When was the last time u prayed ?

[Maljonic]

I think this thread has turned up some interesting answers so far. I'm quite surprised at how like a sermon many of the people's posts are who say that they don't pray. I don't mean that they're trying to preach something exactly, just that they're sort of sermonesque in nature; giving reasons not to pray, expanding on the none-existence of God and so on in a manner that is almost a faith in itself.

It's also quite interesting, though I guess inevitable living in a Christian country, that the none/anti-faith is kind of from a Christian viewpoint.

Not sure that it means anything; just sometimes you expect things the other way around, like the people who do pray trying to put across why it's a good idea, rather than the people who don't saying why it is not.

 

[Maljonic]

i still laugh when people pray when they are about to die just to feel better haha

How many times have you seen that happen?

 

[DaGaffer]

I think this thread has turned up some interesting answers so far. I'm quite surprised at how like a sermon many of the people's posts are who say that they don't pray. I don't mean that they're trying to preach something exactly, just that they're sort of sermonesque in nature; giving reasons not to pray, expanding on the none-existence of God and so on in a manner that is almost a faith in itself.

It's also quite interesting, though I guess inevitable living in a Christian country, that the none/anti-faith is kind of from a Christian viewpoint.

Not sure that it means anything; just sometimes you expect things the other way around, like the people who do pray trying to put across why it's a good idea, rather than the people who don't saying why it is not.

Its not that surprising really; I would imagine many of the people who frequent FH come at religion from a techie/engineering/vaguely 'scientific' point of view, so they're going to apply a degree of logical rigour to their reasons for not believing, and that view will come across as a sermon, because what is a sermon, when you get down to it, but a lesson, and that structure is easy for the scientifically-minded to articulate.

 

[Conchabar]

How many times have you seen that happen?

to many times

 

[Maljonic]

to[o] many times

Eh? So you've actually seen people dying and praying and it's made you laugh, that's not very nice?

 

[ECA]

I think this thread has turned up some interesting answers so far. I'm quite surprised at how like a sermon many of the people's posts are who say that they don't pray. I don't mean that they're trying to preach something exactly, just that they're sort of sermonesque in nature; giving reasons not to pray, expanding on the none-existence of God and so on in a manner that is almost a faith in itself.

It's also quite interesting, though I guess inevitable living in a Christian country, that the none/anti-faith is kind of from a Christian viewpoint.

Not sure that it means anything; just sometimes you expect things the other way around, like the people who do pray trying to put across why it's a good idea, rather than the people who don't saying why it is not.

If someone came and posted "I like to fuck dogs in the arse" you think some of us would point out why thats a bit silly to them?

If something doesn't make sense to people then they will say so, especially on the intrapleb.

 

[Maljonic]

If someone came and posted "I like to fuck dogs in the arse" you think some of us would point out why thats a bit silly to them?

If something doesn't make sense to people then they will say so, especially on the intrapleb.

I don't expect anything of anyone, I just think it's an interesting phenomena of modern times, a sort of new faith in the form of science in place of God I guess. I don't think the original question was a silly as asking if you like to fuck dogs up the arse, just asking when, if ever, was the last time you prayed.

 

[ECA]

I don't expect anything of anyone, I just think it's an interesting phenomena of modern times, a sort of new faith in the form of science in place of God I guess. I don't think the original question was a silly as asking if you like to fuck dogs up the arse, just asking when, if ever, was the last time you prayed.

Who says its science? its really just a cumulative effect of observation, I'm not going to pretend to know how the universe came into existence or how life started.

PS: example was extreme but you get my point. Both are silly activities ( imho ) and as such get said reaction.

 

[Maljonic]

Okay, perhaps not science then - but science has become the new religion to a certain extent - but "rationality" or "believe in what you see" as a sort of faith.

 

[old.user4556]

Pray To Jebus

 

[moomin]

pseudo atheist here no praying for meh!

 

[Ebonn]

I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster daily.

:worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

 

[lilmissnaughty]

teh flying spaghetti monster is holding two coconuts

nothin meant by it m8 i dont mean to insult ur deity

/gets some more fire extinguishers for the embassy

 

[Moo]

i seem to turn to prayer around exam period.

 

[fusi]

im so on the fence

 

[DaGaffer]

Okay, perhaps not science then - but science has become the new religion to a certain extent - but "rationality" or "believe in what you see" as a sort of faith.

No. That's exactly what it's not. If science ever uses 'faith' as a justification, it's not science. It always amuses me when religion tries to reconcile itself with science, because it can't, ultimately. For scientists there's always an ultimate cop out that there might be something 'unknowable' beyond the universe, but even that is effectively at odds with religion because the only way it can work is if 'God' (for want of a better word), can't influence the universe. He may have set it in motion, but for the rules to work, he can't be here.

 

[nath]

Hallowed be His Noodly Appendage.


Edit: actually Gaff, as I recall there are particles or subatomic particles or something that behave in a proven random order. I don't know how one proves something is random but if that were actually the case - that could be the influence of God, if one were so inclined to believe.

 

[Maljonic]

No. That's exactly what it's not. If science ever uses 'faith' as a justification, it's not science. It always amuses me when religion tries to reconcile itself with science, because it can't, ultimately. For scientists there's always an ultimate cop out that there might be something 'unknowable' beyond the universe, but even that is effectively at odds with religion because the only way it can work is if 'God' (for want of a better word), can't influence the universe. He may have set it in motion, but for the rules to work, he can't be here.

I'm not talking about religion, I don't care about religion. I'm not saying science itself is a new faith, more that people are treating the word science or idea of science as such.

 

[noblok]

No. That's exactly what it's not. If science ever uses 'faith' as a justification, it's not science.

For science to work you have to accept certain things which can't be proven though, such as the existence of causality, the fact that reality can be understood rationally, etc. Even then science gives no certain knowledge either, since it works with falsification rather than verification.

He may have set it in motion, but for the rules to work, he can't be here.

I'm afraid I can't see why there can exist no god for the rules to work. It sounds like an interesting idea though, so could you eleaborate?

On the original topic: Except for the forced school prayers I can't quite remember, must've been years ago. I'm an atheist myself.

 

[Tilda]

Yesterday night before I went to bed, for my best friend.

 

[Wij]

Okay, perhaps not science then - but science has become the new religion to a certain extent - but "rationality" or "believe in what you see" as a sort of faith.

"Believe in what you see" is very mistaken view of science. Science has predicted the existence of all kinds of phenomena that we can not see (quantum mechanichs and such) but the knowledge of how those phenomena work has enabled us to come up with all kinds of frightfully clever inventions (like the PC you sit at now) which could not have been brought about without science. And certainly not by faith

They say the ultimate truth of a theory is how efficatious it is. Science has made all kinds of things happen, whether you like them or not. Religion never baked my bread or cured my cancer.





(I don't have cancer though)


(yet)

 

[DaGaffer]

For science to work you have to accept certain things which can't be proven though, such as the existence of causality, the fact that reality can be understood rationally, etc. Even then science gives no certain knowledge either, since it works with falsification rather than verification.

I'm afraid I can't see why there can exist no god for the rules to work. It sounds like an interesting idea though, so could you eleaborate?

On the original topic: Except for the forced school prayers I can't quite remember, must've been years ago. I'm an atheist myself.

Even causality has a logical proof. Faith just has...faith.

The belief in God as the builder of the universe, but absent from it, is Deism. I guess if was going to have any belief in a creator, this would be the nearest one that would fit.

I'm conflicted because I'd like to think the universe has structure and purpose, but even here there are logical conflicts; on the one hand, there's the argument that the universe had to develop in such a specific way for stars, galaxies, life to work, that it shows there must have been an intelligence at work, but of course the corollary is that we wouldn't be here to think about it if it had developed any other way, so the improbable doesn't equate to the impossible.

The one thing I am certain of is that the Biblical versions of God don't make any sense at all, and I see no reason to worship a diety according to a set of rules interpreted by people whose interest over generations was to control people.

 

[ECA]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/13/pope_darwin_love_in/

The popes a bit busy but he hopes his reply here will do

 

[xane]

For science to work you have to accept certain things which can't be proven though, such as the existence of causality, the fact that reality can be understood rationally, etc. Even then science gives no certain knowledge either, since it works with falsification rather than verification.

Science _is_ falsification, it works by having a theory which can be falsified, as time moves on and the theory seems to work, it gets accepted as "fact", but it still remains falsifiable.

Causality can be falsified, which is enough for science, it doesn't have to prove it positively.

Religion depends on things that cannot be falsified, based on theories where there is no way to prove them wrong.

 

[Ono]

I like the line in The Usual Suspects which said that the "greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people he doesn't exist".

If you believe in the existence of God, then the devil also exists.

 

[DaGaffer]

I like the line in The Usual Suspects which said that the "greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people he doesn't exist".

If you believe in the existence of God, then the devil also exists.

And...?

 

[Ono]

Well, if you knew the devil existed (and I mean in a tangible way) would that not shit you up and therefore believe in God?



Unless you prefer satan of course.

 

[noblok]

True, I probably didn't nuance enough. When I said science is no certain knowledge, I wasn't trying to say that it's just as certain as religion. I would classify science under belief, whereas religion is faith. Belief is based on good grounds, you have reasons to believe someone/something. Faith on the other hand is much more and requires you to surrender to a certain extent.

Religion depends on things which can't be falsified, true, but that also means that you cannot 'attack' it with scientific arguments. Religion is situated at a whole different level than science. Problems arise when religion declares things which actually belong to the domain of science and then science should point out that religion is in the wrong. The most fundamental point of religion though, the existence of a deity (who has created everything), is not really judgeable with scientific arguments.

I don't think causality can be falsified. Causality implies a necessary connection, this connection is only assumed and I don't see how you can falsify this. You can falsify it in certain situations, as in A isn't the cause of B, but the concept as such?

 

[Maljonic]

I like the line in The Usual Suspects which said that the "greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people he doesn't exist".

If you believe in the existence of God, then the devil also exists.

I don't agree with this at all, purely a Christian (or it's derivatives) concept and probably one of the reasons for its recent loss of interest amongst rational-thinking types. Makes good movie lines an ideas, though I suspect the only evil in the world come from ourselves, with the Devil being a typical transference of blame device common to many people.

 

[DaGaffer]

Well, if you knew the devil existed (and I mean in a tangible way) would that not shit you up and therefore believe in God?



Unless you prefer satan of course.

Well, if you had proof positive the Devil existed, it would be a fair bet that God existed as well (although how you would differentiate 'The Devil' from a pan-dimensional alien superbeing that was pretending to be the Devil to fuck with you, I have no idea); however, even if this implausible event meant I suddenly believed in God, I still wouldn't worship him (it, whatever).

This is what does my head in about organised religion; the creator of the UNIVERSE, wants you to go to a building once a week and worship him? And he didn't leave clear instructions, so he allowed three major rival methods of diety worship to develop (along with a myriad of sub-variants), which contradict each other, so if you pick the wrong one you may be fucked for all eternity, and 90% of the time the version of the diety-worship-lottery you follow is entirely down to where you happen to have been born, so most of us are fucked right from the start. If the big fella exists and he set things up this way, he's one pretty twisted Omnipotent Being, and certainly not deserving of anyone's worship frankly.