Answers to prayers?

[ippy]

Come on Ippy! You KNOW why! You have posted your abhorence of why!

Because it was drilled and drummed into their brains as children! And this is why they are so set on keeping religious education in schools and dragging their kids to church and Sunday school!

Yes Qwl it's the luck of the draw something like people that are naturally more susceptible to hypnosis, no doubt there will always be those unlucky enough to be taken in hook line and sinker by religious indoctrination, but fortunately there are people like us owl still here and doing our best to straighten out these poor deluded religionist people and we do all of these good works without looking for a reward of any kind.

ippy

   

[Owlswing]

Yes Qwl it's the luck of the draw something like people that are naturally more susceptible to hypnosis, no doubt there will always be those unlucky enough to be taken in hook line and sinker by religious indoctrination, but fortunately there are people like us owl still here and doing our best to straighten out these poor deluded religionist people and we do all of these good works without looking for a reward of any kind.

ippy

   

Oh, I AM a religionist, BUT I have posted, more times than I care to think about while rebutting Hope, Ab, Sassy et al, that I am fully aware that my religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT FACT!

Also they are MY beliefs and I will not try to tell anyone, atheist or believer in some other religion, that my beliefs are right and theirs are wrong.

Why? Because my beliefs are a matter of faith which will only be proved or disproved to my personal satisfactioin upon my death!

If I am right and the Summerlands are on the other side of the veil between the living and the dead, I will find a way to post that information on this forum.

[Sassy]

OK, I have read a number of the studies and reports - but none have ever actually specified what the prayer requests being 'tested' actually were.  They generally refer to 'prayers for healing' but, as I've previously pointed out, many such prayers include a variety of levels and forms of healing within them.

Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!

Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.

[Owlswing]

Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!

Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.

This shows his monumental insecurity - he cannot face being tested and found wanting!

Add cowardice to his innate bastardry as demonstrated in the OP!

And your cowardice for NOT testing him!

[Leonard James]

This shows his monumental insecurity - he cannot face being tested and found wanting!

Add cowardice to his innate bastardry as demonstrated in the OP!

And your cowardice for NOT testing him!

Quite! The only error being that he can't face being tested (or anything else) because he doesn't exist.

It is his believers that your post applies to. 

[floo]

Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!

Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.

Of course it should be put to the test if it exists! So far it has failed all the tests where its existence is concerned. Maybe it should be in the remedial class!

[ippy]

Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!

Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.

Sassy, welcome back and I look forward to reading more of your misguided statements, overshadowed many more times by your non answers.

You're mostly very entertaining Sass, good to see you're posting again.

ippy

   

[ippy]

Oh, I AM a religionist, BUT I have posted, more times than I care to think about while rebutting Hope, Ab, Sassy et al, that I am fully aware that my religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT FACT!

Also they are MY beliefs and I will not try to tell anyone, atheist or believer in some other religion, that my beliefs are right and theirs are wrong.

Why? Because my beliefs are a matter of faith which will only be proved or disproved to my personal satisfactioin upon my death!

If I am right and the Summerlands are on the other side of the veil between the living and the dead, I will find a way to post that information on this forum.

It's the odds Owl, the odds on there being any such thing as a god, the odds alone? doesn't this ring any bells? without adding any of the plentiful arguments against? 

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, I AM a religionist, BUT I have posted, more times than I care to think about while rebutting Hope, Ab, Sassy et al, that I am fully aware that my religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT FACT!

But I'm afraid atheists see the word faith as LIES or BOLLOCKS.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the odds Owl, the odds on there being any such thing as a god, the odds alone? doesn't this ring any bells? without adding any of the plentiful arguments against? 

ippy

Dear Ippy

How is it the odds?
What are the Odds?
Give one argument against?

Yours not holding breath for any answers from you

Vlad

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But I'm afraid atheists see the word faith as LIES or BOLLOCKS.

Well yes, but that's not really the point. This atheist sees it as dangerous because its unarguable lies or bollocks. "But that's my faith" is the identical defence of the vicar handing around cucumber sandwiches and the suicide bomber alike. Where do we go from there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well yes, but that's not really the point. This atheist sees it as dangerous because its unarguable lies or bollocks. "But that's my faith" is the identical defence of the vicar handing around cucumber sandwiches and the suicide bomber alike. Where do we go from there?

Yes but arguably the greater danger is from people who can't see the difference between a vicar dispensing sandwiches and a mad bomber.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but arguably the greater danger is from people who can't see the difference between a vicar dispensing sandwiches and a mad bomber.

You've missed the point. As "faith" requires no cogent argument or evidence, how should we demonstrate to someone that his faith belief is wrong? A somebody once said, if someone hasn't reasoned his way into his position, how can he be reasoned out of it?

Whether the faith happens to involve cucumber sandwiches or bombs is a separate matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've missed the point. As "faith" requires no cogent argument or evidence, how should we demonstrate to someone that his faith belief is wrong? A somebody once said, if someone hasn't reasoned his way into his position, how can he be reasoned out of it?

Whether the faith happens to involve cucumber sandwiches or bombs is a separate matter.

Yes but we all have faith even you Hillside. If you like, those parts of our philosophy which we cannot demonstrate to others or as a truth...although I take it that the joist of what you and Ippy are trying to say is that there is a probability involved.In which case, what is it?
I'm afraid I consider the position you are taking as somewhat hypocritical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but we all have faith even you Hillside. If you like, those parts of our philosophy which we cannot demonstrate to others or as a truth...although I take it that the joist of what you and Ippy are trying to say is that there is a probability involved.In which case, what is it?
I'm afraid I consider the position you are taking as somewhat hypocritical.

You can consider it anything you like, but you've conflated the method (or process) with the content. The vicar, the suicide bomber and (presumably) you think that your religious faiths are a more reliable guide to probable truths than just guessing about stuff.

What you do with that belief - bombs or cucumber sandwiches - is a different matter.

You seem too to have fallen off your regular cliff of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you". Rather than correct you (again) only for you to ignore the correction (again) here (again) is the Stephen Law essay on "Going Nuclear" that does the job perfectly well. Once you've read it try critiqueing that if you still disagree:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

[SusanDoris]

Oh dear, Vlad! Please, please, do apply the clear thinking you have used on the referendum discussions to the subject of faith too!

As I personally have said many times, there is nothing I have faith in which relies on faith alone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You can consider it anything you like, but you've conflated the method (or process) with the content. The vicar, the suicide bomber and (presumably) you think that your religious faiths are a more reliable guide to probable truths than just guessing about stuff.

What you do with that belief - bombs or cucumber sandwiches - is a different matter.

You seem too to have fallen off your regular cliff of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you". Rather than correct you (again) only for you to ignore the correction (again) here (again) is the Stephen Law essay on "Going Nuclear" that does the job perfectly well. Once you've read it try critiqueing that if you still disagree:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

I'm trying to think what you mean by just guessing giving rise to or establishing "probable" truths.

My own faith tells me that an unavoidable encounter with God is on the cards for everybody and therefore if the God of the universe is that interested in people, what right have I not to be.

Can just guessing come up with a conclusion like that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm trying to think what you mean by just guessing giving rise to or establishing "probable" truths.

My own faith tells me that an unavoidable encounter with God is on the cards for everybody and therefore if the God of the universe is that interested in people, what right have I not to be.

Can just guessing come up with a conclusion like that?

Given the bewildering variety of gods and their various characteristics that countless people have believed in just as fervently as you believe in your (heavily culturally defined by the way) god, then I'd have thought the answer is obvious.

Did you read the Stephen Law essay? Do you seem now why your "going nuclear" line is failing you?

Try this - you're on the 20th floor of an office block, and you're in a tearing hurry to be somewhere else. I tell you that it's my absolute, deeply held faith that if you jump out of the window you'll float gently to the ground. All your intersubjective experience though tells you that taking the lift is the safer - albeit slower - option.

Which option though do you think to be more probably true and so act on? Each option after all rests, ultimately, on axioms.

Why?

And if you can answer that, can you see now why going nuclear is a bad idea?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Given the bewildering variety of gods and their various characteristics that countless people have believed in just as fervently as you believe in your (heavily culturally defined by the way) god, then I'd have thought the answer is obvious.

Did you read the Stephen Law essay? Do you seem now why your "going nuclear" line is failing you?

Try this - you're on the 20th floor of an office block, and you're in a tearing hurry to be somewhere else. I tell you that it's my absolute, deeply held faith that if you jump out of the window you'll float gently to the ground. All your intersubjective experience though tells you that taking the lift is the safer - albeit slower - option.

Which option though do you think to be more probably true and so act on? Each option after all rests, ultimately, on axioms.

Why?

And if you can answer that, can you see now why going nuclear is a bad idea?

See your tactics here Blue.
Introduce a McGuffin.....StephenLaws....
I put my faith in what seems to fit my world experience tells me.

What it is that you believe in concerning what I see as the big questions is the ultimate lift shaft without an actual lift.

[Sassy]

This shows his monumental insecurity - he cannot face being tested and found wanting!

Add cowardice to his innate bastardry as demonstrated in the OP!

And your cowardice for NOT testing him!

You're a Joke.

Who is the one having the melt down? YOU.
The difference between being secure and insecure is clearly shown in your post.
Gods truth is such, that even your dis-stain and bad language does not move or change them.
It is you who has the problem with God and it is you who lacks the understanding to be able to make a valid argument.

You are annoyed fine... but at least have some actually reason to be annoyed.

[Sassy]

Sassy, welcome back and I look forward to reading more of your misguided statements, overshadowed many more times by your non answers.

You're mostly very entertaining Sass, good to see you're posting again.

ippy

   

   If only you could prove the above or show understanding by revealing what in the bible would support your statements. With God as my guard and guide you will never be able to do anything to substantiate your statement, but thanks for the welcome back.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

See your tactics here Blue.
Introduce a McGuffin.....StephenLaws....

The only "tactic" is reason - if you've counter-argue, so be it.

I put my faith in what seems to fit my world experience tells me.

Good for you - provided that is you don't overreach by assuming that your "world experience" is also the world experience of anyone else and thus you grasp that "your" faith is entirely yours alone. (And by the way, your "experience" and the cause you attribute to it are not the same thing.)

What it is that you believe in concerning what I see as the big questions is the ultimate lift shaft without an actual lift.

You're still not getting it then. You and I will (presumably) agree that the lift is the safer of the two available ways to the ground. That's a probabilistic truth based on intersubjective experience. (Note by the way that there's no claim here to the truth - for all either of us knows once in a bajillion times one of us would float gently to the ground from the 20th floor.)

That you also though think that something you call "God" cured little Timmy of his rickets and that I think that thunder is caused by Thor banging his hammer are personal beliefs for each of us, but neither claim offers a logical path to take us from personal faith to objective (or at least probabilistic intersubjective) truths.

Are you really, really not getting this yet?

Really? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The only "tactic" is reason - if you've counter-argue, so be it.

Good for you - provided that is you don't overreach by assuming that your "world experience" is also the world experience of anyone else and thus you grasp that "your" faith is entirely yours alone. (And by the way, your "experience" and the cause you attribute to it are not the same thing.)

You're still not getting it then. You and I will (presumably) agree that the lift is the safer of the two available ways to the ground. That's a probabilistic truth based on intersubjective experience. (Note by the way that there's no claim here to the truth - for all either of us knows once in a bajillion times one of us would float gently to the ground from the 20th floor.)

That you also though think that something you call "God" cured little Timmy of his rickets and that I think that thunder is caused by Thor banging his hammer are personal beliefs for each of us, but neither claim offers a logical path to take us from personal faith to objective (or at least probabilistic intersubjective) truths.

Are you really, really not getting this yet?

Really?

Unfortunately you seem to have suspended your usualcritique of intersubjectivity for the purposes of special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unfortunately you seem to have suspended your usualcritique of intersubjectivity for the purposes of special pleading.

You've forgotten our rule: you lie about what I say, I'll ignore you.

By all means try again though without the "usual critique" nonsense.

You might also want to change your old habits by actually responding to what's been said to you: have you now grasped why your "going nuclear" line is hopeless for example?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've forgotten our rule: you lie about what I say, I'll ignore you.

By all means try again though without the "usual critique" nonsense.

You might also want to change your old habits by actually responding to what's been said to you: have you now grasped why your "going nuclear" line is hopeless for example?

What about intersubjectivity with regard to morality or liking marmite?
Are you saying that this has the same status?