, and then ensuring that those volunteers fell somewhere within that, they asked for volunteers just assigned the groups themselves.
> 
> If they wanted to be effective, they would have used one group that had the highest percentage of those that were the most certain that faith healing works to pray for a group that the highest percentage of those are certain it works.



What exactly does the percentage have to do with it? Are you saying if multiple people are praying for the same thing that if even one of them are doing it wrong and the rest are doing it right that it won’t work? Or if just one of them is doing it right it will work? What does the Bible say on the matter? It assures us that prayer works.

And I’ll repeat the question that you ignored. Why is it so hard to find Christians whose prayers are effective if so many pray and claim they are effective?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> No because all doctors can say is they have no medical explanation. Do you really believe that if 75% of those in that survey recovered that science would agree that God healed them? Or would they continue to say that the body heals itself? That’s why the survey is in vain.



No medical explanation is needed. You’re still not getting it. If prayer improves outcomes for people then it would change probabilities and that is measurable. If people who were prayed for had let’s say a 50% higher cancer survival rate that would be a quantifiable difference. No explanation would be necessary to prove that it worked. We would be able to see that it did even if we couldn’t explain how or why. Are there different actuarial tables for Christians than for everyone else?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> No medical explanation is needed. You’re still not getting it. If prayer improves outcomes for people then it would change probabilities and that is measurable. If people who were prayed for had let’s say a 50% higher cancer survival rate that would be a quantifiable difference. No explanation would be necessary to prove that it worked. We would be able to see that it did even if we couldn’t explain how or why. Are there different actuarial tables for Christians than for everyone else?


I’ve given you my experience with my back surgery being canceled only to have you say where’s the medical proof and provide me with info on how the body heals itself. So no “medical explanation needed” is hog wash. You’ve been given countless scenarios where improvements are made. The fact of not having to do surgery is proof that an improvement happened.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve given you my experience with my back surgery being canceled only to have you say where’s the medical proof and provide me with info on how the body heals itself. So no “medical explanation needed” is hog wash. You’ve been given countless scenarios where improvements are made. The fact of not having to do surgery is proof that an improvement happened.


And how is prayer getting the credit?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And how is prayer getting the credit?


How would prayer get credit in the survey that atlas provided?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> What exactly does the percentage have to do with it? Are you saying if multiple people are praying for the same thing that if even one of them are doing it wrong and the rest are doing it right that it won’t work? Or if just one of them is doing it right it will work? What does the Bible say on the matter? It assures us that prayer works.
> 
> And I’ll repeat the question that you ignored. Why is it so hard to find Christians whose prayers are effective if so many pray and claim they are effective?


The percentage doesn’t matter, it only applies to your survey.  Your survey cant be evaluated for effectiveness.  You’ll reject just one or several instances here where a doctor had confirmed one thing and after prayer the diagnosis has changed.  so the percentage is only important to you. How many do you need? Or do you just the doctor to witness the prayer ? 

It’s not hard to find them. Which ones of the survey were they?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> If prayer improves outcomes for people then it would change probabilities and that is measurable. If people who were prayed for had let’s say a 50% higher cancer survival rate that would be a quantifiable difference. No explanation would be necessary to prove that it worked.


https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal


----------



## Israel (Jun 17, 2018)

All religion stops,_ is stopped,_ at the cross.

Its effects upon religion are irremediable. Religions can neither "get around it", nor pass through it. Its work, perfect to it. Suited...to it. Only men can receive _this gift_.

Man naked and hung up, nothing to adorn, no work capable of being done. Nothing "to show" _of himself _different...in any way...nothing to give out but words.

And words will come out...words do come out, words...must come out. Words of reviling, words of displeasure and complaint, words of self pity, words of cursing...or, from One...words of mercy.

Two thieves hang. Both, thieves. _Always and only,_ thieves hang beside Jesus the Messiah.
(Brothers may understand _this_:
All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but_ the sheep_ did not hear them.)
Only brothers of our Lord, see both a sheep and a robber have dwelt in the same house. Even how that "the robber" puts himself before the Lord.

What sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ, what _is made_ to perceive the righteousness of Jesus Christ, what hears...the righteousness of Jesus Christ, is all of sheep-ness. What disputes, what finds place for reviling (and _enjoys_ the squirming) is of something else. But brothers of the Lord know, even that "something else" can be driven from the house.

Some say "I was once a believer, I was once a christian...I was once...the Lord's brother" Then, if reviling comes forth now toward Him, know you are only liar and traitor, denying in word you have known Him.

But again...even (specifically) brothers _know the trial of the cross _and have themselves _found mercy_ toward a thing that found it cannot bear it. The swiftest, and surest death, already accomplished on their behalf...in mercy.
(Even traitors cannot be denied, though _they make for themselves_ a _very_ hard way)

Some have played at religion. And playing at religion believe "I was, as you now are", and there is no thing to dissuade from this...the man who thinks he holds the sum of another man...in his own eye. All men are weighed and accounted for in One's eyes, only. And _they are a flame of fire._

Play before them if you must, but each _is being seen._

_Have a care. _Sober up. All men have a gift. Glory in it. The cross is each mans to embrace, and no mans to impose.

God has removed the shame of balking at it; but_ you will know_, all thieves _will know_...only One took it up..._just to keep the thief there_...company. As brother.

And any thief may see, at any time, may _sober up_ to see "this I deserve, this I have earned, but He...not" And be changed. This is God's work, alone.

And that sheep learns it is _not good_ to be alone.

And what was once earned and deserved as thief...has been changed also, _to gift. To sheep._

And through its embrace, receive_ freely all _he could never make himself to deserve_._

_Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him outside the camp, bearing his reproach. _

This is where the congregation meets. It cannot, will not, nor ever be seen by what remains _inside the city as _acceptable identification of the church.

Yet God, in His wisdom, as He sent His son into the religious city, still sends sons...but there they dwell as outsiders. Nothing of this world..._knows them._


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve given you my experience with my back surgery being canceled only to have you say where’s the medical proof and provide me with info on how the body heals itself. So no “medical explanation needed” is hog wash. You’ve been given countless scenarios where improvements are made. The fact of not having to do surgery is proof that an improvement happened.



Fine. God healed your back. If that is true and if the other claims of prayer working are true then like I said before, it will show up in the data. I don’t need an explanation of how your back was healed. Show me the scans before and after that show you had a proper diagnosis and an actual healing event occurred. Add your case to the others who were part of the controlled study. Show me the data.

 Medical explanations of how the healing occurred are not needed. We know that people don’t regrow amputated limbs. If we have a prayer study for people with amputated limbs and a handful of people prayed for regrow their limbs and none of the people do who weren’t prayed for them that indicates prayer worked at least in some percentage of cases. If that experiment and the results are repeatable the you’ve really got something. Is there a medical explanation? Nope! No doubt one will be sought but insofar as prayer is concerned the results would speak for themselves. Why is it Christians aren’t out healing amputees? Jesus did and scripture says believers can do the same works he did and even greater ones.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal



I think prayer studies are great and more should be done including ones that evaluate any differences in outcomes for different religions.

Did you look up the results of the second phase of that Mantra study?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I think prayer studies are great and more should be done including ones that evaluate any differences in outcomes for different religions.
> 
> Did you look up the results of the second phase of that Mantra study?


Not yet. There’s multiple with results swinging either direction. You and I both can find tons of related articles for prayer failing and prayer helping. I guess what I’m getting at is how many is needed from either?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I think prayer studies are great and more should be done including ones that evaluate any differences in outcomes for different religions.



I think it would be interesting to do a prayer study involving 5000 Christians diagnosed with aggressive types of cancer. 

2500 would get medical treatments at the best cancer hospitals, and no prayer. 

The other 2500 would get prayer only, and no medical care whatsoever. 

Participation would be voluntary of course. 


*


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Not yet. There’s multiple with results swinging either direction. You and I both can find tons of related articles for prayer failing and prayer helping. I guess what I’m getting at is how many is needed from either?



Not yet? That study was completed over a decade ago. Guess what it found?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Not yet? That study was completed over a decade ago. Guess what it found?


Most likely.........something that 5 other studies can find that opposes that. That’s why I said it’s a circle. You were willing to believe those that said they studied a group without medical explanation. Why is it so hard to accept any that had a diagnosis and contributed prayer to the diagnosis change, without a medical explanation?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Most likely.........something that 5 other studies can find that opposes that. That’s why I said it’s a circle. You were willing to believe those that said they studied a group without medical explanation. Why is it so hard to accept any that had a diagnosis and contributed prayer to the diagnosis change, without a medical explanation?


Because people all over the world in various religions will tell you that they had prayers answered.
They all attribute the answered prayer to a different god.
How do you break down which God answered what?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Because people all over the world in various religions will tell you that they had prayers answered.
> They all attribute the answered prayer to a different god.
> How do you break down which God answered what?



First you have to determine if you would accept prayer as the answer without a medical explanation. it does or doesn’t work without a medical explanation.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> First you have to determine if you would accept prayer as the answer without a medical explanation. it does or doesn’t work without a medical explanation.


For the sake of conversation skip to "second" and tell me why so many gods answer prayers and who those gods are.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Most likely.........something that 5 other studies can find that opposes that. That’s why I said it’s a circle. You were willing to believe those that said they studied a group without medical explanation. Why is it so hard to accept any that had a diagnosis and contributed prayer to the diagnosis change, without a medical explanation?



You have yet to show me any that met that criteria. You just posted one talking about the Mantra study but you apparently were too lazy to look up the actual results of that study. It showed prayer had no impact on outcomes. The Harvard STEP study actually showed a slightly negative impact on those heart surgery patients that knew they were being prayed for. Possibly just an anomaly or maybe knowing they were being prayed for placed additional stress on them.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Fine. God healed your back. If that is true and if the other claims of prayer working are true then like I said before, it will show up in the data. I don’t need an explanation of how your back was healed. Show me the scans before and after that show you had a proper diagnosis and an actual healing event occurred. Add your case to the others who were part of the controlled study. Show me the data.
> 
> Medical explanations of how the healing occurred are not needed. We know that people don’t regrow amputated limbs. If we have a prayer study for people with amputated limbs and a handful of people prayed for regrow their limbs and none of the people do who weren’t prayed for them that indicates prayer worked at least in some percentage of cases. If that experiment and the results are repeatable the you’ve really got something. Is there a medical explanation? Nope! No doubt one will be sought but insofar as prayer is concerned the results would speak for themselves. Why is it Christians aren’t out healing amputees? Jesus did and scripture says believers can do the same works he did and even greater ones.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> if the other claims of prayer working are true then like I said before, I don’t need an explanation of how your back was healed. Show me the scans before and after that show you had a proper diagnosis .



That was my point in regard to your "go to experiment". It lacks certain elements to be a "proof" of anything..............

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16569567/


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You have yet to show me any that met that criteria. You just posted one talking about the Mantra study but you apparently were too lazy to look up the actual results of that study. It showed prayer had no impact on outcomes. The Harvard STEP study actually showed a slightly negative impact on those heart surgery patients that knew they were being prayed for. Possibly just an anomaly or maybe knowing they were being prayed for placed additional stress on them.



Below is the only material that was the intent of the link. We can bat this around all day and it does not prove anything. You can`t reasonably expect anyone to believe the results from an experiment that is based on religious beliefs that is conducted by people that have no understanding of faith. If these folks want a real survey, their first step is to poll church leaders to find out everything they can about prayer and hindering prayers and get an understanding of it.     

_"These studies show that religious people tend to live healthier lives. "They're less likely to smoke, to drink, to drink and drive," he says. In fact, people who pray tend to get sick less often, as separate studies conducted at Duke, Dartmouth, and Yale universities show._

_Some statistics from these studies:

- Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.

- Heart patients were 14 times more likely to die following surgery if they did not participate in a religion.

- Elderly people who never or rarely attended church had a stroke rate double that of people who attended regularly.

- In Israel, religious people had a 40% lower death rate from cardiovascular disease and cancer."_


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> For the sake of conversation skip to "second" and tell me why so many gods answer prayers and who those gods are.


 You asked the question below. Skip to "home plate" and for each participant in that experiment, tell us which one failed to answer.

"_How do you break down which God answered what?_


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You asked the question below. Skip to "home plate" and for each participant in that experiment, tell us which one failed to answer.
> 
> "_How do you break down which God answered what?_


I get it,you have no answers just claims.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I get it,you have no answers just claims.


 Don’t we all. You seem to think I know or consider every god out there because I believe in one. If you want to consider any, or all the rest that’s your challenge on figuring out which one to give credit to. 

It’s just ironic that there’s only one that you focus on disproving. The rest never seem to be a concern for you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Don’t we all. You seem to think I know or consider every god out there because I believe in one. If you want to consider any, or all the rest that’s your challenge on figuring out which one to give credit to.
> 
> It’s just ironic that there’s only one that you focus on disproving. The rest never seem to be a concern for you.


Again, 90th time.
I was once a Christian. The majority of believers in these forums are Christians.
What God do you think gets the most air time in here?
I am looking for certain information that I may have overlooked. Where would you expect me to go?

I can guarantee that anyone who believes in another diety and who would come in here and make the same claims about that diety , would be met with more fire and brimstone from the Christians than from the non believers.
"You" do it to believers that worship the very same god as you.
Christians are forbidden from discussing the Bible in one forum because of the bickering!!!!

This IS a forum for.
Atheists, Agnostics, and Apologists.

I am in the right place.  Are you?


----------



## redwards (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Again, 90th time.
> I was once a Christian. The majority of believers in these forums are Christians.
> What God do you think gets the most air time in here?
> I am looking for certain information that I may have overlooked. Where would you expect me to go?
> ...



Key word being ...
a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
_noun_
plural noun: *apologists*

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic *apologist for* fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms:defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; 
_informal_cheerleader

By definition...maybe he is...


----------



## Israel (Jun 17, 2018)

redwards said:


> Key word being ...
> a·pol·o·gist
> əˈpäləjəst/
> _noun_
> ...


That's really funny...cause when I first read informalcheerleader, I read it as "Infomercialcheerleader" and I thought instantly of Ron Popeil...


----------



## redwards (Jun 17, 2018)

> I was once a Christian.


And this is for free as well...
Ain't no such thing as..."was once a Christian"...if the Holy Spirit gave your inner spirit life, then brother, you have life, and life eternal....and,
I ain't getting into it now because my wife and I are packing to go see our great-grandkids...


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That was my point in regard to your "go to experiment". It lacks certain elements to be a "proof" of anything..............
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16569567/



???

Proof of what exactly? Miraculous healing that didn’t happen? The prayer patients didn’t fare any better and in one instance fared worse. What do you think needs a medical explanation?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Below is the only material that was the intent of the link. We can bat this around all day and it does not prove anything. You can`t reasonably expect anyone to believe the results from an experiment that is based on religious beliefs that is conducted by people that have no understanding of faith. If these folks want a real survey, their first step is to poll church leaders to find out everything they can about prayer and hindering prayers and get an understanding of it.
> 
> _"These studies show that religious people tend to live healthier lives. "They're less likely to smoke, to drink, to drink and drive," he says. In fact, people who pray tend to get sick less often, as separate studies conducted at Duke, Dartmouth, and Yale universities show._
> 
> ...




That Krucoff fellow who did the study had nice things to say about prayer. Don’t know if he is a believer but you need more than that to dismiss the study.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

redwards said:


> Key word being ...
> a·pol·o·gist
> əˈpäləjəst/
> _noun_
> ...


Exactly, that is why I am here, to get an Apologists take on things. That is what this forum is all about.

But, if he has to question why I do what I do here.....he might not be cut out for his role.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

redwards said:


> And this is for free as well...
> Ain't no such thing as..."was once a Christian"...if the Holy Spirit gave your inner spirit life, then brother, you have life, and life eternal....and,
> I ain't getting into it now because my wife and I are packing to go see our great-grandkids...


See, that is your own rule.
I am living breathing typing proof of "once was"


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> See, that is your own rule.
> I am living breathing typing proof of "once was"



I think he’s saying you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> ???
> 
> Proof of what exactly? Miraculous healing that didn’t happen? The prayer patients didn’t fare any better and in one instance fared worse. What do you think needs a medical explanation?


 Atlas, what’s missing is you have a broad based study of what? Just as bullet is making a point of which god would get credit? No one documented anything about these volunteers. You’re correct it wouldn’t need a medical explanation, but you’d at least need to narrow it down to “what god or God” did these folks believe in before you can declare which one or ones didn’t answer. There are folks that are religious and never opened a bible. There are folks that believe in multiple gods and God and pray to all of them. “That’s” what you need to validate. Not the results. Your results are suspect. It’s not that hard, most surveys say 8 out of 10 people that used Tylenol had headache relief. What you’re trying to push is 8 out of 10 people had no relief with headache medicine.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Atlas, what’s missing is you have a broad based study of what? Just as bullet is making a point of which god would get credit? No one documented anything about these volunteers. You’re correct it wouldn’t need a medical explanation, but you’d at least need to narrow it down to “what god or God” did these folks believe in before you can declare which one or ones didn’t answer. There are folks that are religious and never opened a bible. There are folks that believe in multiple gods and God and pray to all of them. “That’s” what you need to validate. Not the results. Your results are suspect. It’s not that hard, most surveys say 8 out of 10 people that used Tylenol had headache relief. What you’re trying to push is 8 out of 10 people had no relief with headache medicine.



“The prayers came from three Christian groups, two Catholic, and one Protestant. The investigators report that, "We were unable to locate other Christian, Jewish, or non-Christian [groups] that could receive the daily prayer list required for the study." Such lists provided the first name and last initial of the patients.

The intercessors said a standard prayer "for successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications." This system provides a practical way to conduct the experiment, but limits the results to one type of prayer.”

Should one expect the prayers of Catholics and Protestants to be answered?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Again, 90th time.
> I was once a Christian. The majority of believers in these forums are Christians.
> What God do you think gets the most air time in here?
> I am looking for certain information that I may have overlooked. Where would you expect me to go?
> ...


 Ok


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The intercessors said a standard prayer "for successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications." This system provides a practical way to conduct the experiment, but limits the results to one type of prayer.”
> 
> Should one expect the prayers of Catholics and Protestants to be answered?



That’s biblical and faith..............how? 

BTW, I only know two Catholics personally, neither believe in faith healing.............


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Exactly, that is why I am here, to get an Apologists take on things. That is what this forum is all about.
> 
> But, if he has to question why I do what I do here.....he might not be cut out for his role.


Read your statement again. Several times.. 

Maybe your idea of getting someone’s “take on things” works like an interview where only one asks the questions to the other. 

And maybe my questioning you isn’t a defense that you’re familiar with.



redwards said:


> Key word being ...
> a·pol·o·gist
> əˈpäləjəst/
> _noun_
> ...


----------



## Israel (Jun 18, 2018)

I am being convinced on a daily basis, and have an expectation of being further convinced that, had not the One who prayed "forgive them Father, they know not what they do" prayed that, I, and no one else also, would be here to discuss the efficacy of prayer.

Mercy is of such peculiar attribute to man, that he of himself, cannot recognize it when it is given. Man in assumption simply cannot perceive all power, being all merciful, for man assumes power to one end...to make himself known, to enlarge himself, to have the greater effect, to conquer...and assume a supremacy.

(And, it is not with contradiction that such quest is compelled _precisely_ by the conviction of weakness. But of such _unsure_ conviction that _the lie _remains compelling "one has _just enough_ power...to gain more". And Adam _has to be_ convinced through the consequence of disobedience that in grasping and eating (in the forbidding) he had made for himself, in _bid for power_, a whole existence and experience of living...hand to mouth. Adam..."have you had enough yet?")

But _all_ power...has none of these impetus. And there is nothing "over it" to compel.

Now, the believer enters, no less than any other man would, into consideration of the "why" and "how" of such that He who is of _all power _be at all disposed to mercy. And not only to a doling, but to the very assignment to Himself of being the mercy full (merciful) God. For He cannot lie about Himself.

Skakespeare wrote "the quality of mercy is not strained". It is not given of_ efforts for recognition of the giver_. (you know what I have never heard in the spirit of Jesus Christ? "But, look what I did for you!") 

It is not paraded, it is not to any purpose of trumpeting itself, it is not even in the grandiose (of the self) disposition that such receiving likewise has had placed the demand of acknowledgment. Perfect mercy cannot be seen of mere man.
The fish..._assumes_ water. In its _presumption of being. _All mere man knows, is allowed to know, to a purpose of exposing _presumption itself, _is_ hand to mouth. _
It's a very thorough lesson, and made perfect when even strength to complain is sapped.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That’s biblical and faith..............how?
> 
> BTW, I only know two Catholics personally, neither believe in faith healing.............



Pretty sure Catholics and Protestants believe prayers get answered. Jesus gave a prayer script too so that shouldn’t have been an issue. Had they not standardized the prayer then you’d be saying there was no way to know what they prayed for and I guess we would have to assume an omniscient god wouldn’t have known. Should they get more Christians to pray to improve the odds? Should they call up Benny Hinn or Peter Popov? Does god only heal people from certain denominations? Maybe they should get the church where you fixed your back to take part? You said it’s not hard to find Christians that can do faith healing but that sure seems to be the case. Maybe they got the wrong ones for that study and the wrong ones for the Mantra study. That’s possible. Or maybe prayer to a god is no better than prayer to an inanimate object.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Fine. God healed your back. If that is true and if the other claims of prayer working are true then like I said before, it will show up in the data. I don’t need an explanation of how your back was healed. Show me the scans before and after that show you had a proper diagnosis and an actual healing event occurred. Add your case to the others who were part of the controlled study. Show me the data.
> 
> Medical explanations of how the healing occurred are not needed. We know that people don’t regrow amputated limbs. If we have a prayer study for people with amputated limbs and a handful of people prayed for regrow their limbs and none of the people do who weren’t prayed for them that indicates prayer worked at least in some percentage of cases. If that experiment and the results are repeatable the you’ve really got something. Is there a medical explanation? Nope! No doubt one will be sought but insofar as prayer is concerned the results would speak for themselves. Why is it Christians aren’t out healing amputees? Jesus did and scripture says believers can do the same works he did and even greater ones.



 I better get to the store and pick up some more popcorn. Looks like I’ll be waiting a while on this one.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

I’d also like to know why faith healers aren’t going through children’s cancer hospitals and healing every kid in there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Pretty sure Catholics and Protestants believe prayers get answered. Jesus gave a prayer script too so that shouldn’t have been an issue. Had they not standardized the prayer then you’d be saying there was no way to know what they prayed for and I guess we would have to assume an omniscient god wouldn’t have known. Should they get more Christians to pray to improve the odds? Should they call up Benny Hinn or Peter Popov? Does god only heal people from certain denominations? Maybe they should get the church where you fixed your back to take part? You said it’s not hard to find Christians that can do faith healing but that sure seems to be the case. Maybe they got the wrong ones for that study and the wrong ones for the Mantra study. That’s possible. Or maybe prayer to a god is no better than prayer to an inanimate object.





> Pretty sure Catholics and Protestants believe prayers get answered.


We devoted a lot of hours to praying. Pretty sure we were expecting some sort of return on investment


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Pretty straight forward. How many more stipulations do you need to insert into this verse to explain away prayer not working?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Read your statement again. Several times..
> 
> Maybe your idea of getting someone’s “take on things” works like an interview where only one asks the questions to the other.
> 
> And maybe my questioning you isn’t a defense that you’re familiar with.



You asked me why I question the existence of only one God in here and I replied why, in detail.

Not only am I familiar with being questioned in here, I try to give an answer that contains as many verifiable facts as I can provide.

On the other hand, your answer to my answer was that I never seem to question any other gods. HOW is that a question at all? It is a statement. 

When I am asked a specific question I give a specific answer. Since I am in this forum where the Christian god is the main subject, that is who I talk about. In other forums across the vast internet where other gods are discussed I discuss those.
When I ask you (or most other believers in here) about any other god you deflect the questions anyway....so why exactly would I talk about Vishnu to you when you can't answer those questions and all you talk about is Jesus/God anyway? And the majority of answers given in here about your god are not so much apologetic where a detailed explanation is given as much as  they are assertions and claims that have zero proof to back them up.
When the conversation is about assertions and claims I/we ask for proof. How is that an unexpected  or outlandish consequence of the conversation?

I am certainly in the right place and I defend my position.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You asked me why I question the existence of only one God in here and I replied why, in detail.
> 
> Not only am I familiar with being questioned in here, I try to give an answer that contains as many verifiable facts as I can provide.
> 
> ...



Couple of things here, after I ask you and you provide your “evidence” to support your disbelief, that’s a point to where I decide I either to believe it or not. We can bat back and forth on that with no issues. 

The question was in context. The assertion and claim was made by atheist that prayer doesn’t work. The evidence provided was a poor attempt using a laughable experiment as proof. Play by your own rules and substantiate it with evidence. It works both ways. 

 The statement was made that a medical explanation wasn’t required if yall could see an improvement. The question was asked by you, how do we know which gods to give credit to?

You validated my point concerning the experiment in question. 

How do you know which gods or God didn’t answer to support your assertion and claim?  You assume that they all prayed to the same one? Did you even ask to find out? Did you even attempt to see if the folks receiving prayer believe in it? 

Y’all claim to know the Bible better than anyone, and if you do, your scripture pulling reveals otherwise.

If you want to know something, ask it, you’ll get an answer. If you don’t like that answer, that’s fine.

 I don’t focus on other gods. Once I’ve ruled them out, they’re gone.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I better get to the store and pick up some more popcorn. Looks like I’ll be waiting a while on this one.


We will swap. Go get the before and after scans and proof of a proper diagnosis of at least one person in your “go to experiment” and since I believe in one God, ensure that at least the one praying believed in any of your healing scriptures and just one of mine. 1 Peter 3:7


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I’d also like to know why faith healers aren’t going through children’s cancer hospitals and healing every kid in there.


Couldn’t tell you as I’m not a faith healer. I get prayed for.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t focus on other gods. Once I’ve ruled them out, they’re gone.



Exactly what I did except I ruled them all out.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Couple of things here, after I ask you and you provide your “evidence” to support your disbelief, that’s a point to where I decide I either to believe it or not. We can bat back and forth on that with no issues.
> 
> The question was in context. The assertion and claim was made by atheist that prayer doesn’t work. The evidence provided was a poor attempt using a laughable experiment as proof. Play by your own rules and substantiate it with evidence. It works both ways.
> 
> ...


No I did not assume they all prayed to the same one.
I asked you (paraphrase) of all the people who pray all over the world to different gods and will swear they have had prayers answered...which god answered their prayers......and then later asked you how you know which god answered yours.

It seems that even though you rule other gods out, it is just a way to try to avoid being a hypocrite.
All the reasons you use to rule them out , complete with disregarding the same personal testimony by the believers in those gods, is/are the same reasons you use to justify yours.
To me it is hypocritical.

Regarding scripture...
I don't believe any of it to be god inspired, infallible, accurate, without errors or without contradiction.
When I quote scripture it is used as written in the context of the story. Just because you want to interpret it differently just to say I/we did it wrong is on you. You believers constantly argue amongst yourselves about what scripture means. It never ceases to amaze me how 2 billion people have 2 billion and 1 interpretations.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> No I did not assume they all prayed to the same one.
> I asked you (paraphrase) of all the people who pray all over the world to different gods and will swear they have had prayers answered...which god answered their prayers......and then later asked you how you know which god answered yours.


I would have no idea on the others. The only one that I pray to would be the one to answer mine. I don't see how something faith based would work any other way. Even if you don't believe in faith, surely you would understand the simple concept that I could not have faith in one and have another that I have no faith in step up to the plate behind the scenes. 



> It seems that even though you rule other gods out, it is just a way to try to avoid being a hypocrite.
> All the reasons you use to rule them out , complete with disregarding the same personal testimony by the believers in those gods, is/are the same reasons you use to justify yours.
> To me it is hypocritical.


"All the reasons" - interesting................it seems that you assumed wrong. I only have one reason - the God that I chose to believe in said don't have another god before him.   

Hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess.

According to the definition and my one and only reason, please explain how I am avoiding being a hypocrite by abiding in what I claim to have a religious belief in. 




> Regarding scripture...
> I don't believe any of it to be god inspired, infallible, accurate, without errors or without contradiction.
> When I quote scripture it is used as written in the context of the story. Just because you want to interpret it differently just to say I/we did it wrong is on you. You believers constantly argue amongst yourselves about what scripture means. It never ceases to amaze me how 2 billion people have 2 billion and 1 interpretations.


I have no problem if you don't believe in scriptures. I can take a simple "I don't believe it". The rest of all that is nothing but a distraction for those looking to complain. People ague over a football game, either go to the game or stay home.............but the regs were not wrong because half the crowd boos and the other half cheers over a call, while some protest outside that the game isn't even real.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I would have no idea on the others. The only one that I pray to would be the one to answer mine. I don't see how something faith based would work any other way. Even if you don't believe in faith, surely you would understand the simple concept that I could not have faith in one and have another that I have no faith in step up to the plate behind the scenes.
> 
> 
> "All the reasons" - interesting................it seems that you assumed wrong. I only have one reason - the God that I chose to believe in said don't have another god before him.
> ...


So if someone came to you and said Rah healed their back after they prayed to it, how would you continue that conversation if they want to discuss it?

Someone who claims their god exists for certain reasons and denies the existence of other gods by people who use those same reasons is hypocritical.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So if someone came to you and said Rah healed their back after they prayed to it, how would you continue that conversation if they want to discuss it?
> 
> Someone who claims their god exists for certain reasons and denies the existence of other gods by people who use those same reasons is hypocritical.


You’re either misinformed on how the definition applies, or playing the part of "the "drowning man grabbing for straws" if you are accusing me of being hypocritical. I can’t help you there. Edited to add****......you didn't quiet get this in the other reply_........."I only have one reason - the God that I chose to believe in said don't have another god before him". _Has nothing to do with their reasons.              

I would continue conversation just like I did with hobbs on the AD70 doctrine. I believe that I even pointed that out in some form or another stating that I didn’t want to throw him under the bus just because I didn’t believe his doctrine. I wanted an understanding of what he believes, nothing more. It was interesting and different. You have to ask, but you don’t have to prove.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> We will swap. Go get the before and after scans and proof of a proper diagnosis of at least one person in your “go to experiment” and since I believe in one God, ensure that at least the one praying believed in any of your healing scriptures and just one of mine. 1 Peter 3:7



I’m still left wondering about the amputees and cancer wards. Seems like a faith healer should be able to roll through a hospital and empty it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Couldn’t tell you as I’m not a faith healer. I get prayed for.



But you seem to know what works and what doesn’t. Since you’ve had a miraculous healing experience by prayer and you know it works have you cancelled your health insurance and emptied the medicine cabinet?


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 18, 2018)

I once knew a faith healer, but he got sick and died.


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 18, 2018)

King David lay on the ground and prayed for his son's healing for seven days, but yet God's answer was no and the child died. God can do what He wants, with whom He wants, however He wants and is not subject to my understanding of His word. He is sovereign. A concept that many believers can't except and many unbelievers won't except.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 18, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> King David lay on the ground and prayed for his son's healing for seven days, but yet God's answer was no and the child died. God can do what He wants, with whom He wants, however He wants and is not subject to my understanding of His word. He is sovereign. A concept that many believers can't except and many unbelievers won't except.


Its not that A/As wont accept that concept.
Its that A/As don't believe there are gods. 
If there are no gods(God), the concept is a mute point..


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 18, 2018)

I just seen a lightning bug. One simple little critter just proved intelligent design to me. All the lectures, sermons, books, logic and philosophy can't compare to that one little flying subtle flash of yellow against the blackened outline of the magnificent old white oak. Proof enough for me. ''Life ain't nothing but a funny riddle.......thank God I'm a country boy!"


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> But you seem to know what works and what doesn’t. Since you’ve had a miraculous healing experience by prayer and you know it works have you cancelled your health insurance and emptied the medicine cabinet?


I have free medical / dental / vision insurance - company pays 100% family coverage.............nothing to cancel

I believe that it was you quoting scriptures on faith healing.........I know what worked for me that time, and I know what will not work anytime. I did use one about hindering prayer though

You seem to think that I believe I hit the lottery or something and all worries are gone? I hit my finger with the hammer just like you do. I am not in this to recover from sickness, my hope is for eternal life in heaven. 

If you and I were killed in the same wreck and there is no heaven to gain, who is going to be any deader than the other?

Of course if we are both wrong.............I have marsh mellows just in case the burn pit turns out real


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I’m still left wondering about the amputees and cancer wards. Seems like a faith healer should be able to roll through a hospital and empty it.


If I honestly felt that I was humble enough to do that without boasting......I am not that man though.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I’m still left wondering about the amputees and cancer wards. Seems like a faith healer should be able to roll through a hospital and empty it.



They should, but they can’t, because they are simple charlatans playing to a captive audience. 
I ran into a guy I went to school with at Wally World a couple of months ago, and I got to hear his healing experience. 
Seems like he told his doc about pain in his abdomen. Doc says probably a hernia. So he went back to the doc about 4 months later for another minor health issue and told the doc he still had the pain in his abdomen. Doc says let’s get a scan and see what we can do about the hernia. 

Scan shows a softball-sized malignant tumor in his colon. 

My friend survived the surgeries and treatments and has been cancer free for several months. 

He said he was never worried at all, because he knew that God had chosen a good surgeon for him and all would be well. 

I wonder who chose the doc who diagnosed his hernia??


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If I honestly felt that I was humble enough to do that without boasting......I am not that man though.



I know you’re not. Neither is anyone else. But that wouldn’t be the case if faith healing really worked.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 19, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> I just seen a lightning bug. One simple little critter just proved intelligent design to me. All the lectures, sermons, books, logic and philosophy can't compare to that one little flying subtle flash of yellow against the blackened outline of the magnificent old white oak. Proof enough for me. ''Life ain't nothing but a funny riddle.......thank God I'm a country boy!"



Ever seen the polio virus or _Yersinia pestis? 
I doubt if anything will take responsibility for designing that._

" I know he'd be a poor man if he never saw an eagle fly"


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I have free medical / dental / vision insurance - company pays 100% family coverage.............nothing to cancel
> 
> I believe that it was you quoting scriptures on faith healing.........I know what worked for me that time, and I know what will not work anytime. I did use one about hindering prayer though
> 
> ...


You rely on an either/or scenario when in reality there are a thousand possibilities that you have not accounted for.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You’re either misinformed on how the definition applies, or playing the part of "the "drowning man grabbing for straws" if you are accusing me of being hypocritical. I can’t help you there. Edited to add****......you didn't quiet get this in the other reply_........."I only have one reason - the God that I chose to believe in said don't have another god before him". _Has nothing to do with their reasons.
> 
> I would continue conversation just like I did with hobbs on the AD70 doctrine. I believe that I even pointed that out in some form or another stating that I didn’t want to throw him under the bus just because I didn’t believe his doctrine. I wanted an understanding of what he believes, nothing more. It was interesting and different. You have to ask, but you don’t have to prove.



*1: *a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2*: *a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

#2 fits you.
You claim all these things about your god and would tell others who claim the same thing about their god that they are wrong.

Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.
According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold".


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 19, 2018)

I went to the doctor a while back and after days of very expensive testing he told me I have six months to live. I told him I couldn't afford to pay the bill, and he gave me another six months.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 19, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> I went to the doctor a while back and after days of very expensive testing he told me I have six months to live. I told him I couldn't afford to pay the bill, and he gave me another six months.


You are showing your age with that joke 
Its a classic!


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You are showing your age with that joke
> Its a classic!



One of the best movies ever made.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> *1: *a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
> 2*: *a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
> 
> #2 fits you.
> ...


If you don’t know the difference in “I don’t believe” and “criticism” -  it’s a comprehension issue.

Unlike you, I don’t need “reasons” to simply say I don’t believe. I am secure in my surroundings and decisions and have no need to criticize anyone. My not believing others has nothing to do with their claims. I don’t put any other gods before my God. It doesn’t matter if they exist or not, I don’t believe in them. That’s a concept that most 3rd graders understand.

How do we know when an atheist loses an argument? He loses focus and starts accusing. Have a good day sir.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You rely on an either/or scenario when in reality there are a thousand possibilities that you have not accounted for.


There are thousands of women out there. I chose one. I don’t know how you struggle with “choices”


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If you don’t know the difference in “I don’t believe” and “criticism” -  it’s a comprehension issue.
> 
> Unlike you, I don’t need “reasons” to simply say I don’t believe. I am secure in my surroundings and decisions and have no need to criticize anyone. My not believing others has nothing to do with their claims. I don’t put any other gods before my God. It doesn’t matter if they exist or not, I don’t believe in them. That’s a concept that most 3rd graders understand.
> 
> How do we know when an atheist loses an argument? He loses focus and starts accusing. Have a good day sir.


Geeze, you accused me of not knowing the definition of hypocrite until I gave it to you straight from a published source.
Now you say I have a comprehension issue.



> It doesn't matter if they exist or not, I don't believe in them


That's some deep 4th grader stuff.

I am not an atheist.
And WHO is doing the accusing....



> it’s a comprehension issue.





> That’s a concept that most 3rd graders understand.





> How do we know when an atheist loses an argument? He loses focus and starts accusing.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> There are thousands of women out there. I chose one. I don’t know how you struggle with “choices”


Happy, Content, Satisfied, even Settled do not negate any other possibilities. Those possibilities are still out there whether you believe those other women exist or not.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> There are thousands of women out there. I chose one. I don’t know how you struggle with “choices”


And I was talking about possibilities after death.
You seem to have it narrowed down to dead and nothing or dead and marshmellow pillows.

A 3rd option of eternal torture because you worshipped the wrong god is just as likely.

So are 9997(conservative number) other possibilities.

Be happy with your choice but you cant rule out the others just because you don't believe in them. If you honestly felt that way you wouldn't tell non believers they have it wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And I was talking about possibilities after death.
> You seem to have it narrowed down to dead and nothing or dead and marshmellow pillows.
> 
> A 3rd option of eternal torture because you worshipped the wrong god is just as likely.
> ...



He's not saying you're wrong, just that he's right.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 19, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> One of the best movies ever made.


That joke goes back to Henny Youngman in the 50s


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If you don’t know the difference in “I don’t believe” and “criticism” -  it’s a comprehension issue.
> 
> Unlike you, I don’t need “reasons” to simply say I don’t believe. I am secure in my surroundings and decisions and have no need to criticize anyone. My not believing others has nothing to do with their claims. I don’t put any other gods before my God. It doesn’t matter if they exist or not, I don’t believe in them. That’s a concept that most 3rd graders understand.
> 
> How do we know when an atheist loses an argument? He loses focus and starts accusing. Have a good day sir.


Man an awesome joke/jab popped into my head when I read that but I if I said it I don't think it would be taken as intended so I'll just giggle to myself


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That joke goes back to Henny Youngman in the 50s



don't get me started! My wife was complaining "take me somewhere I've never been before!" So I said okay....how about the kitchen? My relatives are so ugly, so ugly.....in the family photo album they only keep the negatives!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> There are thousands of women out there. I chose one. I don’t know how you struggle with “choices”



thousands of women.....so, got any phone numbers? Asking for a friend


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And I was talking about possibilities after death. You seem to have it narrowed down to dead and nothing or dead and marshmellow pillows





> option of eternal torture because you worshipped the wrong god is just as likely.






> Be happy with your choice but you cant rule out the others just because you don't believe in them. If you honestly felt that way you wouldn't tell non believers they have it wrong.





ambush80 said:


> He's not saying you're wrong, just that he's right




A couple of you might want to consider letting your thought process complete before you start speaking and stop trying to analyze what others are saying. Notice the...................???? It is not intended be taken as fact, literal, inconsiderate of others, or that all possibilities have been considered. It is only a sarcastic analogy from one person to another person. Had I included a 3rd party as ambush has done, I would then need to consider the 3rd party. 

If you want to play on words, fine, define it any way you like - I only believe in one God. I don't believe, care or reject that any other exist. Telling you that you are wrong is only because you say that my God doesn't exist. I don`t care how much you try to prove that other gods do or don't exist. Believing in something is called faith. There is no rejection involved in not having faith in something. That's about as basic as I can make it.  

Ya`ll  spend some time reading the post below and rethink your comments. I am pretty sure that most realize that "we"......includes me.     



> Of course if we are both wrong.............I have marsh mellows just in case the burn pit turns out real:







WaltL1 said:


> Man an awesome joke/jab popped into my head when I read that but I if I said it I don't think it would be taken as intended so I'll just giggle to myself


 I can take a joke


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 19, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> thousands of women.....so, got any phone numbers? Asking for a friend


Sure But ok............a long PM is on the way


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 19, 2018)

Went to the Doc. He said I needed to lose weight. Told 'em I wanted to get a second opinion. He said o.k, your ugly too!!!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 20, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Went to the Doc. He said I needed to lose weight. Told 'em I wanted to get a second opinion. He said o.k, your ugly too!!!



HA! Yes that's classic borscht belt humor right there.


----------

