Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, perhaps God gets its jollies playing mind games with those it created. What a sad idea for something that supposed to be worthy of emulation and worship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Think about it.
Think about someone who says she loves you.
And you answer that if she can prove it to you quantitatively then you will believe her, and further, she must give you everything you ask for, immediately. Otherwise she is either a liar, evil, weak, or just plain fake.
This is a strawman argument. I certainly never stated that prayer must immediately and unmistakably be granted as asked. Rather, I pointed out that if prayers are to some degree granted that there will be a correlation between prayer and events, a correlation that will contrast to the correlation between events that occur without prayer.
You should stick to addressing what is said, not caricatures of your own creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Does she respond by hurrying to grab your slippers, doing an exotic dance for you and then hurrying to cook your favorite foods, then spending the night setting up the parameters for an experiment that will read off for you changes in her brainwaves and respiration when she thinks of you?
Or does she laugh and give you the bird?
Anyone half-sane would do the latter.
What if God doesn't want to jump and dance for you to "prove" His love? You sure don't want to jump and dance for Him to prove yours.
But no. You double-down on the strawman.
Never did I suggest specifically praying for the purpose of testing God. Rather, I simply suggested observing if prayer - which is obviously abundant anyway - correlations with results. This can be the observation, through helpful documentation, of genuine prayers by honest believers.
Not only have you falsely portrayed what I have said, in order to square reality with a prayer-granting entity you've chosen to portray that entity as a trickster, something that deliberately sows doubts by concealing its works. The word for that is deception. So all-loving God is a deceiver. Again, you're hardly flattering anyone's object of worship there.
Such are the lengths some people go to in order to rationalize the lack of actual evidence for prayers resulting in anything substantive.
Finally, I'll just point out that my response was to the original post, which asserted that the results of prayer are more than coincidence. If that is the case, it can be observed, noted, and give greater reason for belief. So if you want to claim that God is a deceitful game-player who works to prevent people from actually seeing any reason to believe in the efficacy of prayer, then take it up with the person who started this thread, because you're postulating something different.
It's not my fault that the original poster's PRAYER CLEARLY WORKS doesn't jibe with your MAYBE GOD REFUSES TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT PRAYER WORKS.
Yes, perhaps God gets its jollies playing mind games with those it created. What a sad idea for something that supposed to be worthy of emulation and worship. This is a strawman argument. I certainly never stated that prayer must immediately and unmistakably be granted as asked. Rather, I pointed out that if prayers are to some degree granted that there will be a correlation between prayer and events, a correlation that will contrast to the correlation between events that occur without prayer. You should stick to addressing what is said, not caricatures of your own creation. But no. You double-down on the strawman. Never did I suggest specifically praying for the purpose of testing God. Rather, I simply suggested observing if prayer - which is obviously abundant anyway - correlations with results. This can be the observation, through helpful documentation, of genuine prayers by honest believers. Not only have you falsely portrayed what I have said, in order to square reality with a prayer-granting entity you've chosen to portray that entity as a trickster, something that deliberately sows doubts by concealing its works. The word for that is deception. So all-loving God is a deceiver. Again, you're hardly flattering anyone's object of worship there. Such are the lengths some people go to in order to rationalize the lack of actual evidence for prayers resulting in anything substantive. Finally, I'll just point out that my response was to the original post, which asserted that the results of prayer are more than coincidence. If that is the case, it can be observed, noted, and give greater reason for belief. So if you want to claim that God is a deceitful game-player who works to prevent people from actually seeing any reason to believe in the efficacy of prayer, then take it up with the person who started this thread, because you're postulating something different. It's not my fault that the original poster's PRAYER CLEARLY WORKS doesn't jibe with your MAYBE GOD REFUSES TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT PRAYER WORKS.
when a person recognizes the benefits and effectiveness of prayer in their life, then other people's opinion of prayer does not matter and is irrelevant.
when a person recognizes the benefits and effectiveness of prayer in their life, then other people's opinion of prayer does not matter and is irrelevant.
when a person recognizes the benefits and effectiveness of prayer in their life, then other people's opinion of prayer does not matter and is irrelevant.
This is a fact. Being yelled at doesn't really change that.
Yes, perhaps God gets its jollies playing mind games with those it created. What a sad idea for something that supposed to be worthy of emulation and worship.
This is a strawman argument. I certainly never stated that prayer must immediately and unmistakably be granted as asked. Rather, I pointed out that if prayers are to some degree granted that there will be a correlation between prayer and events, a correlation that will contrast to the correlation between events that occur without prayer.
You should stick to addressing what is said, not caricatures of your own creation.
But no. You double-down on the strawman.
Never did I suggest specifically praying for the purpose of testing God. Rather, I simply suggested observing if prayer - which is obviously abundant anyway - correlations with results. This can be the observation, through helpful documentation, of genuine prayers by honest believers.
Not only have you falsely portrayed what I have said, in order to square reality with a prayer-granting entity you've chosen to portray that entity as a trickster, something that deliberately sows doubts by concealing its works. The word for that is deception. So all-loving God is a deceiver. Again, you're hardly flattering anyone's object of worship there.
Such are the lengths some people go to in order to rationalize the lack of actual evidence for prayers resulting in anything substantive.
Finally, I'll just point out that my response was to the original post, which asserted that the results of prayer are more than coincidence. If that is the case, it can be observed, noted, and give greater reason for belief. So if you want to claim that God is a deceitful game-player who works to prevent people from actually seeing any reason to believe in the efficacy of prayer, then take it up with the person who started this thread, because you're postulating something different.
It's not my fault that the original poster's PRAYER CLEARLY WORKS doesn't jibe with your MAYBE GOD REFUSES TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT PRAYER WORKS.
So you don't believe in it. Great, noted.
You used too much hyperbole here for me to qualify or refute what you're saying. This is kind of an anger tangent. So I'll leave you to whatever you do need to believe. We are all only human.
And you answer that if she can prove it to you quantitatively then you will believe her, and further, she must give you everything you ask for, immediately. Otherwise she is either a liar, evil, weak, or just plain fake.
Does she respond by hurrying to grab your slippers, doing an exotic dance for you and then hurrying to cook your favorite foods, then spending the night setting up the parameters for an experiment that will read off for you changes in her brainwaves and respiration when she thinks of you?
Or does she laugh and give you the bird?
Anyone half-sane would do the latter.
What if God doesn't want to jump and dance for you to "prove" His love? You sure don't want to jump and dance for Him to prove yours.
This post resonates with me. It is a topic that I wrestled with more than 10 years ago. My experience with God-belief was that 1) I must believe God loves me and 2) I must show that I love and worship him.
The proof that others had that a god loved me (and existed) was my existence. This love was not enough for me, but not receiving the love I wanted was not enough to become an atheist. What I think caused me to step into atheism was when I decided that if there is a god, it doesn't have to prove it loves me and I don't have to prove I love it. So, to me, being an atheist is not really about stating that there is no god. Instead, it is about not proving my belief, love, or myself to one or to anyone around me.
when a person recognizes the benefits and effectiveness of prayer in their life, then other people's opinion of prayer does not matter and is irrelevant.
To the point about God being worthy of worship, any entity that required or needed to be worshiped would NOT be worthy of it, IMO.
This post resonates with me. It is a topic that I wrestled with more than 10 years ago. My experience with God-belief was that 1) I must believe God loves me and 2) I must show that I love and worship him.
The proof that others had that a god loved me (and existed) was my existence. This love was not enough for me, but not receiving the love I wanted was not enough to become an atheist. What I think caused me to step into atheism was when I decided that if there is a god, it doesn't have to prove it loves me and I don't have to prove I love it. So, to me, being an atheist is not really about stating that there is no god. Instead, it is about not proving my belief, love, or myself to one or to anyone around me.
Thanks for this. A refreshingly different point of view.
And my question is, how often do stories like hers happened before 'coincidence' becomes faith?
I noticed that MQ didn't say she asked (God) for this to happen.
But, it happened anyway.
I'm of the school of thought that things happen, whether we ask God to intervene or not. To me, He's ALWAYS there...
...whether we acknowledge Him or not.
Maybe that's the difference...
He is always there. I do not necessarily believe, or think of it that way, that he is there for ME. All you can ASK for is help to help yourself - "I will pull up whatever bootstraps given to me, please just show me where they are" is the essence of it.
As for singing praise of him and showering him with love, it is for ME, it is pleasing to ME. He is not in any need of praise or love. He IS love. The attitude is whatever luck that comes my way, it is a blessing. The difficulties are lessons to learn from, to make me stronger, and that too is a blessing. Has worked for me.
As for his love for me, it is the awareness he has given me to know him and to know my self.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To the point about God being worthy of worship, any entity that required or needed to be worshiped would NOT be worthy of it, IMO.
