Has prayer ever worked for you?

[Paul98]

"Buy" in the context of "accepting" in as Paul used the word.

lol, no I was using the word buy because if I want to read them I need to buy as in pay money for the book.

 

[Retro Rob]

lol, no I was using the word buy because if I want to read them I need to buy as in pay money for the book.

My bad, reading comprehension fail on my part...

 

[smackababy]

I am supposed to buy that????

I am 100% sure it's the same rehashed stupid faulty arguments you hear all the time and are all over the internet. Is there some sort of new argument that hasn't been shown to be wrong over and over again?

I read a few of the reviews on one of them, and it is filled with either intellectual dishonesty or the writer is just so badly misinformed it is not funny. They claim to view the 'problem' through unbiased eyes, painting themselves to be a skeptic, but only use information that is linked toward ID supporters, theologians claiming to be scientists, and a widely discredited biochemist who admitted (after the book was published) you have to have a 'wider view' of science to accept ID and that it hinges on your belief in God.

I suppose that is a bit easier to convince yourself you did the research than just blindly believing a book because it says so.

 

[Retro Rob]

I read a few of the reviews on one of them, and it is filled with either intellectual dishonesty or the writer is just so badly misinformed it is not funny. They claim to view the 'problem' through unbiased eyes, painting themselves to be a skeptic, but only use information that is linked toward ID supporters, theologians claiming to be scientists, and a widely discredited biochemist who admitted (after the book was published) you have to have a 'wider view' of science to accept ID and that it hinges on your belief in God.

I suppose that is a bit easier to convince yourself you did the research than just blindly believing a book because it says so.

Does it strike you as odd that both atheists and religious people call each other misinformed?

 

[TreyRandom]

I read a few of the reviews on one of them, and it is filled with either intellectual dishonesty or the writer is just so badly misinformed it is not funny. They claim to view the 'problem' through unbiased eyes, painting themselves to be a skeptic, but only use information that is linked toward ID supporters, theologians claiming to be scientists, and a widely discredited biochemist who admitted (after the book was published) you have to have a 'wider view' of science to accept ID and that it hinges on your belief in God.

I suppose that is a bit easier to convince yourself you did the research than just blindly believing a book because it says so.

You know, I figured that was the response I was going to get. Why would I expect anything different on AT?

Well, I tried. I hope somebody gets some good out of what I said.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am supposed to buy that????

I am 100% sure it's the same rehashed stupid faulty arguments you hear all the time and are all over the internet. Is there some sort of new argument that hasn't been shown to be wrong over and over again?

This reminds me of a conversation I saw an atheist having with a religious person.

Theist:"Yes, I do believe God created the world and humans".

Atheist: "Well, how do you know? Do you have any evidence of this creator?"

Theist: "This is what I believe...my faith in God and the Bible".

Atheists: "So you have no evidence, you just "believe"?.... See this is the arrogance in religion, they say they know something they can't prove".

Theist: "Well, you tell me how we got here for evolution to jump start".

Atheist: "I don't know"

Theist: "So you can't tell me how, but you know God didn't do it...how can you possibly know God didn't do it, while "not knowing" how we got here?"

Atheist: *Brief second of silence* "well, at least I can admit I don't know unlike you guys".


...with the atheist totally ignoring the ironic hypocrisy in his arguments, yet he still found a way to castigate the theist for "not admitting" to not knowing, while he himself didn't know anything.

lol atheists.

 

[Paul98]

This reminds me of a conversation I saw an atheist having with a religious person.

Theist:"Yes, I do believe God created the world and humans".

Atheist: "Well, how do you know? Do you have any evidence of this creator?"

Theist: "This is what I believe...my faith in God and the Bible".

Atheists: "So you have no evidence, you just "believe"?.... See this is the arrogance in religion, they say they know something they can't prove".

Theist: "Well, you tell me how we got here for evolution to jump start".

Atheist: "I don't know"

Theist: "So you can't tell me how, but you know God didn't do it...how can you possibly know God didn't do it, while "not knowing" how we got here?"

Atheist: *Brief second of silence* "well, at least I can admit I don't know unlike you guys".


...with the atheist totally ignoring the ironic hypocrisy in his arguments, yet he still found a way to castigate the theist for "not admitting" to not knowing, while he himself claimed to know something he didn't know.

lol atheists.

It's actually simple.

Not knowing is fine.

Claiming to know but having no evidence is NOT fine.

Not believing in the made up claim is what you should do until evidence is presented.

And for this example especially when we have already have parts of what may eventually lead to us figuring exactly how life began. Thus we have evidence for it coming about through chemistry, and not through god. Thus the belief in the evidence over the belief in something made up with no evidence the choice is clear.

Edit: ugh, why do I even try

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This argument seems to confuse control with mere knowledge. I own dogs who love to eat. If you were to drop a hamburger in front of my dogs, I'm entirely certain they'd eat it. I do not coerce them into this outcome, but the outcome is certain regardless.

You didn't create your dogs. Your knowledge is not infallible.

These things are true for God, however, and make all the difference.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's actually simple.

Not knowing is fine.

Claiming to know but having no evidence is NOT fine.

Not believing in the made up claim is what you should do until evidence is presented.

And for this example especially when we have already have parts of what may eventually lead to us figuring exactly how life began. Thus we have evidence for it coming about through chemistry, and not through god. Thus the belief in the evidence over the belief in something made up with no evidence the choice is clear.

Not knowing is fine, but essentially calling someone an idiot for knowing the exact same thing you know (which is nothing) is hypocritically dishonest.

Actually, DNA coming from an external source (aliens -- an argument rehashed by Richard Dawkins) is more absurd than invoking God.

Do you believe that too?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This reminds me of a conversation I saw an atheist having with a religious person.

Theist:"Yes, I do believe God created the world and humans".

Atheist: "Well, how do you know? Do you have any evidence of this creator?"

Theist: "This is what I believe...my faith in God and the Bible".

Atheists: "So you have no evidence, you just "believe"?.... See this is the arrogance in religion, they say they know something they can't prove".

Theist: "Well, you tell me how we got here for evolution to jump start".

Atheist: "I don't know"

Theist: "So you can't tell me how, but you know God didn't do it...how can you possibly know God didn't do it, while "not knowing" how we got here?"

Where did the atheist say he "know(s) God didn't do it"? If you're going to argue with imaginary people, you could at least try to make them resemble reality.

Atheist: *Brief second of silence* "well, at least I can admit I don't know unlike you guys".

...with the atheist totally ignoring the ironic hypocrisy in his arguments, yet he still found a way to castigate the theist for "not admitting" to not knowing, while he himself didn't know anything.

There's a difference that you are ignoring:

Scientists will easily concede that there are things we do not know, but they have a reliable method for discovering objective knowledge.

Theists, on the other hand, want others to believe things for which there is no method for objective verification.

Scientists say we don't know. Theists say we can't know. Big difference.

lol atheists.

And here I thought there was supposed to be a higher level of decorum on this forum.

 

[Paul98]

Not knowing is fine, but essentially calling someone an idiot for knowing the exact same thing you know (which is nothing) is hypocritically dishonest.

Actually, DNA coming from an external source (aliens -- an argument rehashed by Richard Dawkins) is more absurd than invoking God.

Do you believe that too?

They wouldn't be calling them an idiot because they know the same thing which is that they don't know. It's because they believe something to be a fact when they have no evidence to back up the claim.

 

[Retro Rob]

Where did the atheist say he "know(s) God didn't do it"? If you're going to argue with imaginary people, you could at least try to make them resemble reality.

Probably earlier in the conversation. Remember, I'm "quoting" someone else.

Where do I say I'm arguing with anyone?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Actually, DNA coming from an external source (aliens -- an argument rehashed by Richard Dawkins) is more absurd than invoking God.

What's absurd about panspermia? We've observed exactly zero disembodied minds of unlimited powers, but have observed at least one planet in the universe with life. Moreover, the mechanisms involved in panspermia are consistent with every known physical, chemical, and biological theory. The same can not be said for the alleged characteristics of your magical friend.

So, you want to revise that statement?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Probably earlier in the conversation. Remember, I'm "quoting" someone else.

Who are you quoting?

Where do I say I'm arguing with anyone?

Your entire little script is an imaginary argument. Is that hard to understand?

No comment on this:

There's a difference that you are ignoring:

Scientists will easily concede that there are things we do not know, but they have a reliable method for discovering objective knowledge.

Theists, on the other hand, want others to believe things for which there is no method for objective verification.

Scientists say we don't know. Theists say we can't know. Big difference.

?????

 

[Retro Rob]

What's absurd about panspermia? We've observed exactly zero disembodied minds of unlimited powers, but have observed at least one planet in the universe with life. Moreover, the mechanisms involved in panspermia are consistent with every known physical, chemical, and biological theory. The same can not be said for the alleged characteristics of your magical friend.

So, you want to revise that statement?

No, this thread has devolved enough.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, this thread has devolved enough.

That's priceless. You bring up panspermia out of nowhere, making completely wrongheaded claims about it, and when corrected, you don't want to talk about it because "this thread has devolved enough."

Fantastic.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's priceless. You bring up panspermia out of nowhere, making completely wrongheaded claims about it, and when corrected, you don't want to talk about it because "this thread has devolved enough."

Fantastic.

Oh I am willing to talk about it, not in a thread about prayer.

Yeah, I should NOT have brought it up.

 

[Juddog]

Your entire little script is an imaginary argument. Is that hard to understand?

It reminds me of Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair.

 

[Retro Rob]

It reminds me of Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair.

I was arguing with an empty chair when you repeatedly ignored my earlier post in an attempt to redirect.

 

[Juddog]

You know, I figured that was the response I was going to get. Why would I expect anything different on AT?

Well, I tried. I hope somebody gets some good out of what I said.

Once again your logic gets shut down and you say "eh this is AT" as a deflection. Your logic is unsound, you posted a bunch of books encouraging Intellectual Design, and you expect that to magically change people's minds into believing that somehow your god, amongst the thousands of documented gods out there, is somehow the one true god where the others are false?

There is zero, I repeat, zero evidence so far in this thread that (your) God is somehow magically better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. None. You don't even seem to stand by the tenets given rather plainly in the Bible, so all you've shown us so far is that you have some unique idea of God that is shared with nobody else on the planet, and that your version is the "bestest of the best" of the Gods, because it's Anandtech, and to question otherwise must mean that the person asking questions is just ignorant. Take your ball and go home already.

 

[sandorski]

The Power of Prayer

Pray to Me

God's Priorities

 

[Juddog]

I was arguing with an empty chair when you repeatedly ignored my earlier post in an attempt to redirect.

I ignored your redirect, that is correct, so now that you're here, how about you answer the question, or are you still afraid?

IS OR IS NOT GOD ALL KNOWING?

Respond YES or NO. Simple question.

 

[JD50]

All that's already been addressed pages ago, JD. Sorry if my answers were not sufficient or did not meet with your satisfaction. Might be good for you to check out those books as well. Take care.

There's 172 posts in this thread, would you mind quoting your response?

 

[Juddog]

I don't see where I mentioned God at all - I was merely addressing the logic of the argument. Knowing outcomes =/= controlling outcomes.

I was extending your logic outwards; if you put a treat in front of an animal, they want to eat it, correct?

Same thing here - God puts the magic apple out there in front of the rib woman, being the inferior being that she is (since she's created from the rib of a man), she goes and eats it, prompted by the talking snake.

It's the exact same thing as you with the dogs, only in this instance, God is the one feeding the dogs, and the rib woman is the dog, and the hamburger is the magic apple.

 

[Retro Rob]

I ignored your redirect, that is correct, so now that you're here, how about you answer the question, or are you still afraid?

IS OR IS NOT GOD ALL KNOWING?

Respond YES or NO. Simple question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Respond YES or NO. Simple question.

Once you realize why you reject my question, you will then know why I reject yours.