You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
He’s just on a decade-plus delay:
HEAVEN—Explaining that He had been "absolutely swamped," God announced yesterday that He was finally able to find time in His busy schedule…
[tags]atheist, atheism, God, Jesus, prayer[/tags]
You do realize that “no” is an answer.
There is a lot of prayer that isn’t a Christmas list, that’s a common misunderstanding among atheists, it would seem.
** no matter of fact will overturn a logically empty claim **
The lack of a response is not a response of ‘no.’ It’s simply a non-response. But, then it’s really important that a so-called “God” not respond at all, ever.
Of course you can’t presuppose that prayer reduces to the ancient doctrine of “do ut des.” You’d make it too easy on yourself.
No theologian would concede the point. These guys have been around for 2,000 years getting paid to play pointless games, like apologetics. I’ll role play one for you:
## Jesus admonished his followers against prayer as asking-for-stuff — “consider the lilies of the field”, or prayer as public performance — “they have their reward.”
That ritualism too often substitutes for religion the Quakers made central to their practice of heeding the “Inner Light” — the equality of all believers, without clergy or any hierarchy, to be open to a divine presence here and now.
Getting rid of dead formalisms, prayer amounts to an alignment of a person’s intentions with “the will of God.”
Just how one explicates the concept of “God’s will” and how one would know it are other matters altogether.
But, we were concerned about the concept of prayer. And, I’ve given an answer to your question. ##
OK. Now, you can move on to your next question: Does everything that happens happen according to the “Will of God”? And the game moves on the next level of making the so-called will of god an unnecessary cause of events in the physical world. (This game is pointless btw; and it’s boring too.)
Prayer, basically, is just a red herring. The word ‘prayer’ simply gets redefined until the action it points to is rendered into attitude adjustment. (This the common answer — it’s your problem. Religion and psychology are together in blaming the victim.)
A god whose existence could not be tested, conceptually would simply be a nothing. Which has been the correct answer all along.
bipolar2 copyright asserted 2007
Follow Patheos on