It seems the New York Times has noticed the debate as to whether people of faith should pray for Christopher Hitchens. I like this; it reflects my feelings, exactly:
Jeffrey Goldberg, a colleague of Hitchens’s at The Atlantic Monthly, consulted the rabbinical authorities and decided that prayer was O.K. On his blog, Goldberg quoted the advice of David Wolpe, a Los Angeles rabbi who has publicly debated Hitchens on a number of occasions: “I would say it is appropriate and even mandatory to do what one can for another who is sick; and if you believe that praying helps, to pray. It is in any case an expression of one’s deep hopes. So yes, I will pray for him, but I will not insult him by asking or implying that he should be grateful for my prayers.”
Kathleen
July 10th, 2010 | 3:59 pm | #48
I just pray, “Dear God, please turn his/her heart to the truth” for all sorts of people, including people in public life as well as private individuals
——————————————-
Kathleen, do you realize how pompous you are for thinking that YOU have it right while anyone who disagrees with your take on the truth is wrong?
Just because you FEEL you know the truth doesn’t mean it’s the truth.
lethargic
July 10th, 2010 | 3:51 pm | #47
Good grief, Gertrude, I can’t believe this is even an issue for any believing Christian. Scripture tells us that God desires that not one person be lost.
So lethargic… if god is all powerful and all that jazz, and he desires that none of us be “lost”, can’t he just make it so and be done with it? Why go through all the motions of having ti sacrifice himself to himself on a cross in the bronze age middle east?
Why is that SUCH a good thing?
The idea that a God would spare, or not spare someone, on the basis of some kine of prayer poll has always struck me as very bizarre.
Of course we should pray for him, for his return to good health. With regard to his conversion, I wouldn’t presume. Whatever God sees fit.
I’m surprised there is a debate about this. Of course, we pray. If you are a believer in the healing, transforming power of Christ, prayer is always part of the answer.
I disagree that the other person’s feelings should be considered. For one thing, if I were an atheist, I would just think you’re wasting your breath, and that’s up to you. But more importantly, we ought to obey God rather than men. Intercessary prayer is an duty and a joy–one powerful way to make a difference in the life of someone. I wouldn’t go up to Mr. Hitchens, thump my Bible over his head, and pray aloud for God to save his “poor, wretched soul”
, but talk with God about him and his family during this time–absolutely!
What we can pray for is God to work in this situation to open Mr. H’s heart to listen, we can pray for rest for him and his family, we can pray for God to bring someone into his life that will reflect God’s love and grace to Mr. H and his family.
Yes, thankfully, we have the blessing of freewill. Mr. Hitchens can reject every overture of the Holy Spirit. His heart can reject every small act of grace that God can show through believers, but we should still offer. There is no freewill if there is nothing to reject or accept.
Better to pray for him, and have God say “I’m sorry, but he wouldn’t accept me”, than to play God and cut him off ourselves.
I believe it is required of us to pray for Hitchen’s well being. Compassion requires it. Love thy neighbor is Christ’s second commandment out of only two. I may not like Hitchen’s fundementalist atheism, but he is a human being, a child of God, nonetheless with the devine spark of Christ within him. He is not satan. May God help him through his suffering, see the error of his ways, and lead his soul to heaven.
Hitchens is our Peter. “I tell you the truth, Peter–this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me.” …
A child of God and a denier of Christ, forgiveness comes just the same…
I have been praying for Mr. Hitchens for years and I plan on redoubling my efforts now that he is ill.
I disagree that the other person’s feelings should be considered.
If I may, I’d like Les and any other non-believers or former believers how they respond to this?
If someone tells you that they don’t care what you think or want, that they are going to “pray” for you even against your wishes and consent — does that sentiment cause you to want to draw closer to God? Or does it cause resentment and drive you away?
I’d like Les and any other non-believers or former believers how they respond to this?
Correction — “I’d like to ask Les and any other non-believers or former believers how they respond to this?”
Without pretending to know the mind of God, I’m sure as hell glad that God is the Judge and not Bender.
Wow. Did anyone, aside from a small few, bother to actually read and consider what I said?
Let me repeat myself –
Bender: We are obligated in faith to be charitable toward Hitchens, i.e. to love him, as we love ourselves and as Jesus loves us. . . . we have an obligation to love Hitchens. The question is how? . . . 12:02
By no means am I saying “screw him, I’m not praying for him, period.” No, we should pray. But what I am suggesting is that we should actually think about what we pray for. That we make our prayer an act of love, and not an act contrary to love. . . . 1:10
One could pray that God be there for him, that God, who is Divine Mercy, be merciful and loving and compassionate. . . . Or I suppose one could pray for whatever one wants to pray for, so long as there is the added provisos of “if it be Thy will Lord” and “if he is willing to accept it Lord . . .” 1:34
Without pretending to know the mind of God, I’m sure as hell glad that God is the Judge and not Bender.
Bender says listen to Jesus — love your enemy and pray for your persecutors. That’s what Bender says. Do you really oppose that merely because I add that we should ask ourselves what that means in practical terms, that our faith should seek understanding (which Jesus also said we should do, hence His sending of the Holy Spirit)?
What I do not understand here is how, “yes, love Hitchens, yes, pray” could be so controversial. Or why anyone would object to and protest against the statement that loving another means treating them like a person, not a thing, and actually taking into consideration whether they are receptive or not. Or how my statement that we should bother to think about how we love and how we pray should be so controversial.
To be sure, many here have railed against me . . . and then proven me right by saying we should pray for X, but not for Y, with respect to Hitchens.
(Bender wrote – “does that sentiment cause you to want to draw closer to God? Or does it cause resentment and drive you away?”)
How can an atheist possibly resent or be driven away from a God that he does not believe exists?
On the contrary, if he does feel resentment then part of him must believe in the very real possibility of God’s existence. One does not hate what is not there.
Bender asks…
does that sentiment (someone praying for me no matter what I think) cause you to want to draw closer to God? Or does it cause resentment and drive you away?
Knowing the ridiculousness of ALL religions in existence today, I find all forms of prayer to be a colossal waste of time.
If you want to give me well wishes, I’m not opposed to that, but praying to some god that supposedly cares for us only earns you my scorn… For wasting time and money giving your hard earned dollars for supposed charitable intentions, which more often than not end up being used by your religious leaders to enrich their own life… All because they act pious and knowledgeable about some afterlife they’ve constructed to control your life in the here and now.
There might be a god, most atheists I know don’t say for sure that a god doesn’t exist, but all an atheist is is a person who is without theism. Theism, which is the pretender to ultimate knowledge and everlasting bliss in some heaven that we all THINK might be. More likely we believe because it’s comforting to imagine that we have an afterlife where do gooders are rewarded and malevolent people receive their comeuppance.
There may be a god but laying claim to divine providence because you HAPPENED to be born in a “Christian nation” or “Muslim nation” or whatever… It’s just ridiculous to me now.
In a world still filled with SOOOOOO much mystery, why do you think it is that humans believe with ABSOLUTE certainty that they have DEFINITIVELY answered the question of the ORIGIN of ALL things?
Does it NOT strain credibility to actually believe that though we don’t possess a complete understanding of our own brain function, let alone millions of other things, that we have somehow MASTERED the maintenance of our immortal souls (which are as of yet still unprovable)?
Does that even SEEM logical?
Yet here we are, with a majority of the world’s population believing in one doctrine of faith or another, because they think that they are SO complex that there just HAS to be something more. Because there is SO much in the world, AND in the universe that has yet to EVEN be discovered, let alone UNDERSTOOD… Religious folk would rather have these mysteries remain, because it’s much easier to observe a tree than it is to discover photosynthesis, chlorophyll and the life cycle of individual types of trees.
Throughout history, EVERY mystery that has EVER been solved has turned out to be… NOT magic (which is the default claim of all miracle witnessing proponents)… Science has PULLED back the curtains on the Wizard of Oz COUNTLESS times, and MUCH that the world claimed used to belong to the supernatural, and by extension god, has been shown to have more natural explanations… Yet faith is still a virtue, except when it’s faith associated with people like the Muslims who flew the planes into the buildings in NYC and Washington…
Faith is the denial of observation, so that BELIEF can be preserved.
How can an atheist possibly resent or be driven away from a God that he does not believe exists?
An example — Les (4:30): Kathleen, do you realize how pompous you are for thinking that YOU have it right while anyone who disagrees with your take on the truth is wrong?
A non-believer is driven away by the behavior of believers. Rather than be appreciative of the thought, upon being told that the person praying does not care what they think, the non-believer may very well respond, “You don’t care what I think? Well, then you can take your bloody prayer and go to bloody hell.”
Forced “love” does not lead people to God, it often turns them away from Him. We serve people like Les poorly when we treat the views of non-believers cavalierly, as if they do not matter.
Respect for the other person — which is a part of love — requires that one consider his wishes. To be sure, “love” means seeking the good of the other, and not necessarily what makes him happy, but if going against his wishes leads him away from the good, then it obviously needs to be taken into account.
Correction of above.
I was thankful to read elsewhere that Zenna Henderson allegedly converted from Mormonism to Christianity (viz. Methodism) and further that the aforementioned short story “The Effectives” from Zenna Henderson’s “Holding Wonder” collection, a powerful story about the efficacy of praying even for those who specifically reject it, is available (the entirety of “Holding Wonder, <1MB textfile or plain text pdf) at scribd.com/doc/22596575/Zenna-Henderson-Holding-Wonder-Txt
HIGHLY recommended, like all her "The People" fiction so regrettably unread and just as unavailable!
Russ Davis
(Les wrote – “If you want to give me well wishes, I’m not opposed to that, but praying to some god that supposedly cares for us only earns you my scorn… “)
So “well wishes” is somehow a tangible assistance to you and NOT a waste of time? Really? How so?
(Les wrote – “In a world still filled with SOOOOOO much mystery, why do you think it is that humans believe with ABSOLUTE certainty that they have DEFINITIVELY answered the question of the ORIGIN of ALL things?”)
It is the atheists who believe with absolute certainty that there simply is no God. They believe that whatever our origins, it definitely is not God.
You’re more of an agnostic with a very real anger towards a very specific God that you’re not sure really exists.
In other words- you’re conflicted by your absolute certainty of the uncertain nature of a certain deity whom you are not really certain exists. Hence the frustration- hence the anger.
Nice try with the pop psychology Last Sphere, but it was poorly thought out…
What I AM certain of is mans ability to control man. What I AM certain of is that throughout history, we’ve had claimers to the divine throughout. Where people claim to know the mind of god, and are charismatic enough to garner followers (sheep) who are willing to suppress their own will and life meaning to others who make these claims to divine providence. How is it that if this god loves all of us so much, that he only shows himself to the “best” of us? It’s a bunch of malarkey and ridiculous to the extreme.
Be good all you want knowing that society at large will applaud your right actions, or be bad and endure the scorn and judgment of your fellow man. Either way, we all make a choice. Saying that a god stands behind you in the “rightness” of your ways adds nothing to the telling of it whether good or bad. It’s nothing more than the ultimate appeal to authority, to a being conveniently outside time and space…
Just be good for goodness sakes, and know that the idea of the golden rule was a rule long before Rabbi Hillel said it… Who said it hundreds of years before Christ had his go at it… And who (Hillel) was behind in saying it to the Chinese philosopher Confucious by several hundred more years before his time.
I am an agnostic atheist, and something of a deist actually… Deists are atheists in the sense that while they may believe in gods, they don’t believe in revelatory gods which is what you have to believe in order to be a theist… The religious tend to lose sight of the real meaning of the word atheist…
I know what the actual definitions are but ask yourself this question.
Why does atheism mean a lack of belief in a god when we have other words like amoral, atypical, agnostic, defined as follows…
Amoral means without morals
Atypical means without typical(ness)
Agnostic means without knowledge
Why does atheism mean lack of belief in god when it clearly follows the same spelling methodology as these other words?
In other words, atheism means without theism.
That being said…
From dictionary.com
theism means the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, WITHOUT rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
deism means belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, WITH rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
So while a deist believes in the existence of a god, he DOESN’T believe in the existence of THEISTIC gods, thus making him an atheist, because a deist is without belief in theistic gods.
I know you’ll disagree but there is my justification for why I’m an atheist.
I believe in a god AS A POSSIBILITY, I just don’t believe in theistic gods like Yahweh, etc…
So the reason for my scorn and dislike of religion and theistic gods my friends is because of the following.
In the REAL world, the only world we KNOW exists, people’s beliefs have consequences…
Sure, Christianity is a religion of peace but it’s adherents are JUST as susceptible to crazy actions as the Islamist is. They both hold a belief in a god for which we have very little, if any, evidence. Yet some of them choose to take things to the extreme now don’t they?
As I say, people’s beliefs have consequences, and this topic of gods and an afterlife elicits the most extreme of actions BECAUSE of the belief.
If you believed cyanide was a good thing to drink, I’d try to talk you out of it (I’d try anyway) but the consequence of thinking it was good to drink has a bad end result doesn’t it?
Same thing applies with this belief in god. If not for the belief in god, we wouldn’t have Islamic nutters blowing themselves, and others, up. We wouldn’t have Christian extremists blowing up abortion clinics, etc.
Yes, there will ALWAYS be crazies in life, for a myriad of reasons, but we work with these people to try to dispel their destructive beliefs don’t we?
The root cause of the religious war we find ourselves in with Islam is a belief in a god. We KNOW we’re right, and they KNOW they’re right, but what if the third option — that we’re all WRONG — was the right answer?
Just think about it a second. The VERY same logic and reason that you use to come to the conclusion that your religion is right is the VERY same that they use to profess a belief in their religious texts. Yes, they’re too fundamentalist about it but…
Theists often call atheists arrogant but pull the log from your own eye before seeking to pull the splinter from your neighbors. You call everyone else’s religion wrong and misguided, don’t you? How arrogant is that to dismiss the beliefs of others.
The reality is that ALL religious people’s beliefs are wrong, and it will be our undoing as a species one day.
I said a prayer for Mr. Hitchens as I do whenever I learn of anybody’s suffering. Yes, I prayed for and hope for his conversion. I have no doubt that God knows what to do with my prayers weak in faith that I am.
As well, I was an agnostic who reverted to the Catholic faith almost 10 years ago. I have always sensed that this miraculous event is due, in some part, to the prayers of countless people whom I hope to meet some day in heaven. I hope to meet Mr. Hitchens there, too. He seems like a fascinating guy.
Last Sphere said on
July 11th, 2010 | 1:49 am | #70
(Les wrote – “If you want to give me well wishes, I’m not opposed to that, but praying to some god that supposedly cares for us only earns you my scorn… “)
So “well wishes” is somehow a tangible assistance to you and NOT a waste of time? Really? How so?
——————————————-
I don’t believe I claimed that it gave me any “tangible” assistance at all. I intimated that it might give me a bit of comfort knowing that there are people who have my best health at the front of their minds… That they love me enough to express well wishes to me. I’m not an idiot my friend.
I would wish they they didn’t feel that some god was going to intervene on my behalf, at their request. I would wish that they lived their lives based on facts and evidence, not the faux facts and evidence that they’re fed as youngsters in church, and by their parents.
We have much more reason to be good to each other than to be bad and like I said before, saying that a god is behind your right actions adds nothing to the story. It’s wishful thinking and nothing more.
I don’t know for sure what the origin of our being is any more than you or your pastor do. Stop pretending that some books written 2000 years ago have more knowledge and understanding of the universe than we know to be true today about our possible origins.
What’s the real power of prayer? It aligns one’s soul with the Creator through trust that He knows the purpose of all our sufferings. What prayer is not is a talisman or ability to coax God to do *our* will. As Jacques Maritain and his wife wrote in their book on prayer, it is “God talk” – and each of us should practise it in all its forms, so as to prepare ourselves for each individual trek through life and back to Him (where our souls came from). Dobson or Hitchens are striving to live without God, but it is a futile process – since in trying to paint a portrait of existence sans God, they’re all the while using the very tools and faculties given to us by God (as for the health of their beings, I’m less hopeful about the transformation of an prideful atheist (really a committed anti-theist) than a ranting agnostic (who like a rebellious child is trying to defy his parent’s expectations). Cheers.
Clarifying point: by “parent’s expectations” I mean as he chooses to see things (limiting, judgemental, rules-based) – while the real relationship with our Father should be seen as freeing, accepting, and love-based. That’s the rebel’s fundamental problem.
Tom, the real power of prayer is non existent. Praying does nothing for anyone else except the person doing it. It comforts the person doing it, and that’s about it.
Tom, all that you just said is poetic and even beautiful to hear but it’s wishful thinking. That’s it, plain and simple.
You’d do better for yourself and the people you love if you stopped wasting time with poetry.
Bender asked:
If I may, I’d like Les and any other non-believers or former believers how they respond to this?
If someone tells you that they don’t care what you think or want, that they are going to “pray” for you even against your wishes and consent — does that sentiment cause you to want to draw closer to God? Or does it cause resentment and drive you away?
Um, do you recognize the illogic in this question? You are asking me if, when someone prays for me against my wishes, it draws me closer to God or drives me further from God.
The two choices you’ve allowed both require me to *believe in God* before I can decide whether I’ve been drawn in or driven away from that God. But I’m an atheist, a non-believer, so…
In fact, and as I’ve already posted, when someone prays for me I appreciate the sentiment for it has always been sincere when it has happened, but that’s about it.
do you recognize the illogic in this question? You are asking me if, when someone prays for me against my wishes, it draws me closer to God or drives me further from God.
Point taken.
Question revised: Does that sentiment cause you to want to draw closer to belief in God? Or does it cause resentment and drive you further away from believing?
(Bender wrote – “An example — Les (4:30): Kathleen, do you realize how pompous you are for thinking that YOU have it right while anyone who disagrees with your take on the truth is wrong?”)
You do realize Bender, that that is a contradictory statement by an atheist who obviously believes that HE has it right while anyone who disagrees with HIS take on the truth is wrong? Don’t you?
(Bender wrote – “A non-believer is driven away by the behavior of believers. Rather than be appreciative of the thought, upon being told that the person praying does not care what they think, the non-believer may very well respond, “You don’t care what I think? Well, then you can take your bloody prayer and go to bloody hell.”)
Again Bender, what exactly is the non-believer offended by? If God is not real, then the prayers are nothing more than a harmless waste of time. How can the atheist rationalize his offended feelings towards an empty meaningless act? His offended feelings obviously reveal a deeper conflict within his own beliefs. And that in itself is the seed of Hope.
And the Christian’s mere existence as a believer IS in and of itself a defiance of the atheists beliefs. So how can the atheist single out prayer as an exceptional offense by the Christian for a seemingly pointless act of delusional fantasy? And more so: why would an atheist invoke “hell”?
(Bender wrote – “Forced “love” does not lead people to God, it often turns them away from Him. We serve people like Les poorly when we treat the views of non-believers cavalierly, as if they do not matter.”)
On the contrary Bender, the Christian understands that the atheists beliefs DO indeed matter. They matter to the point that urgent prayer is required especially in the hour of mortality and suffering. Love urges the Christian to pray for the spiritual life of the non-believer. You talk as if conversion should somehow be painless and pleasant; Legions of Saints would beg to differ. No Cross No Crown.
(Bender wrote – “Respect for the other person — which is a part of love — requires that one consider his wishes. To be sure, “love” means seeking the good of the other, and not necessarily what makes him happy, but if going against his wishes leads him away from the good, then it obviously needs to be taken into account.”)
You’re presuming Bender that the atheist’s offense at prayers will somehow lead him away from good? What? Are you serious? He’s an ATHEIST my friend. How can he possibly get any further away from the goodness that is God than he already has? Your folly lies in your presumptions of the metaphysical, the spiritual, the “machinations” if you will of the profound mystery of prayer. You seem to think that prayer is ineffective or irrational or even dangerous if we don’t understand the exact intricacies of it’s spiritual workings.
By your rationale Bender we should never openly express God’s desire, much less our prayer intentions, for the conversion of any non-believer whether they are atheist, non-christian, or anti-catholic for fear of offending them.
By your rationale from one should never intervene with an alcoholic for fear that the alcoholic will be offended and as a result delve into drink even further. Why should Christians stop there Bender? Why don’t we stop doing all the things that may offend atheists? In fact, why don’t we stop attending mass? Why don’t we destroy our churches? Why don’t we just give up our beliefs entirely and succumb to there irrational belief in absolutely nothing so we can all get along for the sake of inoffensiveness?
I’m agnostic religiously, but I can’t see why a believer would not pray in such a case, nor why a non believer would not appreciate it. Even though I don’t agree with most religious beliefs myself, I do pray and I appreciate prayers for me. Believer or not, prayer is at least hoping for your success and why would people hoping for your success be offensive?
(Les wrote – “I intimated that it might give me a bit of comfort knowing that there are people who have my best health at the front of their minds… That they love me enough to express well wishes to me. I’m not an idiot my friend.”)
Your “best health at the front of their minds”? By atheistic standards that’s a completely ridiculous and meaningless notion. Why would that have any effect on you at all?
“they love me enough to express well wishes to me”? Love? What is love? By atheistic standards “love” is a completely ridiculous and meaningless notion as well. Again, Why would that have any effect on you at all?
Show me empirical evidence of “well wishes”. Show me empirical evidence of “love”.
(Les wrote- “I am an agnostic atheist, and something of a deist actually… “)
Oh I see.
From Dictionary.com:
Atheism-
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Deism-
1.belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
Agnosticism-
1.The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2.The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
So in other words Les you believe that there is no absolute proof that there is OR IS NOT a God, therefore you believe that there absolutely is no God and at the same time you believe that the evidence of reason and nature clearly indicates that there is a God that remains indifferent to the world.
Congratulations Les: I’d say you covered most of the bases pretty well my friend.
You’ve managed to combine the circle, the triangle, and the square into an indiscernible shape of illogical meaninglessness, proving the old adage:
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy; they first make mad.”
Although I have no idea who is right, I prefer religious ideas to athiests’. At least the ones I pick. That’s my advantage as an agnostic.
Last Sphere: “Love? What is love? By atheistic standards “love” is a completely ridiculous and meaningless notion as well.”
This is utter nonsense. Wherever did you get this silly notion? I’m sorry, but that’s laughably inane.
(Les wrote – “What I AM certain of is mans ability to control man.”)
Oh I agree Les. And that has never been more evident than in the atheistic regimes of the twentieth century.
Stalin’s regime alone (built upon the Marxist atheistic doctrine of the “new man”) was responsible for the deaths of approximately 30 million innocent souls.
Time and time again when God is removed by the state, the state becomes it’s own god and the atrocities far outnumber any other evil known to man.
RE: “Proof” of God, or of the nonexistence of God.
‘Proof’ is specifically defined only in science; elsewhere ‘proof’ is malleable and plastic, of many definitions, and generally in the eye of the beholder.
In the *scientific sense* of ‘proof’ and proving God, it cannot be done, nor can God be disproved. By definition God is nonphysical and outside the magisterium of science. Science cannot prove God in the same way that religion cannot prove oxygen consists of molecules from only one chemical element. Science and religion are nonoverlapping magisteria.
The existence / nonexistence of God are assertions that may only be believed on faith. Faith is belief without physical (scientific) evidence.
Talk of proving / disproving the existence of God is pointless.
(Les wrote – “Praying does nothing for anyone else except the person doing it. It comforts the person doing it, and that’s about it.”)
(Les wrote about well-wishes – “I intimated that it might give me a bit of comfort knowing that there are people who have my best health at the front of their minds… That they love me enough to express well wishes to me. I’m not an idiot my friend.”)
Let see: wishing an atheist well is beneficial because it expresses an intangible meaningless notion of something called “love”. Check. Got it.
Praying for an atheist is not only pointless, but seemingly OFFENSIVE because it invokes a belief that is intangible and meaningless. Uhm…..okay…….
And that makes sense in your world Les? Oh wait, I forgot: you live in the scientifically rational and reasonable world of the empirical (yet somehow metaphysical) triangular-circular-squarish thingy…..or something.
But wait. There’s more!
(Les wrote – “Tom, all that you just said is poetic and even beautiful to hear but it’s wishful thinking. That’s it, plain and simple.”)
Wha?!! “Wishful thinking” Les?
But Les, your opinion on “wishful thinking” was this:
(“I intimated that it might give me a bit of comfort knowing that there are people who have my best health at the front of their minds… That they love me enough to express well wishes to me. I’m not an idiot my friend.”)
Now Les, I know you’re not an idiot but you do seem confused.
(Les wrote – “You’d do better for yourself and the people you love if you stopped wasting time with poetry.”)
Yes of course Les. Instead we should spend our time with more substantive and meaningful pursuits like “wishful thinking” and completely contradictory beliefs of triangles circles and squares shouldn’t we.
(Henry Hawkins wrote – “Last Sphere: “Love? What is love? By atheistic standards “love” is a completely ridiculous and meaningless notion as well.”
This is utter nonsense. Wherever did you get this silly notion? I’m sorry, but that’s laughably inane.)
Feel free to define the atheistic explanation of “love” Henry.
Regardless of what it is, or where it comes from, I think love is pretty universal. It requires little faith or science to know it.
(bagoh20 wrote – “Regardless of what it is, or where it comes from, I think love is pretty universal. It requires little faith or science to know it.”)
Really?
Why is it “universal”? Why do humans “know it”?
“Why is it “universal”? Why do humans “know it”?”
I didn’t offer why, just that apparently nearly everyone does. Who doesn’t?
(bagoh20 wrote – “I didn’t offer why, just that apparently nearly everyone does. Who doesn’t?”)
I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t.
But you never explained WHY we know it and WHY it is universal.
If God requires an explanation- why doesn’t love?
With logic like yours Sphere, it amazes me you get by in life. I don’t know where to start so I’ll let your own words speak with their own inanity.
A willingness to suffer for him will be required as well as prayer. Note St. Faustina and St. Therese
Les said: “Tom, the real power of prayer is non existent. Praying does nothing for anyone else except the person doing it. It comforts the person doing it, and that’s about it.”
Please reread what I wrote Les – it says nothing abut prayer being able to affect anyone other than self … and I was emphatic that it’s not the magic wand that so many New Age-influenced RC’s, for one, wish it to be! As for poetry Sir – my field is Econ, so I’m far from the realm of poetry as it gets. Cheers once more.
(Les wrote – “With logic like yours Sphere, it amazes me you get by in life. I don’t know where to start so I’ll let your own words speak with their own inanity.”)
As a former atheist Les, I recognize your reluctance and inability to answer my questions with logic and reasoning.
Know this my friend: not only is yours a belief system, it is a belief system built upon the insane assertion of a universal negative and pure random chance that has somehow miraculously produced more than it’s origins.
“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.” – G.K.Chesterton
This conversation has turned into convoluted, meaningless tripe. Time to end it.
(Bender’s Cheerleader wrote – “This conversation has turned into convoluted, meaningless tripe. Time to end it.”)
The original debate was based on the absurd assertion of “whether people of faith should pray for Christopher Hitchens.”
The argument can easily be made from a Christian point of view that this conversation STARTED as convoluted meaningless tripe.
You’re late to the wrong party my friend.
The notion that we must give hairsplitting instructions to God when we pray for Hitchens seems to presume a knowledge his standing before God that is impossible.
God judges in truth; man in igorance — which is why we are forbidden to judge.
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem that praying in ignorance is forbidden. Besides, it presumes God ability to sort out the details.
So let me repeat:
Without pretending to know the mind of God, I’m sure as hell glad that God is the Judge and not Bender.
Your questions are inane Sphere.
Why would someone wishing me well have any effect on me? Why would it for you? Probably because you know that in addition to those who may wish you ill, you have those who wish you well. If everyone wished you ill then it’d be a pretty sad state of affairs in life. We love those we hold dear and enjoy their love of us. That sentiment is no different for an atheist or a theist. What atheistic standards are there in regards to this point? atheism ONLY says that a person is without theistic belief. That’s it, nothing more. Me telling you that I’m an atheist tells you nothing about my morals or ethics in life.
You seem to think that because someone is an atheist that they eat babies or do cultish things that are shunned by society in general… Where does your logic go awry to come to this conclusion?
Do you really think that someone needs to have a belief in a revelatory god in order to be good in life or know right from wrong? It only takes a sense of the “I” and the “other” to do that. All it takes is a bit of empathy. Most 4 year olds and older get this sense and learn it.
Please spare us all the tired out canard about atheistic regimes. Atheism had nothing to do with what was done by Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. The acts perpetrated on the people by those rulers had nothing to do with their disbelief in a god or gods. It had everything to do with the will of the ruler being imposed on the people. That’s it. If you want to play name games with terrible rulers in history we can play that game. There are many examples of Christian nations or Muslim nations conquering in the name of their god and the amount of people that suffered at the hands of theistic governments is as large or larger than anything done by so called atheistic regimes.
You want to know why people like Stalin and Mao did what they did in regards to religion? There are two “states” in the world. The national and the religious. The national has well defined borders and is maintained rather easily (relatively speaking). Religious borders span multiple countries and demand allegiances that transcend national borders. THAT’S why religion was stamped out by Stalin, Mao and others who you inaccurately name atheistic regimes. While Stalin was an avowed atheist, what he did to his people wasn’t in the name of atheism. It was in the name of the state… The name of Stalin, who WAS the state. The name of Mao, who WAS the state.
Please spare me that tired out canard Sphere.
Ray – I’d be willing to bet that the only person happier than you that God is Judge and not Bender, is Bender.
Bender rocks.
Atheism is not a belief system in the sense that a religion is Sphere.
Atheism is not a belief or value system Sphere. It is not moral or immoral. Atheism is a rejection of a belief in theistic deity/dieties. It says nothing at all about the beliefs a person DOES hold or his/her ethics, morals, or values If you are a Christian, then you do not believe in Krishna, Allah, Mithras, the Guatemalan Corn god, or Poseidon, the god of the sea. You do not fear these gods because you believe they do not exist.
As a Christian, you hold a believe in one god; however, you are an atheist with respect to all other gods. In the first and second centuries, Christians who did not worship the Emperor as god were called atheists by the romans.
We atheists reject all man made gods, such that they are man made by where they spawned on this planet, and which time they came into existence.
Stalin and Hitler did not massacre because of, or in the name of, atheism. They killed because they were madmen and drunk on power. Stalin just happened to be an atheist; he did not kill BECAUSE he was an atheist. This is different, for instance, from the Crusades or the Inquisition, when people were slaughtered or tortured in the name of religion.
The suicide bombers on 9/11 killed because of their religious texts, which said it was OK to kill unbelievers.
Religion does on thing VERY well. It pits man against man over a question that none of can answer and ever will I imagine.
Religion is taking on faith that a god in fact does exist, and that that god has a name and has revealed himself to us. That he demands things of us and demands that we do things in his name.
Faith means that one takes something for which there is no evidence, and accepts it anyway.
Atheism takes something specific for which there is no evidence (claim that a god named Yahweh exists, Allah exists), and rejects it. That’s darn close to the opposite of faith.
I suppose the response to that is that belief in total absence is a positive position to take, and requires either evidence or faith. I don’t think that’s true, because I don’t declare beyond all doubt that there are no gods. I just don’t accept any given god because there’s no evidence for any of them, and so I’m left with no specifically defined gods at all.
That requires a complete lack of leaps of faith.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion
Steven Weinberg, Nobel physicist