Religion
 

I know religion has been discussed immensely in this forum however after the weekend i had i would like to discuss. the question i have is why is it that at a moment of desperation why would someone ask/pray to god to either fix, save, or solve the problem. im just trying to gather why i did this as i am aethist. however when i was in the doctors office waiting on very life changing test results instead of just being concerned or nervous i found myself asking/praying to god to give me the result i was looking for.



i appologize for the spelling and if it doesnt make sense or is boring just let me know. just had the most shocking day of my life so all thoughts on the subject are appreciated reguardless.

Re: Religion
 

Are you simply trying to understand yourself better? Or are you pondering if your instinctive prayer was an epiphany into understanding the true nature of reality?

I don't think anybody can answer you unless you provide some more background/elaboration.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
im just trying to gather why i did this as i WAS aethist

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Now it needs no deep analysis.g'luck.

luckyme

Re: Religion
 

I don't know if I can answer your question. But I hope all goes well with you.

PairTheBoard

Re: Religion
 

Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more accurate explanation would include something along the lines of "and people naively (and incorrectly) assume that the spectrum of possible Gods does not include Gods who will help in all instances EXCEPT when asked or prayed to, and will punish the needy and whiny to eternal torture."

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more accurate explanation would include something along the lines of "and people naively (and incorrectly) assume that the spectrum of possible Gods does not include Gods who will help in all instances EXCEPT when asked or prayed to, and will punish the needy and whiny to eternal torture."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but our whole society seems to believe in a certain conception of God. When you're around that idea your whole life, it's not really surprising that you would appeal to that specific God when you find you have nowhere else to turn.

Re: Religion
 

Because you were extremely anxious and God might exist.

Re: Religion
 

An atheist would not ask god for help.

Re: Religion
 

I've asked Pokos the river god for help before.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've asked Pokos the river god for help before.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Religion
 

I think the answer you are looking for is: "desperation and a feeling of powerlessness".

These are qualities that are generally looked for in new recruits to various cults.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more accurate explanation would include something along the lines of "and people naively (and incorrectly) assume that the spectrum of possible Gods does not include Gods who will help in all instances EXCEPT when asked or prayed to, and will punish the needy and whiny to eternal torture."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but our whole society seems to believe in a certain conception of God. When you're around that idea your whole life, it's not really surprising that you would appeal to that specific God when you find you have nowhere else to turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed entirely, I was just nitpicking, but it is still naive and incorrect to do so. Maybe we should warn people of this? It seems cavalierly allowing them to pray when they are about to die, when that may be the very thing that kills them, is inhumane.

Really, I just think its silly and wrong to consider the act of prayer as "possibly good, but at the least benign." If it has ANY possibility of creating some positive outcome through intervention, it has that EXACT SAME probability of creating some negative outcome through intervention. So, prayer is either entirely benign or potentially harmful.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because you were extremely anxious and God might exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but which God? I would be too afraid to pray for fear that a really lazy, quicktempered God would smite me. I mean, if I don't pray, I have some small chance of surviving, but if I piss off God? Yikes.

Re: Religion
 

Nice argument vhawk1!

However, given the far higher probability of no god, allowing prayer in stressful situations becomes +EV overall because it helps calm you and give you a moment of inner quiet when it could all be about to go to the dogs.

I 'pray' frequently in terms of the motions I go through, relaxing, projecting my thoughts, mentally talking them out. I know I'm not talking to any supernatural being because all I am doing is rephrasing my problems to myself in a way that makes me feel good. That's all prayer is: the most common form of meditation. No god required, as in everything else. If OP decides to change the words he uses to be talking to god when he prays it doesn't change what he's actually achieving with his actions and that's what counts.

Hope the life changing results were good!

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more accurate explanation would include something along the lines of "and people naively (and incorrectly) assume that the spectrum of possible Gods does not include Gods who will help in all instances EXCEPT when asked or prayed to, and will punish the needy and whiny to eternal torture."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but our whole society seems to believe in a certain conception of God. When you're around that idea your whole life, it's not really surprising that you would appeal to that specific God when you find you have nowhere else to turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed entirely, I was just nitpicking, but it is still naive and incorrect to do so. Maybe we should warn people of this? It seems cavalierly allowing them to pray when they are about to die, when that may be the very thing that kills them, is inhumane.

Really, I just think its silly and wrong to consider the act of prayer as "possibly good, but at the least benign." If it has ANY possibility of creating some positive outcome through intervention, it has that EXACT SAME probability of creating some negative outcome through intervention. So, prayer is either entirely benign or potentially harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the probability of some sort of Judeo-Christian God is much higher than the probability of some other random God. Although we don't have good "evidence" for any Gods, there have been several very influential prophets who claim to have a message from the same God. I haven't seen any stories about people who claim to be from some other God and are even remotely as successful/popular.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the probability of some sort of Judeo-Christian God is much higher than the probability of some other random God. Although we don't have good "evidence" for any Gods, there have been several very influential prophets who claim to have a message from the same God. I haven't seen any stories about people who claim to be from some other God and are even remotely as successful/popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a cultural bias. There have been hundreds of Gods in different cultures and throughout different times all throughout human history. People have been communicating with their God(s) throughout.

If you lived in other parts of the world and/or in another era... you might be saying the same thing about Vishnu.

On a related note- the popularity of a belief has little bearing on its likelihood.

The more people who believe Elvis is alive and UFOs regularly anally probe hillbillies does not change the liklihood that it is real.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
On a related note- the popularity of a belief has little bearing on its likelihood.

The more people who believe Elvis is alive and UFOs regularly anally probe hillbillies does not change the liklihood that it is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the only sense that your last statement is "true," nothing changes the likelihood that anything is real, so it doesn't do much to support the statement before it.

in general, "true" beliefs appear to tend to spread and stick around better than "false" ones.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is a cultural bias. There have been hundreds of Gods in different cultures and throughout different times all throughout human history. People have been communicating with their God(s) throughout.

If you lived in other parts of the world and/or in another era... you might be saying the same thing about Vishnu.

On a related note- the popularity of a belief has little bearing on its likelihood.

The more people who believe Elvis is alive and UFOs regularly anally probe hillbillies does not change the liklihood that it is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's not more likely to be true than the existence of some other deity. If there was some other God who hates it when you pray for the Judeo-Christian God, we haven't heard anything from him or about him.

And just to clarify 3.5 billion people believe in a Judeo-Christian God. I do believe that, in general, the more popular belief is generally true. They are just probably all wrong in this instance [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more accurate explanation would include something along the lines of "and people naively (and incorrectly) assume that the spectrum of possible Gods does not include Gods who will help in all instances EXCEPT when asked or prayed to, and will punish the needy and whiny to eternal torture."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but our whole society seems to believe in a certain conception of God. When you're around that idea your whole life, it's not really surprising that you would appeal to that specific God when you find you have nowhere else to turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed entirely, I was just nitpicking, but it is still naive and incorrect to do so. Maybe we should warn people of this? It seems cavalierly allowing them to pray when they are about to die, when that may be the very thing that kills them, is inhumane.

Really, I just think its silly and wrong to consider the act of prayer as "possibly good, but at the least benign." If it has ANY possibility of creating some positive outcome through intervention, it has that EXACT SAME probability of creating some negative outcome through intervention. So, prayer is either entirely benign or potentially harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the probability of some sort of Judeo-Christian God is much higher than the probability of some other random God. Although we don't have good "evidence" for any Gods, there have been several very influential prophets who claim to have a message from the same God. I haven't seen any stories about people who claim to be from some other God and are even remotely as successful/popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very wrong, and I'd be curious to see you defend your assigned probabilities. The evidence of our prophets and the types of gods they describe is evidence of nothing more than the common tendencies, weakness and proclivities of human beings. The things we fear are more or less constant, as are the things we value, so it is no surprise that many of our gods have similar characteristics. None of this gives any reason to believe that Allah is more likely that Loki or Zeus or any of the prankster gods.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is a cultural bias. There have been hundreds of Gods in different cultures and throughout different times all throughout human history. People have been communicating with their God(s) throughout.

If you lived in other parts of the world and/or in another era... you might be saying the same thing about Vishnu.

On a related note- the popularity of a belief has little bearing on its likelihood.

The more people who believe Elvis is alive and UFOs regularly anally probe hillbillies does not change the liklihood that it is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's not more likely to be true than the existence of some other deity. If there was some other God who hates it when you pray for the Judeo-Christian God, we haven't heard anything from him or about him.

And just to clarify 3.5 billion people believe in a Judeo-Christian God. I do believe that, in general, the more popular belief is generally true. They are just probably all wrong in this instance [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

It is cultural bias, and it DOES mean that the Judeo-Christian god is not more likely to be true. In fact, it is only the specific gods that can ever be proven not to exist (not making the claim that the J-C god has been), and the more specific you make him, the less likely he exists. If you are saying that a God that fits 90% or more of the characteristics of the J-C god is more likely than a god whose only necessary characteristic is 'capriciousness,' I strongly disagree and would like to see you defend that.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a related note- the popularity of a belief has little bearing on its likelihood.

The more people who believe Elvis is alive and UFOs regularly anally probe hillbillies does not change the liklihood that it is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the only sense that your last statement is "true," nothing changes the likelihood that anything is real, so it doesn't do much to support the statement before it.

in general, "true" beliefs appear to tend to spread and stick around better than "false" ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general might be misleading. I like to think of it in terms of fitness...the more fit ideas stick around. Truth increases fitness, but it is certainly not the only thing. Of course, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, the more true statement is more fit than the false one, but we aren't talking about an all else being equal situation. There are clear ideas and 'memes' in the Abrahamic religions that greatly increase fitness, and none of them depend on truth. It would appear that they are more than capable of washing out any true/false setback.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because nobody can know if there is a God and it can't hurt to ask for some help every now and again? I would be more surprised if you didn't ask for some help in an extreme time of need.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more accurate explanation would include something along the lines of "and people naively (and incorrectly) assume that the spectrum of possible Gods does not include Gods who will help in all instances EXCEPT when asked or prayed to, and will punish the needy and whiny to eternal torture."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but our whole society seems to believe in a certain conception of God. When you're around that idea your whole life, it's not really surprising that you would appeal to that specific God when you find you have nowhere else to turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed entirely, I was just nitpicking, but it is still naive and incorrect to do so. Maybe we should warn people of this? It seems cavalierly allowing them to pray when they are about to die, when that may be the very thing that kills them, is inhumane.

Really, I just think its silly and wrong to consider the act of prayer as "possibly good, but at the least benign." If it has ANY possibility of creating some positive outcome through intervention, it has that EXACT SAME probability of creating some negative outcome through intervention. So, prayer is either entirely benign or potentially harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the probability of some sort of Judeo-Christian God is much higher than the probability of some other random God. Although we don't have good "evidence" for any Gods, there have been several very influential prophets who claim to have a message from the same God. I haven't seen any stories about people who claim to be from some other God and are even remotely as successful/popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very wrong, and I'd be curious to see you defend your assigned probabilities. The evidence of our prophets and the types of gods they describe is evidence of nothing more than the common tendencies, weakness and proclivities of human beings. The things we fear are more or less constant, as are the things we value, so it is no surprise that many of our gods have similar characteristics. None of this gives any reason to believe that Allah is more likely that Loki or Zeus or any of the prankster gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think there would be a much higher probability placed on the non-anthropomorphic gods. At least collectively.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
in general, "true" beliefs appear to tend to spread and stick around better than "false" ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that this is measureable or significant. Its impossible to quantify the number of false beliefs and how well they spread.

I think we can make a reasonable statement that throughout time, most people have believed in a supernatural God or Gods. There has certainly been hundreds of different Gods worshipped at one time or another. The belief of supernatural overlords has consistantly spread thoughout time... though clearly we don't believe they are all right. People seem to insist there is only ONE correct religion.

My point is that if only one can be correct (or they are all incorrect)... but man's belief in one God or another has been fairly consistant as far as we know. Then this is proof of a seemingly endless spreading of a false idea.

Regarding the argument about the Judeo Christian God... the person still isn't escaping his cultural and temporal bias. Christianity could be the minority religion in another 100 years. Islam could be #1. Or atheism. To argue that the Judeo/Christian God is most likely because of its current popularity is ridiculous... it ignores the history of man's religious beliefs.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's not more likely to be true than the existence of some other deity. If there was some other God who hates it when you pray for the Judeo-Christian God, we haven't heard anything from him or about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The radical Islamics are killing Christians because they're God says Christians are infidels.

[ QUOTE ]
And just to clarify 3.5 billion people believe in a Judeo-Christian God. I do believe that, in general, the more popular belief is generally true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You give people too much credit. At one point more people believed the earth was flat then otherwise. More people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Etc.

We could probably write a book about all the wrong and stupid things that a majority of people believed at one time.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

It is cultural bias, and it DOES mean that the Judeo-Christian god is not more likely to be true. In fact, it is only the specific gods that can ever be proven not to exist (not making the claim that the J-C god has been), and the more specific you make him, the less likely he exists. If you are saying that a God that fits 90% or more of the characteristics of the J-C god is more likely than a god whose only necessary characteristic is 'capriciousness,' I strongly disagree and would like to see you defend that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am more interested in defending the position that the Judeo-Christian God is more likely than a God who hates it when you pray and will cause you misfortune. There is some evidence for the former. Even if this evidence is bad, there is no evidence for the latter.

The fact remains that all these prophets brought some kind of positive change and claimed to be from this God. I will admit that the evidence for the actual existence of this God is almost non-existent. But the existence of these individuals raises the likelihood of Him to above the likelihood of a random spaghetti-monster God who hates all our prayers.

I really don't see how this is an issue even.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in general, "true" beliefs appear to tend to spread and stick around better than "false" ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that this is measureable or significant. Its impossible to quantify the number of false beliefs and how well they spread.

I think we can make a reasonable statement that throughout time, most people have believed in a supernatural God or Gods. There has certainly been hundreds of different Gods worshipped at one time or another. The belief of supernatural overlords has consistantly spread thoughout time... though clearly we don't believe they are all right. People seem to insist there is only ONE correct religion.

My point is that if only one can be correct (or they are all incorrect)... but man's belief in one God or another has been fairly consistant as far as we know. Then this is proof of a seemingly endless spreading of a false idea.

Regarding the argument about the Judeo Christian God... the person still isn't escaping his cultural and temporal bias. Christianity could be the minority religion in another 100 years. Islam could be #1. Or atheism. To argue that the Judeo/Christian God is most likely because of its current popularity is ridiculous... it ignores the history of man's religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering all the beliefs that have ever been held in human history, religious and otherwise, and pro-rating them based on the number of people who hold them, using a conservative assignment of "true" and "false" beliefs (i.e. not claiming Christianity is false, but claiming that only ONE of the religions could be true, or only ONE competing theory could be true) what would your estimate be as to which ideas 'win'? This doesn't exactly address Taraz' point, since he claimed that true beliefs stand the test of time better (which I agree with, although not as strenuously as he does) but it is an interesting (and obviously unanswerable) question. My first guess is that 'false' wins out by a sizeable margin, although the increase in population correlates well with the dismissal of false ideas.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is cultural bias, and it DOES mean that the Judeo-Christian god is not more likely to be true. In fact, it is only the specific gods that can ever be proven not to exist (not making the claim that the J-C god has been), and the more specific you make him, the less likely he exists. If you are saying that a God that fits 90% or more of the characteristics of the J-C god is more likely than a god whose only necessary characteristic is 'capriciousness,' I strongly disagree and would like to see you defend that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am more interested in defending the position that the Judeo-Christian God is more likely than a God who hates it when you pray and will cause you misfortune. There is some evidence for the former. Even if this evidence is bad, there is no evidence for the latter.

The fact remains that all these prophets brought some kind of positive change and claimed to be from this God. I will admit that the evidence for the actual existence of this God is almost non-existent. But the existence of these individuals raises the likelihood of Him to above the likelihood of a random spaghetti-monster God who hates all our prayers.

I really don't see how this is an issue even.

[/ QUOTE ]

And my point is that there is absolutely no evidence of either, but your God makes up an EXTREMELY small segment of possible Gods that I think it is silly to claim it is more likely than my gods. The things that you consider 'some evidence' are nothing of the sort. Most of the gods ever believed in throughout history are not benevolent, or at the very least not consitently and infinitely so.

I really don't see how this is an issue, even.

Re: Religion
 

On the "true" beliefs being more widespread:

That's completely false. This only holds true for things like facts that will be tested over time again and again and "stand up for themselves," thereby expanding their influence.

When it comes to completely untestable things that spread via books or word of mouth, the appeal and the delivery of the message are far more important than any validity they may have.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

And my point is that there is absolutely no evidence of either, but your God makes up an EXTREMELY small segment of possible Gods that I think it is silly to claim it is more likely than my gods. The things that you consider 'some evidence' are nothing of the sort. Most of the gods ever believed in throughout history are not benevolent, or at the very least not consitently and infinitely so.

I really don't see how this is an issue, even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I am definitely granting you the fact the probability of any of these Gods existing is very, very small.

But let's say that you talked to 10 people yesterday and they all said that they saw a pink elephant at the zoo on Saturday. If I ask you today, "Is it more likely that a pink elephant exists or a pink rhinoceros?" is the pink elephant not more likely? Obviously the chances that either of them exists is pretty small, but nobody has even mentioned a pink rhinoceros before.

That is basically the argument I'm making. I see some terrible evidence for a Judeo-Christian God and then I see you talking about a God who hates prayers that you admit you just made up. I mean, there is no question that the former is more likely even though the probability is still about .000001%.

Re: Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the "true" beliefs being more widespread:

That's completely false. This only holds true for things like facts that will be tested over time again and again and "stand up for themselves," thereby expanding their influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it holds true for a lot of things. 9 out of 10 experts agree.

Re: Religion
 

We all have and need hope. Good luck with your problem.