What is the difference................

[floo]

.................between saying a prayer and touching wood in the hope thereof?

If you get lucky, prayer might give you the outcome you wish for, so will touching wood. It is all a matter of chance, imo.

[Leonard James]

.................between saying a prayer and touching wood in the hope thereof?

If you get lucky, prayer might give you the outcome you wish for, so will touching wood. It is all a matter of chance, imo.

Indeed so! But I think the placebo effect is more likely from a god belief than from a lump of wood.

[floo]

.................between saying a prayer and touching wood in the hope thereof?

If you get lucky, prayer might give you the outcome you wish for, so will touching wood. It is all a matter of chance, imo.

Indeed so! But I think the placebo effect is more likely from a god belief than from a lump of wood.

You are probably right.

However, with a lump of wood you know it is a matter of chance, with prayers believers really believe there is someone at the other end of the line. If that is really the case and the deity can help people in desperate need but fails to do so, it must have a heart of stone! Of course the faithful will makes excuses for negative responses, whilst praising it to the skies if they get a good outcome.

[Shaker]

No difference at all - both are examples of magical thinking, i.e. the belief that acting in a prescribed ritualistic way can influence events according to your preferred outcome.

[Shaker]

However, with a lump of wood you know it is a matter of chance, with prayers believers really believe there is someone at the other end of the line. If that is really the case and the deity can help people in desperate need but fails to do so, it must have a heart of stone! Of course the faithful will makes excuses for negative responses, whilst praising it to the skies if they get a good outcome.

Not that I would say so on the relevant thread but there's an absolutely prime example of this very close to home ...

[Leonard James]

You are probably right.

However, with a lump of wood you know it is a matter of chance, with prayers believers really believe there is someone at the other end of the line.

Pagans who believe in tree gods may disagree with you! 

If that is really the case and the deity can help people in desperate need but fails to do so, it must have a heart of stone!

Do gods have hearts?

Of course the faithful will makes excuses for negative responses, whilst praising it to the skies if they get a good outcome.

Yes, the answer is the will of god whether it's positive or negative. 

[Shaker]

Do gods have hearts?

They're supposed to have desires, wishes and intentions.

Yes, the answer is the will of god whether it's positive or negative. 

Yeah

[ippy]

Do gods have hearts?

They're supposed to have desires, wishes and intentions.

Yes, the answer is the will of god whether it's positive or negative. 

Yeah

Don't these gods have whatever atributes that have been written into their script, by the people that put these old surperstitious myths down into various forms of script?

ippy

[Leonard James]

Don't these gods have whatever atributes that have been written into their script, by the people that put these old surperstitious myths down into variousa forms of script?

ippy

Absolutely! And their faithful ovine followers believe it all! 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

Ovine!! Sheep like, yes that's me, baa baa black sheep, apparently that's not very PC.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear Leonard,

Ovine!! Sheep like, yes that's me, baa baa black sheep, apparently that's not very PC.

Gonnagle.

But true.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Which bit.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Leonard,

Ovine!! Sheep like, yes that's me, baa baa black sheep, apparently that's not very PC.

Gonnagle.

But true.

ippy

No, not true - just a rather simplistic and fatuous insulting generalisation

[ippy]

Dear Leonard,

Ovine!! Sheep like, yes that's me, baa baa black sheep, apparently that's not very PC.

Gonnagle.

But true.

ippy

No, not true - just a rather simplistic and fatuous insulting generalisation

We don't agree,true?

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Leonard,

Ovine!! Sheep like, yes that's me, baa baa black sheep, apparently that's not very PC.

Gonnagle.

But true.

ippy

No, not true - just a rather simplistic and fatuous insulting generalisation

We don't agree,true?

ippy

That is true not just for you and me, but me and anyone else and indeed me and me and me and...

[floo]

The wood can give you splinters 😉

Splinters can be removed, religion can damage you for a very long time!

[Hope]

Splinters can be removed, religion can damage you for a very long time!

Floo, 'can' can mean "Have the opportunity or possibility to" - so the outcomes you posit don't inevitably occur.

[Shaker]

Pretty sure she knew that already, hence her use of the word can.

[Hope]

Pretty sure she knew that already, hence her use of the word can.

Shaker, in the context of her many posts about the damage that religion does to people, I would suggest that she believes that religion damages people - full stop.  I realise that her daughters are religious, thus placing her in a quandary, but then we all know that strongly held beliefs can wreak havoc with logic and reason 

[Leonard James]

Pretty sure she knew that already, hence her use of the word can.

Shaker, in the context of her many posts about the damage that religion does to people, I would suggest that she believes that religion damages people - full stop.  I realise that her daughters are religious, thus placing her in a quandary, but then we all know that strongly held beliefs can wreak havoc with logic and reason 

I don't see any quandary. Providing Christianity is taught without its dark side, no harm is done.

[Shaker]

Shaker, in the context of her many posts about the damage that religion does to people, I would suggest that she believes that religion damages people - full stop.

Anybody in touch with reality knows that religion can damage people. That's what Floo said, not that it always does so or inevitably does so. I know you'd give your left bollock for her to have said that, but she didn't and no amount of wriggling and writhing and spin on your part will make her have written something she didn't, so you can "suggest" until you turn puce but she didn't state what you want her to have stated. In various posts Floo acknowledges that faith gives some people succour sometimes - I see you're not touching those with a bargepole.

we all know that strongly held beliefs can wreak havoc with logic and reason 

No, some of us know that. We see it here on a daily basis.

[floo]

Splinters can be removed, religion can damage you for a very long time!

Floo, 'can' can mean "Have the opportunity or possibility to" - so the outcomes you posit don't inevitably occur.

I said 'can'! Religion if it is of the mainstream live and let live variety usually does no harm, but the proselytising sort often does untold damage.

[floo]

Funny how quiet those who believe the deity answers prayers have been on this thread. They are always willing to make excuses when the deity doesn't come up trumps!

[Hope]

If that is really the case and the deity can help people in desperate need but fails to do so, it must have a heart of stone! Of course the faithful will makes excuses for negative responses, whilst praising it to the skies if they get a good outcome.

Floo, what do you regard as 'desperate need'? 

It puts me in mind of the modern parable of the guy who was caught up on the roof of his house in a flood and prays to be rescued.  First a neighbour came by in a small boat and offers him a way out.  The guy thanks him but says 'No thanks, God is coming to rescue me'.  Then a larger motor boat arrives, but the guy gives the same response.  Then a helicopter arrives above him, but again - the same response.  Shortly after, he is swept away by a large wave and drowned.  When he faces God, he asks why God didn't come to rescue him, to which God points out that he sent two boats and a helicopter.

I sometimes feel that non-believers believe that religious people simply pray for God's help.  In a way, yes we do; we pray that the doctors will be able to use their God-given abilities to resolve what might be a very complex, multi-layered problem; we pray that someone who is terminally ill will not suffer pain and that the hospice or hospital staff will be able to make them as comfortable in their last days as possible; we often pray that the miracle of medical science will actually work on this or that person, especially when one remembers that no two incidences of a condition are identical, and doctors will necessarily need to tweak their abilities to each new case.  In other words, we pray in and into the context.

OK, occasionally people will pray that their 95-year old granny will be restored to health despite that granny saying that she is quite happy to fade away - but often is this in response to a fear of a future without them as opposed to the best for the granny?  After all, this can happen to any of us, assuming that medicine can resolve something as straight-forward and natural as old age.

[Hope]

... but the proselytising sort often does untold damage.

In what way(s), Floo?  By the way, are you using the term 'proselytising' in the modern sense, where it is synonymous with 'evangelising', or the older sense where it meant promising physical benefits in return for conversion?