Monas wrote:Hi Trubble

Certainly a life totally commited to prayer is total madness if there is nobody to hear the prayer. Having said that some people who go on retreat to monasteries are there, at least in part, to chill out. It does seem a very good antidote for those getting stressed out by life. And it much much cheaper than a 'health farm'

Is a life totally committed to prayer any less madness if there is someone to hear?

Chilling out, I approve of. I do not understand the logic of wasting the life you feel a god gave to you (not you specifically, full-time monks and other extreme religious folk) by hiding away from the world. The analogy of your god being a father is often used; I would feel I would have failed my job as a father if my children would never leave their bedroom. How about you?

Plus I'd feel incredibly guilty for somehow giving the impression that I'm more important than they are, to the extent that they felt they had to constantly talk to me above doing anything else, while I just sat there saying nothing.

trubble76 wrote:Is a life totally committed to prayer any less madness if there is someone to hear?

Haha, well noted!

trubble76 wrote:Chilling out, I approve of. I do not understand the logic of wasting the life you feel a god gave to you (not you specifically, full-time monks and other extreme religious folk) by hiding away from the world. The analogy of your god being a father is often used; I would feel I would have failed my job as a father if my children would never leave their bedroom. How about you?

Now this is probably going to seem completely nuts to you, but just to fill that out a little...

The Catholic faith tends to be much more communal than the Reformed faiths. People are seen to have different vocations, but all play a part in the one body, the Church. The monk is praying on behalf of all in the Church. This allows others with different vocations, such as those for nursing or doctoring, to focus more on their own vocation. So each individual in the Church may be hugely unbalanced (yes, I imagine you thought that anyway!) but as a body there is balance. So, rather than your analogy of a child not leaving their bedroom, St. Paul uses the analogy of a human body - the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you". The idea that someone else can pray on your behalf is one that may be strange for anyone brought up in the Reformed faiths, but it was of course the abuse of exactly that principle that was a key trigger in the Reformation (when 'indulgences' were being sold). But there were some rather nice sides to it as well. There are records of the wills of powerful land owners paying the tax due by their villagers in return for the prayers of the villagers. Or you can still find bridges, which were often contentious as they often were between two people's land holdings so neither wanted to pay the full cost of construction, saying that it was constructed by a certain person, and they ask for the prayers of those who cross the bridge in return. The "economy of prayer" was not always as Machiavellian as it seems when studying just the Reformation.

But as for hiding away, that is not quite the Benedictine way. A Benedictine motto is ora et labora, prayer and work. The Rule of St. Benedict considers manual work an important part of a monk's life which is divided roughly equally between work and prayer. That has allowed the Benedictines to be influential outside of the monastery - did you know they even taught the Welsh how to farm sheep?

Monas wrote:

trubble76 wrote:Is a life totally committed to prayer any less madness if there is someone to hear?

Haha, well noted!

trubble76 wrote:Chilling out, I approve of. I do not understand the logic of wasting the life you feel a god gave to you (not you specifically, full-time monks and other extreme religious folk) by hiding away from the world. The analogy of your god being a father is often used; I would feel I would have failed my job as a father if my children would never leave their bedroom. How about you?

Now this is probably going to seem completely nuts to you, but just to fill that out a little...

The Catholic faith tends to be much more communal than the Reformed faiths. People are seen to have different vocations, but all play a part in the one body, the Church. The monk is praying on behalf of all in the Church. This allows others with different vocations, such as those for nursing or doctoring, to focus more on their own vocation. So each individual in the Church may be hugely unbalanced (yes, I imagine you thought that anyway!) but as a body there is balance. So, rather than your analogy of a child not leaving their bedroom, St. Paul uses the analogy of a human body - the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you". The idea that someone else can pray on your behalf is one that may be strange for anyone brought up in the Reformed faiths, but it was of course the abuse of exactly that principle that was a key trigger in the Reformation (when 'indulgences' were being sold). But there were some rather nice sides to it as well. There are records of the wills of powerful land owners paying the tax due by their villagers in return for the prayers of the villagers. Or you can still find bridges, which were often contentious as they often were between two people's land holdings so neither wanted to pay the full cost of construction, saying that it was constructed by a certain person, and they ask for the prayers of those who cross the bridge in return. The "economy of prayer" was not always as Machiavellian as it seems when studying just the Reformation.

But as for hiding away, that is not quite the Benedictine way. A Benedictine motto is ora et labora, prayer and work. The Rule of St. Benedict considers manual work an important part of a monk's life which is divided roughly equally between work and prayer. That has allowed the Benedictines to be influential outside of the monastery - did you know they even taught the Welsh how to farm sheep?

For me "Nuts" is a reasonable description of all religion. Just to clarify, in the mind of a Catholic, a person can ascend to the Pearly Gates and if asked whether or not he prayed, he may answer "No, but I paid some peasants to do it for me." and that would be a satisfactory response? I don't wish to be nasty but that god sounds either stupid or unpleasant. Why would you worship such a being? The religion thinks you can be punished for sins you did not commit, you can be forgiven for the sins you did commit and you can pay someone else to do your religion for you.

It seems wholly reprehensible to me and I wonder why they still devote their lives (or half their lives) to prayer when it clearly makes no difference.

No, the idea is not that people buy their way into heaven (though that was the case with the abuses of indulgences in the 16th century. Or at least they thought that they were buying a shorter time in purgatory, to be more precise). Of course you can present anything involving with money cynically (and certainly there are many cases where money is indeed used cynically), but I think that would be to miss something good and genuine. The good thing is that all contribute to God's Kingdom using the gifts they have. For some that will be for a life dedicated to prayer, for others it will be a life dedicated to caring for the sick, for some it might be to bring up their family. And yet for some, they may be gifted in finance, and then the question becomes how that money is used. That some people did ask (not demand) for prayers in return for a good deed performed is to probably show a incomplete commitment to the Kingdom of God, but better that they use the money in this good way than, for example, to establish a slave trade. What the medieval examples show is that prayer was valued alongside money. While that may lead to abuses, or less than perfect handling of situations, I think it's good that we see a world that values prayer; the rich did not feel as invulnerable as they perhaps feel today. But the essence is that all contribute in the way in which they are gifted; the nurse, the harried mother, and the doctor need not feel bad that they have little time for prayer to praise God, just as the monk need not feel bad that they are not doing the things those others are. It's about the community more than the individual.

As for prayer making a difference, the monastic view is that prayer is primarily a right response to God, rather than it being a shopping list of wants. Prayer for many of us is also where we are most open to being shaped by God. It is commonly in prayer that people have discerned vocations for caring roles in society. I'm not sure how you would know that prayer does or does not make a difference anyway - scripture would lead us to doubt that God is going to co-operate with any testing. We'd probably need a time when no-one genuinely prays any more - that God is totally ignored by all. We can only speculate on what such a world would be like, though I very much doubt it will ever come to pass; prayer is too instinctive it seems.

Monas wrote:No, the idea is not that people buy their way into heaven (though that was the case with the abuses of indulgences in the 16th century. Or at least they thought that they were buying a shorter time in purgatory, to be more precise). Of course you can present anything involving with money cynically (and certainly there are many cases where money is indeed used cynically), but I think that would be to miss something good and genuine. The good thing is that all contribute to God's Kingdom using the gifts they have. For some that will be for a life dedicated to prayer, for others it will be a life dedicated to caring for the sick, for some it might be to bring up their family. And yet for some, they may be gifted in finance, and then the question becomes how that money is used. That some people did ask (not demand) for prayers in return for a good deed performed is to probably show a incomplete commitment to the Kingdom of God, but better that they use the money in this good way than, for example, to establish a slave trade. What the medieval examples show is that prayer was valued alongside money. While that may lead to abuses, or less than perfect handling of situations, I think it's good that we see a world that values prayer; the rich did not feel as invulnerable as they perhaps feel today. But the essence is that all contribute in the way in which they are gifted; the nurse, the harried mother, and the doctor need not feel bad that they have little time for prayer to praise God, just as the monk need not feel bad that they are not doing the things those others are. It's about the community more than the individual.

It may not be your idea that people can buy their way into heaven but it would seem that not every christian is as enlightened as your good self, even people high up in the various hierarchies have disagreed with you. They may not have said those words precisely but the transactions speak for themselves. The money made in this way is still in possession of the church. The church hoards it's vast wealth, it's jewels, it's gold, it's art, it's land, evidently the church is still very happy with the deals.
As for your ideas on the specialisation of labour, it all sounds very admirable, until you realise that offering prayers in return for goods and services is a very one-sided deal. Prayers, in this way, are monetary and the good "shepherds" can "print" as much as they wish. I'm sure your companions in the monastery are beyond reproach but I'm not sure if that can be applied to christianity as a whole.

As for prayer making a difference, the monastic view is that prayer is primarily a right response to God, rather than it being a shopping list of wants. Prayer for many of us is also where we are most open to being shaped by God. It is commonly in prayer that people have discerned vocations for caring roles in society. I'm not sure how you would know that prayer does or does not make a difference anyway - scripture would lead us to doubt that God is going to co-operate with any testing. We'd probably need a time when no-one genuinely prays any more - that God is totally ignored by all. We can only speculate on what such a world would be like, though I very much doubt it will ever come to pass; prayer is too instinctive it seems.

In what way do you imagine prayer working? The RCC can list almost endless examples of the faithful praying for healing, in fact many a saint's honours depend upon such lies. What is wrong with amputees? Why does this god heal so many poor sufferers and yet ignores amputees? Is it because your god hates amputees? Is it because he does not care about them? Or is it that all the claims about the power of prayer are simply just lies? The latter suggestion seems the most likely to me, what do you think?
Perhaps you think the church misguided in it's miraculous claims, perhaps prayer is just for inner peace and guidance? It would then appear that prayer is indistinguishable from contemplation and meditation. Perhaps you would agree? The question is then, "What place for a god?", in this explanation, your god seems a little unnecessary.
No, prayer does not work above and beyond the purely Earth-bound. Prayer is not instinctive, it was beaten into many generations of frightened children. It keeps them frightened children too, it removes personal responsibility to a remote force, it is disempowering and deliberately so.

Hi Trubble

I think the two main ways I see prayer working is as I said earlier. Firstly prayer 'works' to praise God. When monks praise God they are doing so for the Church as a whole. Secondly, prayer feeds us and opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of God. I do indeed think that can be similar to mediation, though I would be a little wary of any meditative approach that is too focused solely on the self; prayer should also lift us outside of ourselves to see the needs of others around us. For me prayer, or even meditation, makes no sense without God, and without the light of God within us, but that is not to say that I think a person meditating must necessarily believe in God for God to shape them.

Ah, now, miracles and healing. I would perhaps want to distinguish the two. I have experienced healing, from alcoholism. That healing occurred after totally submitting my alcoholism to God, in prayer. I have little doubt that without prayer I would still be drinking (if I was still here). That to me is a healing found in prayer (and, to me, found in God), but I would not call that a miracle. I don't think anything occurred that was against any laws of nature. When it comes to miracles I always want to first ask "what do you mean?" before progressing further. I admit to some scepticsm about any particular miracle claim. I also admit to some theological concern - why is one person healed and another not? Still, that gets us on to the problem of suffering which is probably way too big a topic to discuss here (though I would just note that I do find it a problem).

Just one last note on your last point that prayer is beaten into us. A problem I have with that hypothesis is the common occurrence of prayer across many civilizations across time. The notion of deity may differ, but there does seem a general anthropology of prayer in human history. Why does something so commonly occur if it requires it to be beaten into us? Also I can honestly say I was never frightened into prayer as a child. While I do dare say some people's upbringing were as described in Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes I do think some people might have dramatized their own upbringing a little, or perhaps have focused on exceptions rather than the rule.

Why do you praise God? How does the healing and corrective presence of God make itself known to you? Why is prayer necessary for you to focus on the needs of those around you? Why does meditation make no sense without God?

Fallible wrote:Why do you praise God?

Because I believe he is the author of life. And I do believe life is a good thing. I can only imagine despairing to the point where someone would not think life praiseworthy; that is a very sad and dark place where I know some people have to live at least some of the time. Depression can be a great burden; I have only experienced mild depression in the past (linked to my alcoholism). That was bad enough and I know of people who suffered, and suffer, it far worse than me.

Fallible wrote:How does the healing and corrective presence of God make itself known to you?

As I said earlier - I experienced healing that occurred after a commitment to prayer for that healing. The corrective presence is experienced in the same way - I come out of prayer a little different to how I went in. I change, a little, in prayer and those changes accumulate over time. That is how those things have been made known to me, but I don't speak for others on this.

Fallible wrote:Why is prayer necessary for you to focus on the needs of those around you?

I would say prayer aids me in focusing on the needs of others around me. Left to my own devices I have quite a talent for selfishness. Prayer has lifted me somewhat away from that over time. Others are gifted with more grace to naturally consider all the needs of people around them.

Fallible wrote:Why does meditation make no sense without God?

It makes no sense to me because I believe we are made in the image of God and in meditation we are peeling away from of the surface layers of our life and are uncovering what is in our core. To me that is the mark and voice of God. I know those in Eastern Religions will make a different sense of meditation, but I speak here of the sense I make of meditation.

Monas wrote:

Fallible wrote:Why do you praise God?

Because I believe he is the author of life. And I do believe life is a good thing. I can only imagine despairing to the point where someone would not think life praiseworthy; that is a very sad and dark place where I know some people have to live at least some of the time. Depression can be a great burden; I have only experienced mild depression in the past (linked to my alcoholism). That was bad enough and I know of people who suffered, and suffer, it far worse than me.

Well hang on a minute, Monas. Don't you think you're taking a bit of a leap there? That considering life not praiseworthy must mean that you are depressed? For example no atheist will see life as praiseworthy, so it can't be right that it signifies depression unless you see all atheists as being depressed.

I am glad that you have only experienced mild depression, by the way.

Fallible wrote:How does the healing and corrective presence of God make itself known to you?

As I said earlier - I experienced healing that occurred after a commitment to prayer for that healing.

Well yes, but exactly what happened? Far be it from me to try to dictate the meanings of your own experience to you, but it sounds like you were already a Christian at the time you began praying. Were you receiving any other help with your problem at the time? If not, why not? What I can see happened is that you apparently managed to overcome your disease somehow. To me, this is great and shows the power that each of us has to move towards what is best for us. Looking in on your experience one could say, although information is limited, that you got yourself through with help from supportive people, but that due to a pre-existing belief you attribute that to a god.

The corrective presence is experienced in the same way - I come out of prayer a little different to how I went in. I change, a little, in prayer and those changes accumulate over time. That is how those things have been made known to me, but I don't speak for others on this.

Do you think you'd experience these small changes to a deity if you didn't have your belief?

Fallible wrote:Why is prayer necessary for you to focus on the needs of those around you?

I would say prayer aids me in focusing on the needs of others around me. Left to my own devices I have quite a talent for selfishness. Prayer has lifted me somewhat away from that over time. Others are gifted with more grace to naturally consider all the needs of people around them.

I see, so when you referred to ''us'' in your previous post, you were actually just talking about yourself..? When you talk about selfishness, what do you mean? In my work I've discovered that we humans have a terrbile propensity for calling basic self-care and self-regard ''selfishness'', as though we've been told somewhere along the line that thinking of oneself is wrong, that looking after oneself is laziness, that life should be always about helping others. Of course, many of the people I see have indeed been told this over and over again. I see the end result. It's not nice.

Fallible wrote:Why does meditation make no sense without God?

It makes no sense to me because I believe we are made in the image of God and in meditation we are peeling away from of the surface layers of our life and are uncovering what is in our core. To me that is the mark and voice of God. I know those in Eastern Religions will make a different sense of meditation, but I speak here of the sense I make of meditation.

Do you generally find it difficult to see beyond your own beliefs and values to those of others, like you find it difficut to focus on the needs of others? Because it's blindingly obvious that people of all faiths and none regard meditation as a valuable and enriching part of their lives. Again, perhaps we are suffering from a case of pronoun misunderstanding.

Monas wrote:Hi Trubble

I think the two main ways I see prayer working is as I said earlier. Firstly prayer 'works' to praise God. When monks praise God they are doing so for the Church as a whole. Secondly, prayer feeds us and opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of God. I do indeed think that can be similar to mediation, though I would be a little wary of any meditative approach that is too focused solely on the self; prayer should also lift us outside of ourselves to see the needs of others around us. For me prayer, or even meditation, makes no sense without God, and without the light of God within us, but that is not to say that I think a person meditating must necessarily believe in God for God to shape them.

Praising god? Now there's a thing. Why do think a god would need constant praising? Why is it beneficial to it, or indeed us? What use is there for praising an omnipotent being? Why would monks need to praise god for the church as a whole? Does the church as a whole not praise their god sufficiently without the help of monks? This explanation of yours makes no sense.

Prayer feeds us? Does it? I think not. Is this an unsupported assertion or do you have some reason behind the claim?
Prayer opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of your god? Does it? I think not. Do you have a reason for this claim as well?
I believe you when you say that prayer makes no sense without a god but there appears to be no sense in prayer and no god. I see no god, just humans. Can you show me god in all this? Where can we see it working because to my eyes, it is just like the Emperor's New Clothes. A fabrication of pious folks that desperately need there to be some sort of cosmic daddy.

Ah, now, miracles and healing. I would perhaps want to distinguish the two. I have experienced healing, from alcoholism. That healing occurred after totally submitting my alcoholism to God, in prayer. I have little doubt that without prayer I would still be drinking (if I was still here). That to me is a healing found in prayer (and, to me, found in God), but I would not call that a miracle. I don't think anything occurred that was against any laws of nature. When it comes to miracles I always want to first ask "what do you mean?" before progressing further. I admit to some scepticsm about any particular miracle claim. I also admit to some theological concern - why is one person healed and another not? Still, that gets us on to the problem of suffering which is probably way too big a topic to discuss here (though I would just note that I do find it a problem).

I am glad you have healed from your alcoholism. It seems a little dishonest to credit your god with this wonderful feat though, at least without addressing why you think your god healed you but refuses to heal amputees. Personally, I think the answer is obvious. Humans have the ability to heal themselves of alcoholism but not to grow a new limb. This is positive though, you needn't rely on myths and superstitions, you have all the power you need already within you. Nothing divine, just human.
It is interesting that you can recognise the problems with claims of miracles, can you also recognise how much of the Catholic church was built on what can only charitably called "claims", (I suspect we both know that "lies" is probably closer to the truth.) These claims might be something minor like attributing some sort of healing or they might be major, like claims of the sun stopping in the sky. These miracles are certainly not divine, they are tricks.
I notice you do not attempt to offer a reason as to why miraculous healing seems to be limited to things that can heal without miracle, but is absent from things which cannot be healed. Suspicious, no? that's one reason why I dislike faith so much, it makes fools of us all.

Just one last note on your last point that prayer is beaten into us. A problem I have with that hypothesis is the common occurrence of prayer across many civilizations across time. The notion of deity may differ, but there does seem a general anthropology of prayer in human history. Why does something so commonly occur if it requires it to be beaten into us? Also I can honestly say I was never frightened into prayer as a child. While I do dare say some people's upbringing were as described in Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes I do think some people might have dramatized their own upbringing a little, or perhaps have focused on exceptions rather than the rule.

Yes, prayer is common across cultures. I suspect beating prayers into children is similarly ubiquitous. Prayer being widespread says nothing about the existence of a god but it says much about human desperation. Religions feed off this desperation, they become fat and bloated like catholicism and to a lesser extent, anglicanism.
If you really think the widespread occurrence of prayer shows it's effectiveness, do you also think that children's blankies protect children? It is a placebo, a false comfort a confidence trick. It is like the witch-doctors that sell militiamen talismans to protect them from bullets. If the wearer is killed, the shaman simply says he did not have enough faith. If the prayer doesn't work, the rube has not enough faith.
Prayer is a method of control, it utilises tools such as repetition and even dehumanisation to offer an appearance of help where there is in fact none.
If jesus saw fit to cure one man of blindness, why not cure all men of it? Was it beyond his abilities or did all other blind men deserve their punishment? If god sees fit to remove a nun's tumour, why not remove all tumours?

Prayer does not add up, it does not make sense through theistic eyes. It is a rather clever trick though.

trubble76 wrote:

Monas wrote:Hi Trubble

I think the two main ways I see prayer working is as I said earlier. Firstly prayer 'works' to praise God. When monks praise God they are doing so for the Church as a whole. Secondly, prayer feeds us and opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of God. I do indeed think that can be similar to mediation, though I would be a little wary of any meditative approach that is too focused solely on the self; prayer should also lift us outside of ourselves to see the needs of others around us. For me prayer, or even meditation, makes no sense without God, and without the light of God within us, but that is not to say that I think a person meditating must necessarily believe in God for God to shape them.

Praising god? Now there's a thing. Why do think a god would need constant praising? Why is it beneficial to it, or indeed us? What use is there for praising an omnipotent being? Why would monks need to praise god for the church as a whole? Does the church as a whole not praise their god sufficiently without the help of monks? This explanation of yours makes no sense.

Prayer feeds us? Does it? I think not. Is this an unsupported assertion or do you have some reason behind the claim?
Prayer opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of your god? Does it? I think not. Do you have a reason for this claim as well?
I believe you when you say that prayer makes no sense without a god but there appears to be no sense in prayer and no god. I see no god, just humans. Can you show me god in all this? Where can we see it working because to my eyes, it is just like the Emperor's New Clothes. A fabrication of pious folks that desperately need there to be some sort of cosmic daddy.

Firstly Mr trubble, dont you think you are being inconsiderate to go after someone in the welcome thread itself?. Secondly,it makes sense to me. Praising god and praying to God is used in my opinion as a cure to ones egotism. I think we are wired to believe, placebo effect!. It works if you believe it.Even if it doesnt support God.

trubble76 wrote:

Ah, now, miracles and healing. I would perhaps want to distinguish the two. I have experienced healing, from alcoholism. That healing occurred after totally submitting my alcoholism to God, in prayer. I have little doubt that without prayer I would still be drinking (if I was still here). That to me is a healing found in prayer (and, to me, found in God), but I would not call that a miracle. I don't think anything occurred that was against any laws of nature. When it comes to miracles I always want to first ask "what do you mean?" before progressing further. I admit to some scepticsm about any particular miracle claim. I also admit to some theological concern - why is one person healed and another not? Still, that gets us on to the problem of suffering which is probably way too big a topic to discuss here (though I would just note that I do find it a problem).

I am glad you have healed from your alcoholism. It seems a little dishonest to credit your god with this wonderful feat though, at least without addressing why you think your god healed you but refuses to heal amputees. Personally, I think the answer is obvious. Humans have the ability to heal themselves of alcoholism but not to grow a new limb. This is positive though, you needn't rely on myths and superstitions, you have all the power you need already within you. Nothing divine, just human.
It is interesting that you can recognise the problems with claims of miracles, can you also recognise how much of the Catholic church was built on what can only charitably called "claims", (I suspect we both know that "lies" is probably closer to the truth.) These claims might be something minor like attributing some sort of healing or they might be major, like claims of the sun stopping in the sky. These miracles are certainly not divine, they are tricks.
I notice you do not attempt to offer a reason as to why miraculous healing seems to be limited to things that can heal without miracle, but is absent from things which cannot be healed. Suspicious, no? that's one reason why I dislike faith so much, it makes fools of us all.

Escape from egotism,in this case blaming oneself and constantly ruminating about alcoholism and ones failures or successes can be tempered down considerably in my opinion within the natural laws domain and can help in the issue of alcoholism as Mr Monas himself agreed, and he does agree there seems to be a problem with miracles.However how do you justify that miracles are necessarily tricks?. I think placebos only work as long as one believes and believing in god can help, unless you believe all alcoholics should abandon faith risking their deterioration?.Thats unethical in practice. As far as amputees are concerned, I think some amputees go through complete change in their view of world and tend to receive a greater sense of well being from change in their perspective.Of course it would be better it happens without losing ones limbs, however most people tend to not value the simple thing of possessing limbs to begin with every day until they lose one and unfortunately,rudely are awaken to lifes disturbing uncertainty forcing them to look at life with different perspective.

trubble76 wrote:

Just one last note on your last point that prayer is beaten into us. A problem I have with that hypothesis is the common occurrence of prayer across many civilizations across time. The notion of deity may differ, but there does seem a general anthropology of prayer in human history. Why does something so commonly occur if it requires it to be beaten into us? Also I can honestly say I was never frightened into prayer as a child. While I do dare say some people's upbringing were as described in Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes I do think some people might have dramatized their own upbringing a little, or perhaps have focused on exceptions rather than the rule.

Yes, prayer is common across cultures. I suspect beating prayers into children is similarly ubiquitous. Prayer being widespread says nothing about the existence of a god but it says much about human desperation. Religions feed off this desperation, they become fat and bloated like catholicism and to a lesser extent, anglicanism.
If you really think the widespread occurrence of prayer shows it's effectiveness, do you also think that children's blankies protect children? It is a placebo, a false comfort a confidence trick. It is like the witch-doctors that sell militiamen talismans to protect them from bullets. If the wearer is killed, the shaman simply says he did not have enough faith. If the prayer doesn't work, the rube has not enough faith.
Prayer is a method of control, it utilises tools such as repetition and even dehumanisation to offer an appearance of help where there is in fact none.
If jesus saw fit to cure one man of blindness, why not cure all men of it? Was it beyond his abilities or did all other blind men deserve their punishment? If god sees fit to remove a nun's tumour, why not remove all tumours?

Prayer does not add up, it does not make sense through theistic eyes. It is a rather clever trick though.

[/quote]

The only problem here is that you like most atheists do not look closely at popular criticisms of dawkins,harris,dennett etc and use their perspective of hard science except I honestly think that sometimes I could do a better job of criticizing religion with more sound arguments or perhaps more efficiently and also be able to do a better job of defending faith(not religion) if only for its utility. So here is the minor problem that most atheists miss when they adopt the hard science approach of dawkins(the alternate would be science without preconceived notions as to how things ought to be) is that why does placebo effect exists to begin with? And could its existence have been predicted by dawkinsian approach of bashing religion no matter what? . Of course scientists would pejoratively call it as placebo(of course, you or I believing that we love our spouse, children and are moral could also just be a placebo). Most scientists are atheists to begin with, however if one calculates how much of an impact it could make to ones lives, Industries could have literally made billions if they could just bottle it and they probably do because pharmaceutical medicines are not independently tested by the govt, they just take the results from the industries I believe, I could be wrong. Also, it could be more than a placebo if research could be carried out, I think recent researches into the area of meditation and contemplative practices seem to suggest to me at least that there is something here worth further exploring but we live in a world where most medical research is geared to making profits rather than in teaching self regulation(which doesnt lead to profits for medical industry).

Of course, you or others are free to disagree with me entirely and if you do, I already do concede to you all, largely because I see no point in arguing this case any further. Also because I am primarily here to say that we are in the welcome thread and I believe we should be decent to begin with at least.

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Monas wrote:Hi Trubble

I think the two main ways I see prayer working is as I said earlier. Firstly prayer 'works' to praise God. When monks praise God they are doing so for the Church as a whole. Secondly, prayer feeds us and opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of God. I do indeed think that can be similar to mediation, though I would be a little wary of any meditative approach that is too focused solely on the self; prayer should also lift us outside of ourselves to see the needs of others around us. For me prayer, or even meditation, makes no sense without God, and without the light of God within us, but that is not to say that I think a person meditating must necessarily believe in God for God to shape them.

Praising god? Now there's a thing. Why do think a god would need constant praising? Why is it beneficial to it, or indeed us? What use is there for praising an omnipotent being? Why would monks need to praise god for the church as a whole? Does the church as a whole not praise their god sufficiently without the help of monks? This explanation of yours makes no sense.

Prayer feeds us? Does it? I think not. Is this an unsupported assertion or do you have some reason behind the claim?
Prayer opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of your god? Does it? I think not. Do you have a reason for this claim as well?
I believe you when you say that prayer makes no sense without a god but there appears to be no sense in prayer and no god. I see no god, just humans. Can you show me god in all this? Where can we see it working because to my eyes, it is just like the Emperor's New Clothes. A fabrication of pious folks that desperately need there to be some sort of cosmic daddy.

Firstly Mr trubble, dont you think you are being inconsiderate to go after someone in the welcome thread itself?. Secondly,it makes sense to me. Praising god and praying to God is used in my opinion as a cure to ones egotism. I think we are wired to believe, placebo effect!. It works if you believe it.Even if it doesnt support God.

You are quite right, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. My apologies to all concerned. As for the praising, I have questions because the claims make no sense. Your input has not clarified the problems.

trubble76 wrote:

Ah, now, miracles and healing. I would perhaps want to distinguish the two. I have experienced healing, from alcoholism. That healing occurred after totally submitting my alcoholism to God, in prayer. I have little doubt that without prayer I would still be drinking (if I was still here). That to me is a healing found in prayer (and, to me, found in God), but I would not call that a miracle. I don't think anything occurred that was against any laws of nature. When it comes to miracles I always want to first ask "what do you mean?" before progressing further. I admit to some scepticsm about any particular miracle claim. I also admit to some theological concern - why is one person healed and another not? Still, that gets us on to the problem of suffering which is probably way too big a topic to discuss here (though I would just note that I do find it a problem).

I am glad you have healed from your alcoholism. It seems a little dishonest to credit your god with this wonderful feat though, at least without addressing why you think your god healed you but refuses to heal amputees. Personally, I think the answer is obvious. Humans have the ability to heal themselves of alcoholism but not to grow a new limb. This is positive though, you needn't rely on myths and superstitions, you have all the power you need already within you. Nothing divine, just human.
It is interesting that you can recognise the problems with claims of miracles, can you also recognise how much of the Catholic church was built on what can only charitably called "claims", (I suspect we both know that "lies" is probably closer to the truth.) These claims might be something minor like attributing some sort of healing or they might be major, like claims of the sun stopping in the sky. These miracles are certainly not divine, they are tricks.
I notice you do not attempt to offer a reason as to why miraculous healing seems to be limited to things that can heal without miracle, but is absent from things which cannot be healed. Suspicious, no? that's one reason why I dislike faith so much, it makes fools of us all.

Escape from egotism,in this case blaming oneself and constantly ruminating about alcoholism and ones failures or successes can be tempered down considerably in my opinion within the natural laws domain and can help in the issue of alcoholism as Mr Monas himself agreed, and he does agree there seems to be a problem with miracles.However how do you justify that miracles are necessarily tricks?. I think placebos only work as long as one believes and believing in god can help, unless you believe all alcoholics should abandon faith risking their deterioration?.Thats unethical in practice. As far as amputees are concerned, I think some amputees go through complete change in their view of world and tend to receive a greater sense of well being from change in their perspective.Of course it would be better it happens without losing ones limbs, however most people tend to not value the simple thing of possessing limbs to begin with every day until they lose one and unfortunately,rudely are awaken to lifes disturbing uncertainty forcing them to look at life with different perspective.

I am all for self-healing, as I am for truth and accuracy. His assertion that his god cured him but fails to cure others doesn't make any sense, I'm hoping to find out how he deals with this problem.
Placebos work even if you know they are placebos, lying is unnecessary. I don't think alcoholics should abandon faith, I think humans should abandon faith because it makes no sense.
I'm not sure what point you are making about amputees? I think my questions remain unanswered.

trubble76 wrote:

Just one last note on your last point that prayer is beaten into us. A problem I have with that hypothesis is the common occurrence of prayer across many civilizations across time. The notion of deity may differ, but there does seem a general anthropology of prayer in human history. Why does something so commonly occur if it requires it to be beaten into us? Also I can honestly say I was never frightened into prayer as a child. While I do dare say some people's upbringing were as described in Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes I do think some people might have dramatized their own upbringing a little, or perhaps have focused on exceptions rather than the rule.

Yes, prayer is common across cultures. I suspect beating prayers into children is similarly ubiquitous. Prayer being widespread says nothing about the existence of a god but it says much about human desperation. Religions feed off this desperation, they become fat and bloated like catholicism and to a lesser extent, anglicanism.
If you really think the widespread occurrence of prayer shows it's effectiveness, do you also think that children's blankies protect children? It is a placebo, a false comfort a confidence trick. It is like the witch-doctors that sell militiamen talismans to protect them from bullets. If the wearer is killed, the shaman simply says he did not have enough faith. If the prayer doesn't work, the rube has not enough faith.
Prayer is a method of control, it utilises tools such as repetition and even dehumanisation to offer an appearance of help where there is in fact none.
If jesus saw fit to cure one man of blindness, why not cure all men of it? Was it beyond his abilities or did all other blind men deserve their punishment? If god sees fit to remove a nun's tumour, why not remove all tumours?

Prayer does not add up, it does not make sense through theistic eyes. It is a rather clever trick though.

The only problem here is that you like most atheists do not look closely at popular criticisms of dawkins,harris,dennett etc and use their perspective of hard science except I honestly think that sometimes I could do a better job of criticizing religion with more sound arguments or perhaps more efficiently and also be able to do a better job of defending faith(not religion) if only for its utility. So here is the minor problem that most atheists miss when they adopt the hard science approach of dawkins(the alternate would be science without preconceived notions as to how things ought to be) is that why does placebo effect exists to begin with? And could its existence have been predicted by dawkinsian approach of bashing religion no matter what? . Of course scientists would pejoratively call it as placebo. Most scientists are atheists to begin with, however if one calculates how much of an impact it could make to ones lives, Industries could have literally made billions if they could just bottle it and they probably do because pharmaceutical medicines are not independently tested by the govt, they just take the results from the industries I believe, I could be wrong. Also, it could be more than a placebo if research could be carried out, I think recent researches into the area of meditation and contemplative practices seem to suggest to me at least that there is something here worth further exploring but we live in a world where most medical research is geared to making profits rather than in teaching self regulation(which doesnt lead to profits for medical industry).

I'm really not following you, I don't understand what points you are trying to make. I don't see how it follows from my post. I don't see how Dawkins is relevant.

Of course, you or others are free to disagree with me entirely and if you do, I already do concede with you all, largely because I see no point in arguing this case any further. Also because I am primarily here to say that we are in the welcome thread and I believe we should be decent to begin with at least.

I would love to disagree with you but I do not understand most of what you wrote. I do understand your final point though. How am I being not decent? I admit that this discussion should be in a different thread but that can be rectified by a lovely, helpful mod if they so wish. I can't see why this conversation seems indecent to you.

trubble76 wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Monas wrote:Hi Trubble

I think the two main ways I see prayer working is as I said earlier. Firstly prayer 'works' to praise God. When monks praise God they are doing so for the Church as a whole. Secondly, prayer feeds us and opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of God. I do indeed think that can be similar to mediation, though I would be a little wary of any meditative approach that is too focused solely on the self; prayer should also lift us outside of ourselves to see the needs of others around us. For me prayer, or even meditation, makes no sense without God, and without the light of God within us, but that is not to say that I think a person meditating must necessarily believe in God for God to shape them.

Praising god? Now there's a thing. Why do think a god would need constant praising? Why is it beneficial to it, or indeed us? What use is there for praising an omnipotent being? Why would monks need to praise god for the church as a whole? Does the church as a whole not praise their god sufficiently without the help of monks? This explanation of yours makes no sense.

Prayer feeds us? Does it? I think not. Is this an unsupported assertion or do you have some reason behind the claim?
Prayer opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of your god? Does it? I think not. Do you have a reason for this claim as well?
I believe you when you say that prayer makes no sense without a god but there appears to be no sense in prayer and no god. I see no god, just humans. Can you show me god in all this? Where can we see it working because to my eyes, it is just like the Emperor's New Clothes. A fabrication of pious folks that desperately need there to be some sort of cosmic daddy.

Firstly Mr trubble, dont you think you are being inconsiderate to go after someone in the welcome thread itself?. Secondly,it makes sense to me. Praising god and praying to God is used in my opinion as a cure to ones egotism. I think we are wired to believe, placebo effect!. It works if you believe it.Even if it doesnt support God.

You are quite right, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. My apologies to all concerned. As for the praising, I have questions because the claims make no sense. Your input has not clarified the problems.

trubble76 wrote:

Ah, now, miracles and healing. I would perhaps want to distinguish the two. I have experienced healing, from alcoholism. That healing occurred after totally submitting my alcoholism to God, in prayer. I have little doubt that without prayer I would still be drinking (if I was still here). That to me is a healing found in prayer (and, to me, found in God), but I would not call that a miracle. I don't think anything occurred that was against any laws of nature. When it comes to miracles I always want to first ask "what do you mean?" before progressing further. I admit to some scepticsm about any particular miracle claim. I also admit to some theological concern - why is one person healed and another not? Still, that gets us on to the problem of suffering which is probably way too big a topic to discuss here (though I would just note that I do find it a problem).

I am glad you have healed from your alcoholism. It seems a little dishonest to credit your god with this wonderful feat though, at least without addressing why you think your god healed you but refuses to heal amputees. Personally, I think the answer is obvious. Humans have the ability to heal themselves of alcoholism but not to grow a new limb. This is positive though, you needn't rely on myths and superstitions, you have all the power you need already within you. Nothing divine, just human.
It is interesting that you can recognise the problems with claims of miracles, can you also recognise how much of the Catholic church was built on what can only charitably called "claims", (I suspect we both know that "lies" is probably closer to the truth.) These claims might be something minor like attributing some sort of healing or they might be major, like claims of the sun stopping in the sky. These miracles are certainly not divine, they are tricks.
I notice you do not attempt to offer a reason as to why miraculous healing seems to be limited to things that can heal without miracle, but is absent from things which cannot be healed. Suspicious, no? that's one reason why I dislike faith so much, it makes fools of us all.

Escape from egotism,in this case blaming oneself and constantly ruminating about alcoholism and ones failures or successes can be tempered down considerably in my opinion within the natural laws domain and can help in the issue of alcoholism as Mr Monas himself agreed, and he does agree there seems to be a problem with miracles.However how do you justify that miracles are necessarily tricks?. I think placebos only work as long as one believes and believing in god can help, unless you believe all alcoholics should abandon faith risking their deterioration?.Thats unethical in practice. As far as amputees are concerned, I think some amputees go through complete change in their view of world and tend to receive a greater sense of well being from change in their perspective.Of course it would be better it happens without losing ones limbs, however most people tend to not value the simple thing of possessing limbs to begin with every day until they lose one and unfortunately,rudely are awaken to lifes disturbing uncertainty forcing them to look at life with different perspective.

I am all for self-healing, as I am for truth and accuracy. His assertion that his god cured him but fails to cure others doesn't make any sense, I'm hoping to find out how he deals with this problem.
Placebos work even if you know they are placebos, lying is unnecessary. I don't think alcoholics should abandon faith, I think humans should abandon faith because it makes no sense.
I'm not sure what point you are making about amputees? I think my questions remain unanswered.

trubble76 wrote:

Just one last note on your last point that prayer is beaten into us. A problem I have with that hypothesis is the common occurrence of prayer across many civilizations across time. The notion of deity may differ, but there does seem a general anthropology of prayer in human history. Why does something so commonly occur if it requires it to be beaten into us? Also I can honestly say I was never frightened into prayer as a child. While I do dare say some people's upbringing were as described in Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes I do think some people might have dramatized their own upbringing a little, or perhaps have focused on exceptions rather than the rule.

Yes, prayer is common across cultures. I suspect beating prayers into children is similarly ubiquitous. Prayer being widespread says nothing about the existence of a god but it says much about human desperation. Religions feed off this desperation, they become fat and bloated like catholicism and to a lesser extent, anglicanism.
If you really think the widespread occurrence of prayer shows it's effectiveness, do you also think that children's blankies protect children? It is a placebo, a false comfort a confidence trick. It is like the witch-doctors that sell militiamen talismans to protect them from bullets. If the wearer is killed, the shaman simply says he did not have enough faith. If the prayer doesn't work, the rube has not enough faith.
Prayer is a method of control, it utilises tools such as repetition and even dehumanisation to offer an appearance of help where there is in fact none.
If jesus saw fit to cure one man of blindness, why not cure all men of it? Was it beyond his abilities or did all other blind men deserve their punishment? If god sees fit to remove a nun's tumour, why not remove all tumours?

Prayer does not add up, it does not make sense through theistic eyes. It is a rather clever trick though.

The only problem here is that you like most atheists do not look closely at popular criticisms of dawkins,harris,dennett etc and use their perspective of hard science except I honestly think that sometimes I could do a better job of criticizing religion with more sound arguments or perhaps more efficiently and also be able to do a better job of defending faith(not religion) if only for its utility. So here is the minor problem that most atheists miss when they adopt the hard science approach of dawkins(the alternate would be science without preconceived notions as to how things ought to be) is that why does placebo effect exists to begin with? And could its existence have been predicted by dawkinsian approach of bashing religion no matter what? . Of course scientists would pejoratively call it as placebo. Most scientists are atheists to begin with, however if one calculates how much of an impact it could make to ones lives, Industries could have literally made billions if they could just bottle it and they probably do because pharmaceutical medicines are not independently tested by the govt, they just take the results from the industries I believe, I could be wrong. Also, it could be more than a placebo if research could be carried out, I think recent researches into the area of meditation and contemplative practices seem to suggest to me at least that there is something here worth further exploring but we live in a world where most medical research is geared to making profits rather than in teaching self regulation(which doesnt lead to profits for medical industry).

I'm really not following you, I don't understand what points you are trying to make. I don't see how it follows from my post. I don't see how Dawkins is relevant.

Of course, you or others are free to disagree with me entirely and if you do, I already do concede with you all, largely because I see no point in arguing this case any further. Also because I am primarily here to say that we are in the welcome thread and I believe we should be decent to begin with at least.

I would love to disagree with you but I do not understand most of what you wrote. I do understand your final point though. How am I being not decent? I admit that this discussion should be in a different thread but that can be rectified by a lovely, helpful mod if they so wish. I can't see why this conversation seems indecent to you.

In that case, thats fine. I wouldnt have liked discussing these things in welcome thread to begin with if it was me, thats all.
I am only saying that dawkins way of debating isnt very good. I do not defend faith but I think there is utility in having faith under some circumstances.
Placebos only work if one believes that they work. In other words, religion works if one believes that it works, one cant therefore accuse religious people of lying about it. I do not understand as to why you used the word "lying".
Amputees with faith probably can learn to let go the disturbing event through their faith(not necessarily religious). Thats all

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Praising god? Now there's a thing. Why do think a god would need constant praising? Why is it beneficial to it, or indeed us? What use is there for praising an omnipotent being? Why would monks need to praise god for the church as a whole? Does the church as a whole not praise their god sufficiently without the help of monks? This explanation of yours makes no sense.

Prayer feeds us? Does it? I think not. Is this an unsupported assertion or do you have some reason behind the claim?
Prayer opens us up acutely to the healing and corrective presence of your god? Does it? I think not. Do you have a reason for this claim as well?
I believe you when you say that prayer makes no sense without a god but there appears to be no sense in prayer and no god. I see no god, just humans. Can you show me god in all this? Where can we see it working because to my eyes, it is just like the Emperor's New Clothes. A fabrication of pious folks that desperately need there to be some sort of cosmic daddy.

Firstly Mr trubble, dont you think you are being inconsiderate to go after someone in the welcome thread itself?. Secondly,it makes sense to me. Praising god and praying to God is used in my opinion as a cure to ones egotism. I think we are wired to believe, placebo effect!. It works if you believe it.Even if it doesnt support God.

You are quite right, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. My apologies to all concerned. As for the praising, I have questions because the claims make no sense. Your input has not clarified the problems.

trubble76 wrote:


I am glad you have healed from your alcoholism. It seems a little dishonest to credit your god with this wonderful feat though, at least without addressing why you think your god healed you but refuses to heal amputees. Personally, I think the answer is obvious. Humans have the ability to heal themselves of alcoholism but not to grow a new limb. This is positive though, you needn't rely on myths and superstitions, you have all the power you need already within you. Nothing divine, just human.
It is interesting that you can recognise the problems with claims of miracles, can you also recognise how much of the Catholic church was built on what can only charitably called "claims", (I suspect we both know that "lies" is probably closer to the truth.) These claims might be something minor like attributing some sort of healing or they might be major, like claims of the sun stopping in the sky. These miracles are certainly not divine, they are tricks.
I notice you do not attempt to offer a reason as to why miraculous healing seems to be limited to things that can heal without miracle, but is absent from things which cannot be healed. Suspicious, no? that's one reason why I dislike faith so much, it makes fools of us all.

Escape from egotism,in this case blaming oneself and constantly ruminating about alcoholism and ones failures or successes can be tempered down considerably in my opinion within the natural laws domain and can help in the issue of alcoholism as Mr Monas himself agreed, and he does agree there seems to be a problem with miracles.However how do you justify that miracles are necessarily tricks?. I think placebos only work as long as one believes and believing in god can help, unless you believe all alcoholics should abandon faith risking their deterioration?.Thats unethical in practice. As far as amputees are concerned, I think some amputees go through complete change in their view of world and tend to receive a greater sense of well being from change in their perspective.Of course it would be better it happens without losing ones limbs, however most people tend to not value the simple thing of possessing limbs to begin with every day until they lose one and unfortunately,rudely are awaken to lifes disturbing uncertainty forcing them to look at life with different perspective.

I am all for self-healing, as I am for truth and accuracy. His assertion that his god cured him but fails to cure others doesn't make any sense, I'm hoping to find out how he deals with this problem.
Placebos work even if you know they are placebos, lying is unnecessary. I don't think alcoholics should abandon faith, I think humans should abandon faith because it makes no sense.
I'm not sure what point you are making about amputees? I think my questions remain unanswered.

trubble76 wrote:


Yes, prayer is common across cultures. I suspect beating prayers into children is similarly ubiquitous. Prayer being widespread says nothing about the existence of a god but it says much about human desperation. Religions feed off this desperation, they become fat and bloated like catholicism and to a lesser extent, anglicanism.
If you really think the widespread occurrence of prayer shows it's effectiveness, do you also think that children's blankies protect children? It is a placebo, a false comfort a confidence trick. It is like the witch-doctors that sell militiamen talismans to protect them from bullets. If the wearer is killed, the shaman simply says he did not have enough faith. If the prayer doesn't work, the rube has not enough faith.
Prayer is a method of control, it utilises tools such as repetition and even dehumanisation to offer an appearance of help where there is in fact none.
If jesus saw fit to cure one man of blindness, why not cure all men of it? Was it beyond his abilities or did all other blind men deserve their punishment? If god sees fit to remove a nun's tumour, why not remove all tumours?

Prayer does not add up, it does not make sense through theistic eyes. It is a rather clever trick though.

The only problem here is that you like most atheists do not look closely at popular criticisms of dawkins,harris,dennett etc and use their perspective of hard science except I honestly think that sometimes I could do a better job of criticizing religion with more sound arguments or perhaps more efficiently and also be able to do a better job of defending faith(not religion) if only for its utility. So here is the minor problem that most atheists miss when they adopt the hard science approach of dawkins(the alternate would be science without preconceived notions as to how things ought to be) is that why does placebo effect exists to begin with? And could its existence have been predicted by dawkinsian approach of bashing religion no matter what? . Of course scientists would pejoratively call it as placebo. Most scientists are atheists to begin with, however if one calculates how much of an impact it could make to ones lives, Industries could have literally made billions if they could just bottle it and they probably do because pharmaceutical medicines are not independently tested by the govt, they just take the results from the industries I believe, I could be wrong. Also, it could be more than a placebo if research could be carried out, I think recent researches into the area of meditation and contemplative practices seem to suggest to me at least that there is something here worth further exploring but we live in a world where most medical research is geared to making profits rather than in teaching self regulation(which doesnt lead to profits for medical industry).

I'm really not following you, I don't understand what points you are trying to make. I don't see how it follows from my post. I don't see how Dawkins is relevant.

Of course, you or others are free to disagree with me entirely and if you do, I already do concede with you all, largely because I see no point in arguing this case any further. Also because I am primarily here to say that we are in the welcome thread and I believe we should be decent to begin with at least.

I would love to disagree with you but I do not understand most of what you wrote. I do understand your final point though. How am I being not decent? I admit that this discussion should be in a different thread but that can be rectified by a lovely, helpful mod if they so wish. I can't see why this conversation seems indecent to you.

In that case, thats fine. I wouldnt have liked discussing these things in welcome thread to begin with if it was me, thats all.
I am only saying that dawkins way of debating isnt very good. I do not defend faith but I think there is utility in having faith under some circumstances.
Placebos only work if one believes that they work. In other words, religion works if one believes that it works, one cant therefore accuse religious people of lying about it. I do not understand as to why you used the word "lying".
Amputees with faith probably can learn to let go the disturbing event through their faith(not necessarily religious). Thats all

I don't know much about Dawkin's style of debate, I'm not sure why you want to talk about it in this thread.
Actually, I think you are wrong. Placebos work regardless of your belief about them. I don't have time to google the reports but perhaps you could if you are interested enough.
As for amputees, they prove that prayer, faith and gods do not heal. Their suffering or their acceptance is not at all relevant to my point.
The reason I use the word "lying" is a reference to the catholic practice of canonisation. They make up miracles for people they wish to make a saint. I don't think the word is out of place.

trubble76 wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Firstly Mr trubble, dont you think you are being inconsiderate to go after someone in the welcome thread itself?. Secondly,it makes sense to me. Praising god and praying to God is used in my opinion as a cure to ones egotism. I think we are wired to believe, placebo effect!. It works if you believe it.Even if it doesnt support God.

You are quite right, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. My apologies to all concerned. As for the praising, I have questions because the claims make no sense. Your input has not clarified the problems.

Escape from egotism,in this case blaming oneself and constantly ruminating about alcoholism and ones failures or successes can be tempered down considerably in my opinion within the natural laws domain and can help in the issue of alcoholism as Mr Monas himself agreed, and he does agree there seems to be a problem with miracles.However how do you justify that miracles are necessarily tricks?. I think placebos only work as long as one believes and believing in god can help, unless you believe all alcoholics should abandon faith risking their deterioration?.Thats unethical in practice. As far as amputees are concerned, I think some amputees go through complete change in their view of world and tend to receive a greater sense of well being from change in their perspective.Of course it would be better it happens without losing ones limbs, however most people tend to not value the simple thing of possessing limbs to begin with every day until they lose one and unfortunately,rudely are awaken to lifes disturbing uncertainty forcing them to look at life with different perspective.

I am all for self-healing, as I am for truth and accuracy. His assertion that his god cured him but fails to cure others doesn't make any sense, I'm hoping to find out how he deals with this problem.
Placebos work even if you know they are placebos, lying is unnecessary. I don't think alcoholics should abandon faith, I think humans should abandon faith because it makes no sense.
I'm not sure what point you are making about amputees? I think my questions remain unanswered.

The only problem here is that you like most atheists do not look closely at popular criticisms of dawkins,harris,dennett etc and use their perspective of hard science except I honestly think that sometimes I could do a better job of criticizing religion with more sound arguments or perhaps more efficiently and also be able to do a better job of defending faith(not religion) if only for its utility. So here is the minor problem that most atheists miss when they adopt the hard science approach of dawkins(the alternate would be science without preconceived notions as to how things ought to be) is that why does placebo effect exists to begin with? And could its existence have been predicted by dawkinsian approach of bashing religion no matter what? . Of course scientists would pejoratively call it as placebo. Most scientists are atheists to begin with, however if one calculates how much of an impact it could make to ones lives, Industries could have literally made billions if they could just bottle it and they probably do because pharmaceutical medicines are not independently tested by the govt, they just take the results from the industries I believe, I could be wrong. Also, it could be more than a placebo if research could be carried out, I think recent researches into the area of meditation and contemplative practices seem to suggest to me at least that there is something here worth further exploring but we live in a world where most medical research is geared to making profits rather than in teaching self regulation(which doesnt lead to profits for medical industry).

I'm really not following you, I don't understand what points you are trying to make. I don't see how it follows from my post. I don't see how Dawkins is relevant.

Of course, you or others are free to disagree with me entirely and if you do, I already do concede with you all, largely because I see no point in arguing this case any further. Also because I am primarily here to say that we are in the welcome thread and I believe we should be decent to begin with at least.

I would love to disagree with you but I do not understand most of what you wrote. I do understand your final point though. How am I being not decent? I admit that this discussion should be in a different thread but that can be rectified by a lovely, helpful mod if they so wish. I can't see why this conversation seems indecent to you.

In that case, thats fine. I wouldnt have liked discussing these things in welcome thread to begin with if it was me, thats all.
I am only saying that dawkins way of debating isnt very good. I do not defend faith but I think there is utility in having faith under some circumstances.
Placebos only work if one believes that they work. In other words, religion works if one believes that it works, one cant therefore accuse religious people of lying about it. I do not understand as to why you used the word "lying".
Amputees with faith probably can learn to let go the disturbing event through their faith(not necessarily religious). Thats all

I don't know much about Dawkin's style of debate, I'm not sure why you want to talk about it in this thread.
Actually, I think you are wrong. Placebos work regardless of your belief about them. I don't have time to google the reports but perhaps you could if you are interested enough.
As for amputees, they prove that prayer, faith and gods do not heal. Their suffering or their acceptance is not at all relevant to my point.
The reason I use the word "lying" is a reference to the catholic practice of canonisation. They make up miracles for people they wish to make a saint. I don't think the word is out of place.

perhaps you have not thought this one out thoroughly, Placebos work because they believe it works, if they believed that placebos do damage, it will, thats nocebo effect. Maybe I am wrong but perhaps the catholics have something like devils advocate , lying in my opinion is to intentionally deceive knowing all to well that the facts are wrong, I am not sure if one can be accused of lying if one does it out of belief, if i say i love my mum, am i lying to my self?

On the subject of not thinking things though, have you evidence that nocebos cause damage rather than an increase in subjective symptoms?

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
You are quite right, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. My apologies to all concerned. As for the praising, I have questions because the claims make no sense. Your input has not clarified the problems.

I am all for self-healing, as I am for truth and accuracy. His assertion that his god cured him but fails to cure others doesn't make any sense, I'm hoping to find out how he deals with this problem.
Placebos work even if you know they are placebos, lying is unnecessary. I don't think alcoholics should abandon faith, I think humans should abandon faith because it makes no sense.
I'm not sure what point you are making about amputees? I think my questions remain unanswered.


I'm really not following you, I don't understand what points you are trying to make. I don't see how it follows from my post. I don't see how Dawkins is relevant.

I would love to disagree with you but I do not understand most of what you wrote. I do understand your final point though. How am I being not decent? I admit that this discussion should be in a different thread but that can be rectified by a lovely, helpful mod if they so wish. I can't see why this conversation seems indecent to you.

In that case, thats fine. I wouldnt have liked discussing these things in welcome thread to begin with if it was me, thats all.
I am only saying that dawkins way of debating isnt very good. I do not defend faith but I think there is utility in having faith under some circumstances.
Placebos only work if one believes that they work. In other words, religion works if one believes that it works, one cant therefore accuse religious people of lying about it. I do not understand as to why you used the word "lying".
Amputees with faith probably can learn to let go the disturbing event through their faith(not necessarily religious). Thats all

I don't know much about Dawkin's style of debate, I'm not sure why you want to talk about it in this thread.
Actually, I think you are wrong. Placebos work regardless of your belief about them. I don't have time to google the reports but perhaps you could if you are interested enough.
As for amputees, they prove that prayer, faith and gods do not heal. Their suffering or their acceptance is not at all relevant to my point.
The reason I use the word "lying" is a reference to the catholic practice of canonisation. They make up miracles for people they wish to make a saint. I don't think the word is out of place.

perhaps you have not thought this one out thoroughly, Placebos work because they believe it works, if they believed that placebos do damage, it will, thats nocebo effect. Maybe I am wrong but perhaps the catholics have something like devils advocate , lying in my opinion is to intentionally deceive knowing all to well that the facts are wrong, I am not sure if one can be accused of lying if one does it out of belief, if i say i love my mum, am i lying to my self?

Placebos work even if you know it is nothing. You could have googled it yourself if you had taken 10 seconds.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010 ... -sham-drug

Yes, lying is intentional. This is why I used that word, it fit my meaning well.
If you say you love your mum, I believe you. What the hell are you whittering on about, of course you love your mum. How does it have the slightest bearing on my posts?
The RCC lies about miracles so that they can call people saints for political reasons.

BlackBart wrote:On the subject of not thinking things though, have you evidence that nocebos cause damage rather than an increase in subjective symptoms?

that is a strange question, good or bad in medicine is dependent on evaluation of the symptoms.

In the strictest sense, a nocebo response occurs when a drug trial's subject's symptoms are worsened by the administration of an inert, sham

Negative expectations can also cause analgesic effects of anesthetic medications to be abolished.[2]

from wiki

. The second group was told by the doctors that they would be taking "placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS-symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes".

"Not only did we make it absolutely clear that these pills had no active ingredient and were made from inert substances, but we actually had 'placebo' printed on the bottle," said Kaptchuk. "We told the patients that they didn't have to even believe in the placebo effect. Just take the pills."

As you can see, the doctors told them that it produces significant improvement. I wonder what would have happened if they were told that they would at first feel bad for say 2 days, then better ?. The problem here is that they were told that it works, how can you intentionally not believe it works when you were told that it works and would you want to believe that it does not work if you were the patient?