Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

page: 71
34
<< 68  69  70    72 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Where is the evidence of answered prayers?


I have testified to you that it has happened to me, and, as we have discussed in the past, testimony is evidence, though it may not qualify as being sufficient to meet your evidentiary requirements.


It's not really evidence enough for the simple reason that it's unverifiable. I can not test that your subjective experience is accurate, I cannot test whether or not you had all of the evidence required, I cannot test whether your prayer was something that would have inevitably happened regardless of prayer.



There are numerous studies of the positive value of prayer, particularly in healing, though no one is really sure why.


Really? The only study I've found about prayer and healing showed that it had a negative impact on the recovery of heart surgery patients. This story floated around about five years ago, it was a Christian group that carried out the study.

Now, psychological benefits...I've heard that. Granted, I've yet to see a study that shows that prayer has a benefit that cannot be found in other action like personal reflection or meditations.

Of course, I might be wrong. I only have access to so much info, so please provide some studies if you have them.



The difficulty of prayer, I suppose, is that God rarely gives us what we want, but he always gives us what we need. Too many people ask for "X", and when "Y" arrives instead, they assume that their prayer wasn't answered, but often times when we reflect afterwards, "Y" was better for us than "X".


Tell that to anyone who has died praying for food.



Even, and think about this for a moment, even when "Y" is utter silence.


I'm sorry, but I've heard all of these before. No offense, but they're old hat. There are people praying for the basic necessities. Necessities that they desperately try to get for themselves but are simply unable to due to conditions. There were people who prayed to end their lives of slavery and were never freed.

Now, I'm not an omniscient or omnipotent deity, but I'm quite sure "Freedom" is typically better for people than "Enslavement" and that "Food" is better than "Starvation".




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It's not really evidence enough for the simple reason that it's unverifiable. I can not test that your subjective experience is accurate, I cannot test whether or not you had all of the evidence required, I cannot test whether your prayer was something that would have inevitably happened regardless of prayer.


Right, but the qualifier is that you've never experienced it, which is why I wouldn't expect you to allow my testimony to reach your level of expectation.


Of course, I might be wrong. I only have access to so much info, so please provide some studies if you have them.


Sure, here you go:

University of Chicago

Arizona State University

Duke University

There are plenty more, I am a bit surprised that you would have come to the conclusion that there were not.



The difficulty of prayer, I suppose, is that God rarely gives us what we want, but he always gives us what we need. Too many people ask for "X", and when "Y" arrives instead, they assume that their prayer wasn't answered, but often times when we reflect afterwards, "Y" was better for us than "X".


Tell that to anyone who has died praying for food.


As I replied to the poster above, the problem of pain is a difficult one. This no paradise -- people die, people torture one another, lots of bad things happen. But one is struck by the Christian belief that God gave us this world, and what we do it is on us, not on God. We have the power to wipe out starvation, today, but because it suits us (people in general, not you or I necessarily) to have people starve to death, they do.

I don't mean to be personally critical, but sometimes you show a mature understanding of religious beliefs, and other times, like this, you show a pretty shallow grasp. God is not some magical pixie, handing out gifts to "thems what asks enough." If something is contrary to God's will, he's not going to do it. Period.

We do not know what God's will is, we do not know the rationale by which prayers helps some and doesn't help others, and the best that we can do is muddle through. That's the case whether you've got God around to blame or not.


Now, I'm not an omniscient or omnipotent deity, but I'm quite sure "Freedom" is typically better for people than "Enslavement" and that "Food" is better than "Starvation".


Who is enslaving them? Who is starving them? God?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It's not really evidence enough for the simple reason that it's unverifiable. I can not test that your subjective experience is accurate, I cannot test whether or not you had all of the evidence required, I cannot test whether your prayer was something that would have inevitably happened regardless of prayer.


Right, but the qualifier is that you've never experienced it, which is why I wouldn't expect you to allow my testimony to reach your level of expectation.


Even if I had experienced it, I'd have the same standards.




Of course, I might be wrong. I only have access to so much info, so please provide some studies if you have them.


Sure, here you go:

University of Chicago


I agree with the depression thing here, but I don't think they controlled for enough factors to indicate that prayer had any benefit or if that benefit was merely a placebo or if it had anything to do with who was being prayed to.



Arizona State University


Metastudy. Too much to look at here.



Duke University


Ahem.



*CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of noetic adjuncts to invasive therapy for acute coronary syndromes was excellent, and logistics were feasible. No outcomes differences were significant; however, index hospitalization data consistently suggested a therapeutic benefit with noetic therapy. Of all noetic therapies, off-site intercessory prayer had the lowest short- and long-term absolute complication rates. Definitive demonstration of treatment effects of this magnitude would be feasible in a patient population about 4 times that of this pilot study. Absolute mortality differences make safety considerations a mandatory feature of future clinical trials in this area.*




There are plenty more, I am a bit surprised that you would have come to the conclusion that there were not.


I didn't conclude that there weren't, I just hadn't heard of them. Granted, I sort of understand why now that I've been doing some research.





The difficulty of prayer, I suppose, is that God rarely gives us what we want, but he always gives us what we need. Too many people ask for "X", and when "Y" arrives instead, they assume that their prayer wasn't answered, but often times when we reflect afterwards, "Y" was better for us than "X".


Tell that to anyone who has died praying for food.


As I replied to the poster above, the problem of pain is a difficult one.


This isn't a problem of pain, this is a problem of a person being robbed of their life. There is no justice in judging a child for a life's deeds when their greatest accomplishment was starving to death.



This no paradise -- people die, people torture one another, lots of bad things happen. But one is struck by the Christian belief that God gave us this world, and what we do it is on us, not on God.


Except that it is on God if you are correct about its existence. Omniscient being and all knew how things would turn out from the second it created everything.

Also, the children starving to death? Didn't have much of a choice. People dying of E. Coli in the third world? Not much of a choice there either.

Hell, you claim your deity came to the Earth in the flesh and gave us such lessons as 'love your neighbor' which were sort of old hat in the Eastern world...but he didn't bother to give us basic hygiene instructions, or germ theory, or agricultural practices to help things along. There's a big book on my shelf that you claim to be the divinely inspired word of your deity and it contains no practical information, yet it contains what amounts to several pages of genealogies.



We have the power to wipe out starvation, today, but because it suits us (people in general, not you or I necessarily) to have people starve to death, they do.


And earthquakes? Tsunamis? Those aren't man-made (despite what some people on this website might think). Actually, it's still a design problem. This being loved us so much...yet required us to consume other life to live. It's omnipotent, it could have made humans capable of photosynthesis from the start.



I don't mean to be personally critical, but sometimes you show a mature understanding of religious beliefs, and other times, like this, you show a pretty shallow grasp. God is not some magical pixie, handing out gifts to "thems what asks enough." If something is contrary to God's will, he's not going to do it. Period.


Then prayer is pointless. Being is going to do it anyway. Period.

I don't have a shallow grasp of this subject, I understand all of the theology behind it. Unfortunately, it's all a massive load of contradictory garbage.

If it's not God's will? Then what's the point in asking?



We do not know what God's will is, we do not know the rationale by which prayers helps some and doesn't help others, and the best that we can do is muddle through. That's the case whether you've got God around to blame or not.


And that's a reason why I tend to apply Occam's razor precisely at this point.

And God's will? Seems like crap judgment.




Now, I'm not an omniscient or omnipotent deity, but I'm quite sure "Freedom" is typically better for people than "Enslavement" and that "Food" is better than "Starvation".


Who is enslaving them? Who is starving them? God?


...um...read a Bible. Slavery. God outlined practices for slavery instead of outright abolishing it. I brought it up for a reason.

Honestly, if you truly believe your being is omniscient and has a will then the purpose of prayer would be merely to have God occasionally hear something that it was already going to do and knew it was already going to hear from you. You cannot have free will with a truly omniscient being.

There's also the infectious disease and the natural disasters. I know of no human that can stop an earthquake, that can prevent a hurricane, that can push back a tsunami.

Then there are famines, which are typically the result of either invasive disease/pests or weather. Or are humans to blame for the potato famine?

Then there's the further issue with your problem, your deity is allowing humans to hold undue determination over the lives of others both ways.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Sure, here you go:

University of Chicago


I agree with the depression thing here


Then why would you say that prayer has no value? Another Duke study (here) concluded "Patients highly religious by multiple indicators, particularly those involved in community religious activities, remit faster from depression."




Duke University


Ahem.


Of all noetic therapies, off-site intercessory prayer had the lowest short- and long-term absolute complication rates.


I don't think that you're reading that sentence correctly -- it says that people who got prayed for had the lowest level of complications.


Definitive demonstration of treatment effects of this magnitude would be feasible in a patient population about 4 times that of this pilot study. Absolute mortality differences make safety considerations a mandatory feature of future clinical trials in this area.*


Yes, this is called a "preliminary study", I haven't looked to see if they have a follow up done or in process. Note the addition that you didn't highlight -- they caution that people died in the control group at higher rates, so caution need be undertaken to prevent it.



This no paradise -- people die, people torture one another, lots of bad things happen. But one is struck by the Christian belief that God gave us this world, and what we do it is on us, not on God.


Except that it is on God if you are correct about its existence. Omniscient being and all knew how things would turn out from the second it created everything.


Yes, he did. No one disputes that. But your alternative is a kindergarten world, where nothing goes wrong, everyone is nice to everyone else, and we're all controlled like automatons. Maybe you think that would be a good idea, I do not.



We have the power to wipe out starvation, today, but because it suits us (people in general, not you or I necessarily) to have people starve to death, they do.


And earthquakes? Tsunamis? Those aren't man-made (despite what some people on this website might think).


Where is the evil in an earthquake? People die in earthquakes because they live where there are earthquakes, not because earthquakes are evil, or God is evil by not suppressing a natural phenomenon because people insist on living on fault lines.


Actually, it's still a design problem. This being loved us so much...yet required us to consume other life to live. It's omnipotent, it could have made humans capable of photosynthesis from the start.


I'm not a believer in either Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, so that's not really a point with me. We are what we are. If you want to have a "low impact footprint" to benefit your fellow man, that's your choice.



If something is contrary to God's will, he's not going to do it. Period.


If it's not God's will? Then what's the point in asking?


That's not what I said. There is a difference between "this is not God's will" and "this is contrary to God's will." It is my will that my daughter graduate from university in four years. She wants to spend a year studying in Germany. It's not my will that she study in Germany, but if it doesn't conflict with her getting done in four years, I'm okay with it.




Now, I'm not an omniscient or omnipotent deity, but I'm quite sure "Freedom" is typically better for people than "Enslavement" and that "Food" is better than "Starvation".


Who is enslaving them? Who is starving them? God?


...um...read a Bible. Slavery. God outlined practices for slavery instead of outright abolishing it. I brought it up for a reason.


I have read a Bible, of course. I've also read history books. You know who was the moving force behind abolition, at least in the United States? Religious groups such as the Quakers, Methodists and Baptists. God never ordained slavery, but people of faith, led by the teaching of Christ, were responsible for ending it.


Then there's the further issue with your problem, your deity is allowing humans to hold undue determination over the lives of others both ways.


Again, you defer to a life that is regulated, directed and controlled to the millionth degree. I have no interest in that, and I doubt that, outside of making an argument, you do either.

People make crappy choices, opting for things that are directly contrary to what Christ teaches them is proper behaviour, and the result is a world that is unjust. Christians say that if people would follow Christ's teachings, the world would be a better place and many of your complaints would be void. What is your suggested solution?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Sure, here you go:

University of Chicago


I agree with the depression thing here


Then why would you say that prayer has no value?


I actually didn't say that it had no value, I said that it had no specific value over other methods.



Another Duke study (here) concluded "Patients highly religious by multiple indicators, particularly those involved in community religious activities, remit faster from depression."


Yes, but this doesn't add to legitimacy of the claims, merely the legitimacy of the social practices of the community. Nobody is saying that the community values lack legitimacy at all. In fact, a lot of people in the atheist community have argued for creating similar structures for the sake of similar benefits.



Yes, this is called a "preliminary study", I haven't looked to see if they have a follow up done or in process. Note the addition that you didn't highlight -- they caution that people died in the control group at higher rates, so caution need be undertaken to prevent it.


Actually, it's just that any study involving heart surgery has a high mortality rate.



Yes, he did. No one disputes that. But your alternative is a kindergarten world, where nothing goes wrong, everyone is nice to everyone else, and we're all controlled like automatons. Maybe you think that would be a good idea, I do not.


Excluded middle? Adjensen, you're much better than that!

There are all sorts of alternatives. There is the alternative of worlds where people have all sorts of freedom, they just don't have to worry about being killed en masse by earthquakes or other natural disasters or dying randomly of infectious disease. We could have a world of far more ample resources with far more equitable geographic distribution. Still room for freedom, we just have a better starting hand.



Where is the evil in an earthquake? People die in earthquakes because they live where there are earthquakes, not because earthquakes are evil, or God is evil by not suppressing a natural phenomenon because people insist on living on fault lines.


I'm sorry, but the people of Haiti didn't live in a particularly active zone. Hell, most people don't have much of a choice when it comes to somewhere like Haiti. I doubt Haitians have an option.

And the evil in it? Well, an all-powerful, all-knowing being created a system that includes earthquakes....




Actually, it's still a design problem. This being loved us so much...yet required us to consume other life to live. It's omnipotent, it could have made humans capable of photosynthesis from the start.


I'm not a believer in either Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, so that's not really a point with me. We are what we are.


Oh, I know that you're neither, but I'm saying that your deity would be capable of intelligently designing humans and all the other animals to not require the eating of plants and animals to survive.



If you want to have a "low impact footprint" to benefit your fellow man, that's your choice.


...that wasn't what I was saying. I'm saying that your deity could have made it so that life existed via photosynthesis alone, a world where creatures don't suffer because of a lack of food.





If something is contrary to God's will, he's not going to do it. Period.


If it's not God's will? Then what's the point in asking?


That's not what I said. There is a difference between "this is not God's will" and "this is contrary to God's will." It is my will that my daughter graduate from university in four years. She wants to spend a year studying in Germany. It's not my will that she study in Germany, but if it doesn't conflict with her getting done in four years, I'm okay with it.


Yes, but you're talking about an omniscient deity. You're in a logical trap by saying it has a will. Any being that is omniscient cannot interceded because it would have already set out all of the events beforehand.






Now, I'm not an omniscient or omnipotent deity, but I'm quite sure "Freedom" is typically better for people than "Enslavement" and that "Food" is better than "Starvation".


Who is enslaving them? Who is starving them? God?


...um...read a Bible. Slavery. God outlined practices for slavery instead of outright abolishing it. I brought it up for a reason.


I have read a Bible, of course. I've also read history books.



You know who was the moving force behind abolition, at least in the United States?


A lot of atheists that get ignored, like one Mr. Douglass and another Mr. Clemens. Hell, one of the great proponents of racial equality was Darwin, and he was living in what was one of the most racist societies of all time.



Religious groups such as the Quakers, Methodists and Baptists. God never ordained slavery, but people of faith, led by the teaching of Christ, were responsible for ending it.


Some were, I'm not going to say that they didn't contribute. Of course, they didn't make up the whole movement, nor did they kick it off. Of course, that's a historical point and we're not really talking about it. Suffice to say, the atheistic contribution




Then there's the further issue with your problem, your deity is allowing humans to hold undue determination over the lives of others both ways.


Again, you defer to a life that is regulated, directed and controlled to the millionth degree. I have no interest in that, and I doubt that, outside of making an argument, you do either.


And again you argue the excluded middle. We could have made



People make crappy choices, opting for things that are directly contrary to what Christ teaches them is proper behaviour, and the result is a world that is unjust.


I'm sorry, but I object to that. What Christ teaches is not practical nor is it universally moral nor is it universally applicable. I'd also like to point out that the best off parts of the world are those which are least religious.



Christians say that if people would follow Christ's teachings, the world would be a better place and many of your complaints would be void.


You're right, I wouldn't have a computer right now to discuss such things. We wouldn't have families. We wouldn't have focus on anything except for the internal.



What is your suggested solution?


Give everyone a baseline of access to resources as well as education.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
As the smartest chimp on the planet, I found Einstein's views regarding religion most informative, and as expected make the most sense:


Einstein quotes on religion


This corresponds to the poll(s) that found the higher a person's education level (and inferred I.Q. level), the less participation in, and belief of, any religion or other superstition based belief system.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by A51Watcher
 


Einstein had some great thoughts...but frankly he gave little thought to the issue. He was focused on his work rather than those questions. And I prefer to work with rational thought than quotes.

Why? Well, it becomes a quote war. It becomes a war of who has the better person. You pull out Einstein, he's either contested as being religious or they throw out Newton. It's frankly not a useful discussion to have.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I understand about the quote war, point taken.
(How bout I post them one at a time and pretend it's me?
)

As far as him giving it little thought, his focus being elsewhere, I would think he gave it all the attention he thought it deserved, and probably had additional insights on the matter... and wisely chose not to disclose them given the culture of his day.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
This thread has been going on for 1 and 1/2 months. This is one of the longest arguments I've ever observed.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


And it's at over 1400 posts...it's the fifth longest thread in the history of Conspiracies in Religion. Crazy thing, the fourth and sixth longest threads are anti-atheist threads.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Well, it seems like this thread struck a chord, as the number of anti-atheist threads that I've seen has plummeted. Few people are bothering to put out those sorts of attack threads now.

Good job people.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Well damn lol. I have never gotten close to 71 pages in any of my threads, but I am not nearly as well spoken as you are.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
It seems like the title of this thread regards a cyclical event. I wonder how often I'm going to have to bump it to keep pace with that cycle.

So, why is it that there are so many threads attacking atheists lately?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by A51Watcher
 


Polls or studies? And at anyrate, I have seen multiple studies in contradiction with each other as they generally follow the slant of the studymaker.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I always find it funny when a active, willing, even enthusiastic participant in a conflict grows a persecution complex.


Funny because anti-anyone-not-atheist *usually theists of different stripes* tend to generally stay at a rather high constant rate. While anti-atheist thread have peaks and lulls. As you have commented.


edit on 9-6-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


As someone who actually participated in a study of statistics...no, they really don't. At least if they're done right and academically.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I always find it funny when a active, willing, even enthusiastic participant in a conflict grows a persecution complex.


Persecution complex? This is a thread with its tongue planted firmly in its cheek. It's actually a jab at the Christian persecution complex, though I would argue that atheists in many places do have reason to feel persecuted.



Funny because anti-anyone-not-atheist *usually theists of different stripes* tend to generally stay at a rather high constant rate.


...no, there are anti-specific issues with religion, theism, and other issues, but not anti-people threads. I'm anti-theism, not anti-theists. Theists, for the most part, are genuinely normal, decent people. Just like most huge groups.

Granted, you're an atheist who refuses to acknowledge that you're an atheist...so...yeah.



While anti-atheist thread have peaks and lulls. As you have commented.



Yep, and those threads tend to be personal attacks filled with disinformation about what atheists actually are.
edit on 9/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
A few years ago some sect of Christians decided they would start a Christian Warrior of Prayer thing. They expaneded it into kind of a holy war. We must shun these Christians, for the true essence of Christianity has nothing to do with any warrior. Warrior Christians are like gentle serial killers. Warring is wrong, it says so in the bible. Sorry Christian soldiers, your marching the wrong way.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


If done as such, perhaps. But my point was simple, and I thought obvious. Care to address that?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



So, why is it that there are so many threads attacking atheists lately?


No offense or attack intended- do whatever floats your boat. But your THREAD LIST reads like a one-man atheist crusade wrecking ball.

Take that how you will.

But to actually review the situation, let's look at the two largest religious forums, CIR and F&T.

CIR:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks like mostly threads criticizing religions, churches, religious scandals, etc. Am not seeing any anti-atheist threads standing out.

F&T:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see 2 threads about atheism, 1 is started by an atheist. The rest are all religious in nature, questioning religion, or discussing religion.

So... don't know what to tell ya.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 68  69  70    72 >>

log in

join